[deleted]

Why'd you point out rule 8? Because it's rarely enforced?

Half the time the top post is an image, and the top comment within the comments section is debunking the top post. That means almost every single day, we upvote a post that is factually incorrect and then present this factually incorrect post to the front page of the 200,000 subscribers of /r/conspiracy complete with a comment debunking it. There's only 4-600 people here. I have a very hard time believing that day after day, we constantly choose as a community to do this.

I don't upvote shitty images, so who's doing it?

It's used to dilute the conversation. Downvote and move on.

Figured but I appreciate the elaboration.

As a Christian, who gets constantly harassed, I agree. Watch the downvotes now...

How could this sub survive if half the users weren't accusing the other half of being a shill, though?

There's plenty of legitimate discussion happening in this sub. You'd have to be trying very hard to not see that.

Not true. Shills are plentiful here. Pushing government lies, 9/11, 7/7, Aurora, Sandy Hook, GMO, etc. When identified, supporting proof must always be offered. We must identify those who wish to subvert open and honest dialog. Calling out a shill is not disrespect in any fashion. And typically, only shills ever bitch about it.

And typically, only shills ever bitch about it.

So you are saying I'm a shill?

lol, yeah, without the 130,000 shills here what kind of place would this be?

Use the shills to our advantage, hone our arguments and counter-argument skills.

To be clear, shills aren't just "disagreeing". When somebody argues vehemently, for example, that food labels should not include Monsanto / GMO information, that is a 100% corporate sentiment, 0% human.

Humans want information. Shills want to hide the evidence.

Obama picked "transparency" as one of his marketing slogans for a reason. People want to know what affects them.

I don't even know what the fuck a slur is anymore, I thought I did, but now I just try and get a feel of what someone believes through what they say, and if I disagree I either say so or leave it be.

I honestly try and leave labels out of the conversation as best I can, but emotions can get in the way if it looks like someone is trying to piss me off, so I''ll admit I sometimes lose myself, but as long as the conversation is kept mature, whether or not it looks like someone opposes my views, I just basically say fuck it if we can't come to an agreement.

Calling it a "slur' is a bit of a stretch. A slur implies a derogatory term of prejudice against a race or minority group. If someone makes pro-government arguments, it isn't completely unreasonable for another to make such an accusation, though I would personally prefer not to. That does not change the fact various governments (i.e. the United States and Israel, among others) do in indeed hire people to post pro-government propaganda on social media, reddit being no exception. I agree that it is somewhat absurd for one to assume that anyone who disagrees with them is a "shill" based on that criteria alone, even if that individual is so pro-government they defend NSA surveillance, for example. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I support your or anyone's right to express your 1st amendment right however you see fit, whether you're a shill, statist, conspiracy theorist, or otherwise.

Now back to the question at hand.. I agree we should advise against making broad assumptions about others, in particular in the form of stereotypical accusations. Now should their be a rule against such conduct? I don't think that would be helpful, nor would I advise it, as it would infringe upon the accuser's rights as much or moreso as the accused. I believe it would be best to educate others here what a shill is, how they operate from time to time, and of the negative ramifications falsely accusing others can have, without overstepping our bounds in suppressing their speech or censoring anyone in the process.

A slur is not racist, a racial slur is racist. Check out the first three definitions for slur. We should be doing more slurring on this sub where shills are concerned.

I'd personally like to see MORE conversation based on what can be directly observed, backed up with citation.

I have a hard time believing there's a large subset of subscribers here that want to see more invective on this sub. I have a hard time thinking there's NO OVERLAP between those people and the people they claim to rail against.

A 'two party system', if you must label it.

There is a large difference between invective speech and slur speech.

Fuck Gentrification.

I guess you have a point. Still, I believe the general usage of the word "slur" does not apply when using the word "shill", though it may technically by definition. To say that those who are called a "shill" here are that offended or would feel oppressed by the usage of such a word is nonsense.

If you have the opinion we should call out more people who you suspect of being "shills" that's fine. I, on the other hand, feel it detracts from the conversation and makes the accuser appear ignorant, or worse, paranoid.

Again, I feel it would be better to simply educate others here from time to time on the facts regarding the usage of actual shills by various governments, their tactics, and how to deal with them properly, rather than simply making blanket assumptions about other users based on a disagreement here or in any other forum, to the extent of dismissing their entire argument or branding them something they may not in fact be based on such an assumption.

You are missing the...

One slurs someone who is deserved of it. The reaction of the slurred is how to tell if said slurred is a shill. Point and case, our conversation.

Alright. Point taken. Regardless of the technical definition and application of the word slur, I stand by my point. I do not believe "shill" qualifies as a violation of Rule 1, nor do I believe its necessary to bar the usage of such terminology.

On the other hand, I still believe over-using the word shill, or accusing others of being a shill every time another user simply disagrees with another here is counterproductive, at best. At worst, it detracts from the existence of actual shills prevalent on social media, as is public policy to utilize them in the U.S. and Israel, among other nations.

Slander - make false and damaging statements about (someone). - (verb) https://www.google.com/search?q=slander+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

Even though it's more of a law definition it kind of works the same. Calling someone a shill doesn't really promote anything in terms of an enlightened debate. Rather if someone brings you down to their level society deems both to be seen as idiots (not saying this is wrong or right). Rather than wasting time on the word shill it should really be just be a fact driven debate.

You could definitely say some in here have a bias though and that might think of someone as a shill, but bias doesn't always mean shill. Could just be how that person perceives something. I'd never tell you that there aren't interest that are being fought for, but not everyone is a shill.

No.

Is calling someone a shill a slur here, thus violating rule 10?

Nope.

I know what it means, but my issue is with how it's being used.

I've been called a "shill" many times just because I question a certain theory. Or get downvoted just because I'm not part of the chorus singing the same tune. Isn't the point to bring in different views so we can find the truth?

People like this commenter should be welcome here, not called shills.

From this thread

In the case you presented, he could be labeled "corporate apologist", people here in other threads could be labeled "9/11-accessory-after-the-fact-to-mass-murder" and still others might be labeled "pro-poison". It is impossible to tell on the internet if someone is receiving compensation for their commenting, but the ugly truth is that people are getting compensated for representing specific corporations and government online. Do I think everyone is a shill? Of course not, but I know they do exist. It is really up to an individual if they want to use the term or not. Besides, the term "shill" just has a nice ring to it and applies to all of the status-quo supporters easily. If someone is upset that they get called a name, they might want to check themselves before complaining. Being called a stupid name never hurt me before anyway. Man up people.

Exactly. The only people pushing to limit the open and forward labeling of shills...are shills. When backed up with proof, it's pretty damning. Fuck them. Fuck their attempts to subvert the conversation here. Fuck their views they try to push, and fuck them. They sold their souls for doing this type of official work, and will pay the consequences. Persons management - fuck you.

You have a point, but you know something - so called "9/11 truthers" have been taking so much flak for so damn long, that it's almost high time that the shoe was on the other foot, so i don't have a whole lot of sympathy for those who function and operate in shill-like ways, whether they get paid for it or not. So instead of shill, what do you think of "911 truster" or "governement OS loyalist"?

I know truther's have been very unfairly demonized, but how is name calling going to bring us any more credibility?

Dismissing ideas because they come from someone who "sounds like a shill" is shortsighted. Idea's should be criticized on their own merits regardless of who the speaker is.

The last thing I want to see is people using "shill" as a smear word to attack other people in the alternative media/truther/conspiracy world. I believe that we should be empowering people, not fighting fire with fire.

Humans in general are idiots. If you come up with a trendy sounding name to call the government loyalists, it might change a bunch of minds. It's sad, but true.

The same goes for the opposite side. People are afraid to question authority because of the word "conspiratard." By questioning authority, you increase your chances of being called this. "You don't want to be a retard, do you little Jimmy?"

I know truther's have been very unfairly demonized, but how is name calling going to bring us

Researchers don't usually call themselves truthers. You should be more selective with your words.

I know truther's have been very unfairly demonized, but how is name calling going to bring us any more credibility?

Then stop using the nickname "truther" in a disparaging manner, that's my point "truster".

I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for those who function and operate in shill-like ways

People love to go around calling everyone who disagrees with them a shill, when they have no idea whether they are really paid or not. This sort of behavior does not hurt the person called a shill. It hurts the person making the accusation, because it makes them look paranoid, and unable to realize that people out there can have an honest difference of opinion without being paid for it.

those who function and operate in shill-like ways

As best as I can tell, "shill-like ways" means any opinion the speaker dislikes.

I would encourage the extremists to keep calling people shills. It makes it easier to recognize who the extremists are who you can't reason with.

Ever think a pissed off Israeli might come in here and make a bunch of fake accounts calling random people shills to discredit the sub? We sure do talk a lot of shit about the Israeli government. When you see random people calling others shills for no reason, check the user's history/account age.

There is a large difference between invective speech and slur speech.

Fuck Gentrification.

You are missing the...

One slurs someone who is deserved of it. The reaction of the slurred is how to tell if said slurred is a shill. Point and case, our conversation.