Hi, I'm Refer to Glass, and you're listening to my True Crime channel.

Today, we are talking about the five most annoying tactics in true crime discussions.

Stay tuned.

Thank you. tactics in true crime discussion. Stay tuned. Hi, welcome. Happy fall. So this is a topic I don't see discussed pretty much anywhere.

So I wanted to talk about tactics used in debating true crime. And the first one is misrepresenting yourself.

So often people will say, I don't have an opinion,

whether they're guilty or innocent. And the reason they say that, and that is a red, that should

be a red flag, that they have a very strong opinion. And it's usually a pro-innocence opinion.

But the reason that they say that is that they want to seem objective.

Like they're weighing both sides of the evidence and they just can't come to the conclusion. So that's number one

misrepresenting yourself, but it connects very closely with number two, misunderstanding what it

means to be objective. So often people will say, you're not objective. No kidding, I'm not objective. My time to be objective

happened a long time ago when I was examining the evidence. Now I actually have an opinion.

And somehow that is looked down upon if you formed an opinion. And what they really mean is that you formed an opinion that is not the same as theirs.

Hi, kitty.

So, yes, hello.

So that's the sort of value we place on being objective. I actually saw a guy discuss Bill Cosby. And he's like,

I'm, you know, I'm just looking at this in an objective manner. Really? You've listened to maybe

50 plus victims of Bill Cosby that span decades.

The guy's been convicted.

This is post-conviction.

He's been convicted, and you're just not sure.

...