In modern times, the idea that we live in a geocentric universe upon a level stationary plane Earth has been so marginalized, mocked and ridiculed that even attempting to have a serious conversation about the subject usually results in nothing but a barrage of smirks, snares and sarcasm. In some cases, people have even lost their jobs, reputations, or relationships for daring to speak openly about this uniquely taboo topic. Centuries of heliocentric pseudoscience pushed by the Royal Astronomical Society, NASA, and other official organizations, along with the systematic censorship of geocentric science, has resulted in a stigma where most cannot even consider the subject or have a respectful conversation about it. Instead, the idea is immediately dismissed with utter disdain or exasperation, and the presenter treated as if they must be the most backwater igneuramous of the information age. Thanks to generations of intellectual indoctrination and emotional propaganda, the idea that Earth is the tilting, wobbling, spinning, third space ball from the sun has become unquestionable gospel in the Church of Scientism. Heliocentric priests like Coprenicus, Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Hawkins and others have been elevated to scientific st-hood, and their theories canonized as laws. NASA and other space agencies, since their inception, have released countless pictures and videos showing supposed visual evidence for their claims, further cementing the solidity of heliocentric pseudoscience into the minds of the masses. The average modern man is so thoroughly brainwashed by the globe religion that anyone questioning it is perceived as a blaspheming iconoclast or heretical apostate. Rather than approaching the subject with the open-minded honesty and skepticism of a true scientist, most globe believers act like dogmatic religious fanatics, unable to question their faith. Due to this knee-jerk rejection faced when trying to inform others, the challenge of getting people to reconsider what they have been taught can be an overwhelming task, and due to the harsh, snarky, ego-defense mechanisms instilled into these loyal globlings, expressing doubts about tenets they perceive as already proven beyond reproach, often results in ruined relationships and reputations. Thus, the best way to breach this subject in most situations is indirectly and if possible, anonymously. There are many effective forms of anonymous activism available to inspired individuals, such as stickers, pamphlets, murals, cards, music, videos, public displays or demonstrations, thumb drives or burned DVDs of documentaries, and physical books or my free audio books and videos like Flat Earth FAQ, Flat Lantis, the Earth Plane, the Flat Earth Conspiracy, and 200 proofs Earth is not a spinning ball. Tell your local library or bookstore that you would like them to stock Eric DuBais' books, then give them away as gifts, share them on social media, and loan them to anyone with a curious, open mind. When first engaging someone with this subject matter, it is best to remove yourself from center stage, for example, by putting on a Flat Earth audiobook or album in the background during a long road trip, or putting a movie like Level, Flat in the Curve, or the mechanical realm on the TV when friends or family are visiting. Rather than immediately trying to engage in discussion or debate about the topic, it is far more fruitful and peaceful to first have them agree to watch an informative documentary together. This takes the focus and onus off of you to answer all of the same questions people always ask when presented with this topic, and allows them to start considering the subject silently while watching a video. Then afterwards, when they ask you the same few dozen questions that everyone does, instead of attempting to formulate your own concise, articulate answers, just bust out your trusty copy of Flat Earth FAQ and read them verbatim, the chapter titled after their frequently asked question. Every time I have done this, my flabbergasted audience has been left speechless by how thoroughly their objections were addressed and answered. Lastly, if you do decide to engage in back and forth discussion or debate, the best way to approach this is undoubtedly through the Socratic method. This involves systematically questioning beliefs, assumptions, and preconceptions, then based on their answers, continuing to ask further leading questions towards the goal of exposing a contradiction, hypocrisy, double standard, or outright impossibility. For example, a good question to begin with is, can you show me a demonstration of a large standing body of water that displays convexity or any shape whatsoever upon its surface? They will either claim NASA pictures count as a demonstration. They will claim water droplets or the meniscus in a glass of water, somehow constitute a large standing body of water. They will appeal to the theory of gravity, which allegedly only works at scales too large for them to recreate. Or they will admit that getting a standing body of water to curve around and stick to all sides of a spinning sphere is actually physically impossible. In fact, they will usually try claiming all three of the first straw men arguments before either admitting defeat or changing topics. Next, with a role of the eyes and an attitude of incredulity, they will usually insist that you explain how this or that would work on a flat earth. In these situations, I recommend reminding them that the Heliocentric Globe model is the positive claim being made, believed by the vast majority, and promoted by the mainstream, whereas your position is simply that of someone with questions. Many Globe believers have forgotten that asking questions and doing experiments to test for ourselves is the very definition of the scientific method, and exactly what so-called flat earthers are doing down at the lake with our lasers, at the beach with our telescopes, and in high altitude balloons with our zoom cameras. When Globe curvature math is compared and contrasted with practical demonstrations such as these, serious questions with insufficient answers are raised. And as the late scientist Richard Feynman noted, I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned.