What makes a shill?
0 2014-02-16 by Pyro_With_A_Lighter
In a few threads I've seen on here dissenting opinions have been labeled as being posted by shills, is a shill just a person with a viewpoint different from what is believed by people on here to be true? Or are they being called shills in the way that they are accepting money for posting their a view on here?
It seems like it's quite easy to ignore contrary evidence and opinions if they are constantly labeled as being from shills.
I don't really subscribe to this subreddit as I don't follow the theories on here so apologies if I've missed something.
36 comments
6 iam_sancho2 2014-02-16
If the account dovetails nicely into the 25 Rules Of Disinformation and the 8 Traits Of a Disinformationalist, I don't really care if they are being paid for their efforts or not - they are being shilly.
http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page4.htm
1 FredJoness 2014-02-16
If you think someone is a disinformationalist, call them a disinformationalist. You can say they are deliberately distorting the truth, they are trolling, they are liars. But don't call them a shill unless you have good evidence they are being paid. Other people reading your post will assume you are accusing them of being paid, and think you are making claims you can't back up. You only make yourself look silly.
As far as the term "shilly," it has no clear meaning to most people and should be avoided.
-1 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
Many of those could apply to people arguing for the theories here, they seem very vague and based on what viewpoint you're looking at the opposing opinion on.
Surely this one also means that any opinion that is against a theory is a shill and therefore wrong? Seems very smallminded too me.
Edit:
Isn't that what dismissing people as shills does?
3 [deleted] 2014-02-16
Well this addresses something I've often wondered, if the person is anti-conspiratorial, why are they here in the first place?
1 AZSnakePit 2014-02-16
You can easily be anti-conspiratorial in some areas, while believing others. To me, it seems only common sense that not all conspiracies are equally worthy.
0 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
People often like to see how others think, its why I'm here. I'm fascinated by conclusions people can make that others would dismiss.
3 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-16
here comes the contradiction...
Why are you here? You don't subscribe to the subreddit and you don't follow the theories but you like to see how others think? That is an oxymoron.
You would be here observing this subreddit and following the theories if you wanted to know how people think. Yet you're not.
1 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
I don't believe them but i like to see how other people reach their own conclusions.
By follow I meant believe not understand.
2 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-16
You're apologizing because you don't believe in theories you don't keep up with?
but your original premise is...
Why are you fascinated if you yourself dismiss the conclusions? Oxymoron.
1 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
I apologized incase I missed the real meaning of the word shill but it does mean what I thought it meant.
Because I feel that looking at the other perspective gives me a better perspective as a whole as it lets me take it all into consideration, if i just flat out refused to look at other view points then I would be small minded and my opinion could never be changed which would mean that I could be wrong about something but never realise because I would be so smallminded. It is the same as looking at another political parties manifesto to see if their policies apply to you and help you decide who to vote for.
2 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-16
but then you say
How many contradictions you got in that bag?
1 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
Just because I'm not subscribed doesn't mean I don't visit occasionally.
I don't really see why you're bringing this up when I asked abut the usage of the word shill.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-16
but then you say
You visit a sub admitting you don't believe any of the theories presented as a way to understand how others think? Did I get that right?
0 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
Yeah, like I said, if you don't view other opinions you close yourself off to changing your views and stay close minded when you could be missing an argument or piece of evidence that could make you completely re-evaluate your view point.
It's like always voting for a political party with complete disregard to polices and voting for them purely because you've done it before and don't want to admit you voted for the wrong party.
I don't see why viewing other opinions doesn't make sense to you.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-16
You would be here observing this subreddit and following the theories if you wanted to know how people think.
Yet you're not.
0 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
But I am, We've established that I understand them but don't believe in them and i still look at this occasionally, its a fascination not a profession with me.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-16
Where?
0 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
To which I answered yes, also earlier I established that by follow I meant believe not understand and so implied that I do in fact understand the theories posted here.
They're not rocket science, at most I need a GCSE level understanding of science, cursory knowledge of structural engineering however most theories and their counterpoints often explain them in laymens terms so probably aren't needed.
I am very interested in why you've decided to attempt to de-rail this post when my original question was about the usage of the word shill but you've instead decided to turn it into a questioning of my reasoning for being here which is irrelevant as I haven't tried to argue theories or break any rules.
As far as I'm concerned I've explained myself more than enough and if you want to question me more then you're out of luck.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-16
Yet you ignored my question.
0 left_one 2014-02-16
What is your problem - this guy is asking why people are so dismissive to those that aren't agreeable - and you are attacking him for not being agreeable to you.
Can you relax and realize that you've only proven his point?
0 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
It does seem as though hes trying to trip me up somehow and get me to admit that I'm actually here on on shrill related activities.
1 thefuckingtoe 2014-02-16
You said it, not me.
0 left_one 2014-02-16
Exactly - but who is the one that is really distracting from the conversation? Him.
3 iam_sancho2 2014-02-16
They are a list of rules and traits. An account that fits only one rule or trait does not raise my suspicion of their motives. An account that relentlessly uses many of the disinformation tactics again and again and generally fits the profile of a disinformation agent over a period of time will raise my suspicion of their motives.
0 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
But like I said, many also apply to people that post theories here, do you hold them to the same standard?
They could also be spreading misinformation to garner distrust or some other motive.
1 iam_sancho2 2014-02-16
I can only speak for myself and not others.
1 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
Fair enough
2 kgt5003 2014-02-16
I've been called a shill on here multiple times. The person accusing me of being a shill believed that I was actually being paid to not agree with everything he said 100%.
2 SovereignMan 2014-02-16
Shill - a person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest.
That "interest" does not necessarily have to be financial. They do not have to be paid but some are. It's difficult, if not impossible, to tell the difference.
1 arcticsleep 2014-02-16
Shills are people who argue for a cause not because they believe it is right, but because they have a personal, vested interest in that side of the story.
So someone that works for the government, or works for a political party would have a personal, vested interest in there being no 9/11 conspiracy.
They are not paid to make posts, they simply make themselves believe the truth they want to believe so it fits with their lives.
1 grandmacaesar 2014-02-16
That's not necessarily true.
0 FredJoness 2014-02-16
If you call some one else a shill, you are claiming that you know the person must be getting payed to be on reddit. Even if you don't mean to make that claim, you are making the claim when you call someone a shill.
However, many people fling this insult without thinking, and it makes them look like paranoid fools. I have pointed out to people that they are calling people "shills" without any good proof they are being paid, and they make up silly excuses. They say thing like "If they're not a paid shill, then they're an unpaid shill." the problem is that "shill" specifically means a paid confederate. If you are going to use the word "shill" to refer to unpaid people, few people are going to understand what you are talking about.
The truth of the the matter it is next to impossible to tell a paid Jewish shill from a unpaid Jew who just likes to defend Jews. It is next to impossible to tell a paid Monsanto employee from a college biology major who just likes genetically modified crops.
4 Balthanos 2014-02-16
The bottom line is that calling someone a shill is ad hominem. The end result will always be that the conversation turns away from the topic at hand. The original argument is never resolved. Neither party will be able to convince the other of their position or stance. And the accuser opens themselves up to being ridiculed for using name calling.
Whenever I'm tempted to "call out a shill" I remind myself to stay on topic. If they REALLY are a shill they want you to resort to name calling and/or emotionally fueled rants. Both of which are easier to "debunk" or "de-legitimize" your stance.
I don't know how many times I've ran into a post where someone uses the old "conspiracy nut" or "lunatic" line to dissuade the audience from paying attention to an individual's opinion or analysis of a topic. People wouldn't use this tactic unless they knew it was effective.
My point is that you can easily counter "shill" behavior by not falling into the traps that are laid for you. As long as you remove emotion from the equation while dealing with facts others will listen.
On the other hand, it's also sometimes invaluable to ignore replies from individuals who only intend to "draw out a conversation" in order to pick apart your character. If you don't talk with them they cannot use your words against you or drown out your message through "reply spam".
Does any of this make sense? I'm just saying that there's no real "battles" to chose. Avoid battles all together. Shouting matches never result in positive change.
2 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
That is exactly what I'm talking about, it hurts the chances of people taking you seriously if you aren't open to debate and act like you wont even consider other peoples opinions or stances.
0 FredJoness 2014-02-16
Unfortunately, when I see someone use the word "shill," I frequently find they are argumentative people who are unable to conceptualize that people can honestly have a different opinion than them. If you disagree with them, they assume you must be deliberately twisting the truth and you deserve nothing but insults.
It is often best to avoid talking with people that uses the word "shill."
1 monkhouse 2014-02-16
Worth noting that you get a very similar effect in the other direction; go into a 'conventional' science or history sub and start talking about relatively uncontroversial issues like Tesla or the USS Liberty and there will always be someone ready to frame you up with the tinfoil hat and alien brain implants. I think it's just tribal wiring overcoming imagination. (nb the distinction between 'there will always be someone', and 'they will always').
Other times I think people here use the word 'shill' when they should be using the word 'troll'. A shill is cynically promoting an agenda; a troll just wants to fuck with people. The conspiratard crowd falls squarely into the latter category.
I'll say it wouldn't surprise me greatly to find out that there were real live paid shills posting here, but I've yet to see anything approaching solid evidence. Of course there are the crusaders, the 'liars for jesus' type; I guess you could try and categorize them as a sort of 'volunteer shill', but I'm not sure it helps much to do so.
0 Pyro_With_A_Lighter 2014-02-16
Yeah, like I said, if you don't view other opinions you close yourself off to changing your views and stay close minded when you could be missing an argument or piece of evidence that could make you completely re-evaluate your view point.
It's like always voting for a political party with complete disregard to polices and voting for them purely because you've done it before and don't want to admit you voted for the wrong party.
I don't see why viewing other opinions doesn't make sense to you.