likely many are on torture apologist duty.

"We tortured some folks."

Or maybe their masters are abandoning ship. Will we see whistleblowers soon?

I think the hoax has unravelled so much at this point we don't need 'em.

But could you imagine, say, for example, Robbie Parker fessing up and admitting that yeah, wasn't his daughter, some kid that government agents photoshopped into his family photo.

I'd contact the United Way for a reimbursement of my donations.

We don't, really, but I'd think some of em will want to save their own skins and generate a bit of goodwill with the public.

How do you know it was shills who downvoted it?

Isn't it just as possible that it is a controversial theory that many people disagreed with that has gained traction again lately after the creator claimed they were being censored?

What proof do you have that it is shills controlling the content of this subreddit? It seems to me that the theory has just enjoyed a resurgence because of the controversy of removed videos.

Surely you must have a general criteria then? Could you share your methods?

I imagine like mine, his method is to endure manipulation for years and years and grow a strong instinct for recognizing it.

I was looking for a more substantial answer from him then that.

Any skeptic would recognize that in order to find the truth, they must work to eliminate any bias when conducting their own research. That would, of course, include their own bias. Trusting your own "instinct" seems like a poor way of achieving this. It would be foolish and arrogant to claim to be immune from personal bias in some form or another.

I was hoping for a concrete methodology, given that OP seems to be claiming some degree of expertise.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's an expert witness.

Interesting...

Honestly, I would've hoped to see more skepticism in this subreddit. He is making massive claims and has yet to present his methodology for coming to the conclusion or any evidence that led him there. Why are you so inclined to simply believe him?

I'm also an expert witness.

Alright, Can you present your methodology for designating shills and determining situations that have been manipulated by shilling, as well what evidence you deem sufficient for making claims?

I doubt it. It's more something you acquire after many years of dealing with idiots. Also see the sidebar for resources.

He's not going to be looking in the sidebar for resources, cause he's not genuinely interested in knowing how to spot shills. His only purpose is to try to demonstrate that our methods are insufficient and our conclusions unreliable.

naturally. just following orders. this one is particularly toxic.

You don't really think that is an acceptable way to find truth do you? You are claiming that people are paid government agents manipulating specific threads and topics based on nothing but your instincts? I'm willing to bet that your "years of experience" find that these shills happen to all be people who disagree with you.Sounds like a really easy way to fall victim to your own confirmation bias and insulate yourself against anything that may change your views.

Far be it from me to tell you what to do, but if you are truly interested in the truth, research skepticism and how the scientific method is applied to claims.

You are claiming that people are paid government agents manipulating specific threads and topics based on nothing but your instincts?

yeah, that's right. don't pretend to teach me about scientific method and skepticism.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

So that's your evidence? Shills exist... ok. That doesn't give you cause to claim that a specific situation in which votes aren't going the way you think they should or people are disagreeing with you is the work of shills. You need more evidence, because you have no means of discounting other, possibly more plausible possibilities (like people simply disagreeing with you). At best, you could suspect it, but any claims further would be nothing but conjecture.

I am not pretending to teach you about the scientific method or skepticism. I am simply pointing out that based what you've revealed about your methods of determining truth from this conversation, you need to educate yourself on those concepts.

Anyways, I don't really see this conversation going in any sort of productive direction from here. I imagine you'll use your "experience" to determine that I must be shill so you can continue believing whatever you feel like no matter the evidence.

I don't have the patience for you. believe what you want. the content of the presentations speaks for itself.

Does the presentation say anything about making sure to manipulate peoples opinions on reddit about the event in Sandy Hook by downvoting comments and opposing dissent? I didn't see that. If you are going to make specific claims, you need specific evidence. Otherwise its just conjecture.

Again, its abundantly clear you're using the fact that some shills exist to insulate yourself against anything that might oppose your opinion.

Alright now I'm done. I sincerely hope you become as skeptical of those you agree with in the same way I'm sure you are skeptical about the government, corporations or the jews. Have a good day and question everything (including yourself)

I'm sure you are skeptical about the government, corporations or the jews.

now you're just making shit up to further discreddit me. and you wonder why I don't engage you. wow

I'll admit that comment was probably counter-productive. It was more if a jab at the tendencies of this subreddit than one aimed specifically at you.

That said, until that point all I've done is apply a skeptical perspective to your views and ask you to justify them.

If you want to discount everything I said previously based on a snarky comment feel free, but I would encourage you not to.

Anyways, have a good one.

I'm not having a good one. I'm a torturer and a human rights abuser. I pay to kill brown people overseas and make enemies of their families. I spy on my neighbours' communications without their knowledge. I am a bad bad person.

Sorry, Are you saying that you can tell that someone is a paid disinformation agent solely by their use of logical fallacies? How is that an effective methodology?

I see logical fallacies used by supporters of every idealogy/idea. In fact, I've witnessed plenty of people rely on logical fallacies when arguing for conspiracies (Not passing judgement on the theories themselves).

Surely, considering your claimed expertise and the very significant claims you've made, you must have a better means of determining things?

Edit: Grammer

The aim is the same but the tactics have been switched up around here lately. There's been much more of a shift to engagement in the community and in part they are responding in kind. If you look through several of today's threads you can see some clear indications of it. Instead of straight rebuttals you'll notice them engaging by asking questions building rapport over a series of comments before then obfuscating salient points given as reply by proposing a counter argument. It's a clever strategy but just as easy to spot if you understand it.

Yes, it's more of a diversion tactic.

Have an upvote, anything exposing Eric Holder's corruption gets upvotes.

I hope me writing this isn't going to bring back a whole new downvote crew.

You jinxed it!