He definitely has a lot to say. That is one indicator. If you look at the time it must take to craft those responses its easy to see they either A, do this as a job, or B, spend every minute of their waking life fighting people online.
I think its funny because no one called him a shill, but his posts make things so blatantly obvious people showed up to rally against calling him a shill, haha. Perfect.
While he is extremely suspicious, I found his arguments to be hilarious and insane. This guy either does this for his job or he is this passionate about his beliefs. Thought people would get a kick out of it and it might even serve as educational as some of his arguments are actually really thought out. It's a look into what they want you to think.
I honestly didn't know it was against the rules. I'm not strongly suggesting it, his posts suggest it. I won't make a judgement either way because I don't know, I just thought his post history was insightful and educational about the counter opinions we are facing.
Who cares about what some loser thinks of your post. What a sad pathetic loser, having to imagine that you were guilty of what the loser accused you of.
Witch hunt has become a reddit meme with no meaning. There's no such thing as a witch in the traditional sense, therefore a witch hunt is a campaign to punish someone for something that is impossible to have committed. In the real world there are actual human shit stains who escape accountability because of perpetuation of a meaningless bullet point 'witch hunt'. There are no witches, there are shitty human beings.
Prove that this particular individual is one of those people.
They are called witch hunts because they attempt to incite action against individuals and accuse them of unproven acts. Unless you have proof this user is a paid shill, this case pretty much fits the common use of the phrase.
The term is a popular phrase for describing a situation in which a group attempts to expose or punish an individual based on little evidence. It is a reference to the poor standards of evidence that were used to persecute "witches" in the Salem witch trials. Although shills are a real thing, modern usage of the word is generally not limited to make believe enemies. Another example of what many would consider a witch hunt would be McCarthy Era communist accusations.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that these shill allegations are any more than speculation?
Are you calling me a witch burner and McCarthyite for pointing out that PR professionals are working on reddit after admitting that such individuals exist?
No, I was pointing out why the phrase fits this particular instance and gave you an example of a well known instance of witch hunting.
Secondly, Pointing out that PR firms take advantage of social media sites like reddit is not witch hunting. Creating a thread accusing one specific user of doing this with no other proof aside from "they disagree with me" is a witchhunt (in the colloquial sense, obviously not literally.).
I would suggest the evidence goes a little deeper than "they disagree with me" (you put that in quotes - solid misinformation).
Pr Professionals are real, we've established that. PR professionals frequent reddit. PR professionals are singularly focused most of the time. They have talking points. Their arguments arethe same across accounts. All the evidence needed is there to make the determination. Witch hunting and commie hunting had real world repercussions for individuals. Viewing post and comment history of a likely shill is not witch hunting in any sense of the word. If these folks are getting doxxed or investigated for a crime, that would be different. Accusing people of being a witch hunter is a serious claim.
Having said that it would seem to be the case that reddit has a troop of witch hunter investigators, employed or not - no way of knowing - who say the same exact shit every time a link to a PR shill is presented.
What evidence is there to indicate the user in question is a shill? What talking points are you talking about? What other accounts is this individual tied to?
I never said you were. I said that was the purpose of this thread.
Op presented no evidence aside from a user whose history contradicts many of the opinions commonly held by members of the sub. The entire purpose of the post was an accusation with no actual evidence presented. In my book, that fits the definition of a "witch hunt" that I've now explained to multiple times.
Because you were contending that this wasn't the case, I had hoped you could provide me with some information that further implicates the user as a paid shill. I am also curious about the criteria you mentioned in your last post and was hoping you would describe how it applied here.
Do you expect evidence in the form of paystubs or ss #'s?
Of course not, your requirements for evidence are greater than the evidence you use to make the determination of a crowd of people. It appears you are more the witch-hunter than anyone else. OP never called for any type of punishment, when I last read the comments, no one had.
I think it's fair to say that if anyone lacks evidence of a claim it is you and your witch-hunter accusations.You're the only individual to have inferred transgressions against the rules. Transgressions that have actual punishments up to and including bans.
The purpose of the thread was clear. Every poster here picked up on the intention, as the shill accusations are flying left and right. If you dont think it fits the definition of witch hunt then I could give a fuck. I think it does.
Edit: I don't believe I ever specified punishment as an essential component of a witch hunt, although in this case added downvotes and the possibility of being stalked by users could fit the bill.
In terms of proof, yes, I do require something substantial. Something more than "this user disagrees with me". OP presented none of this, and neither have you. I get it, finding proof is hard. It is much easier to assert. That way you convince yourself to ignore differing opinions whenever you want! No response to an argument? That's ok, that user is a shill!
But for people who are intellectually honest, some actual form of proof is required before accusations are made. Otherwise we have to accept that we just don't know for sure.
Why didn't you say so. Subjective evidence is the easiest to come by.
"this user disagrees with me"
This quote only appears in your own words. Manufacturing evidence is lying. Manufacturing evidence to support a subjective claim is not
intellectually honest
probably because
you convince yourself
that you need less a stringent quality of evidence to support accusations of shill watching (hunting implies capture) than do others who simply point out the evidence to which a common conclusion is reached.
Because, and this is the important part, you find yourself intellectually superior to those with
differing opinions
but
That's ok, that r/conspiracy user is a shill witch-hunter!
Your unwillingness to engage in productive or honest discussion is extremely frustrating.
Why didn't you say so. Subjective evidence is the easiest to come by.
The entire point of commenting is expressing opinion. I stated my opinion: "this is a witch hunt" then I supplied my reasoning for saying so, (multiple times while you were trying to wrap your head around it).
This quote only appears in your own words. Manufacturing evidence is lying. Manufacturing evidence to support a subjective claim is not "intellectually honest".
The rest of your argument in that comment stems from your inability to understand my use of quotes. I was not directly quoting anyone, I was using the quotes as a means of describing a general idea that users here have displayed (I know it may not be technically grammatically correct, but I think the intent was obvious). Obviously the folks here arent saying that verbatim, but considering not a single one has bothered to present any evidence Or reasoning to back up their shill claims, it leads me to believe that the users history is their only source of evidence. Because the only notable thing I found in his history is his disagreement with many conspiratorial views, I think that this is the reason for the shill accusations.
I've asked you twice now to back up the claim that you appear to support. You have refused. Show me some evidence and let's have an adult conversation based on observed information.
I know you thought you had a real zinger there, trying to turn my words back around. All you really did was prove that you either didn't understand what I've been saying or that you did, and you decided to dishonestly twist my words instead.
Seriously dude, just do us both a favor and Fuck off.
You can't claim moral or intellectual superiority over someone recognizing a PR account when you yourself defame someone by calling them a witch hunter.
The purpose of this thread was to accuse someone as a shill and draw the attention of others that may make the same accusation. It is against the rules to do this. My description of it as a witch hunt is hardly new or all that insulting. It is a common term. The fact that you were so hung up on this one word is confusing.
Either way, you haven't wasted my time. you've given me something to occupy my mind with for a couple minutes and gave me a few laughs along the way. But if you want to pretend that you were just trolling, go for it. Given the content of some of your comments so far, I'd be eager to distance myself from them too.
Edit: By the way, you've still provided zero evidence for the "PR account" claim.
You're still misguided, you don't get to define what a witch hunt is. There is an official explanation and it falls in the category of revealing personal information and equates to vigilantism.
No one here s done any of that.
Parrots often say timely things in great context, but it's never in response to context clues, it's just a parrot. (you're the parrot and "witch hunt" is the clucking sound you're making, presumably because of your contentious nature.)
Your personal definition has no bearing here, witch hunt actually means something to the people at large. Exposing your buddy's PR account is not one of them. Subjective definitions are not definitions at all. Aligning reddit users with mccarthyite or witch burners for linking to publicly available comment histories is not witch hunting, still, by any definition except your own and others in the shill defense league. Until personal information is disseminated, everything is public and restricted to reddit.
Again with this fucking word. Jesus christ, it is used in this context all the fucking time. I don't know what to tell you. Sorry it bothers you so much.
Actually it's misused in this context all the time. I'm glad to see you coming to terms with your regurgitation to the point of using it as a defense for itself.
36 comments
5 BigBrownBeav 2015-02-23
He definitely has a lot to say. That is one indicator. If you look at the time it must take to craft those responses its easy to see they either A, do this as a job, or B, spend every minute of their waking life fighting people online.
1 fedoratrooper 2015-02-23
He actually has another account which is even more active. http://www.reddit.com/user/ModernDemagogue
2 star_particles 2015-02-23
Shills going to shill. Thanks for pointing him out
1 Zero_point_field 2015-02-23
Someone's on the payroll....
1 IntellisaurDinoAlien 2015-02-23
That Government propaganda kool aid seems to be working for some people, or he's serving.
1 AlwaysTurning 2015-02-23
I think its funny because no one called him a shill, but his posts make things so blatantly obvious people showed up to rally against calling him a shill, haha. Perfect.
-1 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
I'm pretty sure shill accusations and witch hunts are against the rules here.
6 88887777 2015-02-23
Because reddit hates free speech. God forbid someone call a spade a spade.
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
What evidence do you have that this person is paid off by any entity for the purposes of manipulating information here?
3 fedoratrooper 2015-02-23
I'm not accusing him of being shill and certainly not asking anyone to do anything about him.
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
Then what was the purpose of this post?
3 fedoratrooper 2015-02-23
While he is extremely suspicious, I found his arguments to be hilarious and insane. This guy either does this for his job or he is this passionate about his beliefs. Thought people would get a kick out of it and it might even serve as educational as some of his arguments are actually really thought out. It's a look into what they want you to think.
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
In other words, you are strongly suggesting he is a shill, but you are being careful to avoid saying it, as it is against the rules.
2 fedoratrooper 2015-02-23
I honestly didn't know it was against the rules. I'm not strongly suggesting it, his posts suggest it. I won't make a judgement either way because I don't know, I just thought his post history was insightful and educational about the counter opinions we are facing.
1 toneii 2015-02-23
Who cares about what some loser thinks of your post. What a sad pathetic loser, having to imagine that you were guilty of what the loser accused you of.
2 unclescham 2015-02-23
Witch hunt has become a reddit meme with no meaning. There's no such thing as a witch in the traditional sense, therefore a witch hunt is a campaign to punish someone for something that is impossible to have committed. In the real world there are actual human shit stains who escape accountability because of perpetuation of a meaningless bullet point 'witch hunt'. There are no witches, there are shitty human beings.
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
Prove that this particular individual is one of those people.
They are called witch hunts because they attempt to incite action against individuals and accuse them of unproven acts. Unless you have proof this user is a paid shill, this case pretty much fits the common use of the phrase.
0 unclescham 2015-02-23
There are no witches, said person is not a witch.
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
Yes. Very good. Witches aren't real.
The term is a popular phrase for describing a situation in which a group attempts to expose or punish an individual based on little evidence. It is a reference to the poor standards of evidence that were used to persecute "witches" in the Salem witch trials. Although shills are a real thing, modern usage of the word is generally not limited to make believe enemies. Another example of what many would consider a witch hunt would be McCarthy Era communist accusations.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that these shill allegations are any more than speculation?
1 unclescham 2015-02-23
Are you calling me a witch burner and McCarthyite for pointing out that PR professionals are working on reddit after admitting that such individuals exist?
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
Jesus christ.
No, I was pointing out why the phrase fits this particular instance and gave you an example of a well known instance of witch hunting.
Secondly, Pointing out that PR firms take advantage of social media sites like reddit is not witch hunting. Creating a thread accusing one specific user of doing this with no other proof aside from "they disagree with me" is a witchhunt (in the colloquial sense, obviously not literally.).
2 unclescham 2015-02-23
I would suggest the evidence goes a little deeper than "they disagree with me" (you put that in quotes - solid misinformation).
Pr Professionals are real, we've established that. PR professionals frequent reddit. PR professionals are singularly focused most of the time. They have talking points. Their arguments arethe same across accounts. All the evidence needed is there to make the determination. Witch hunting and commie hunting had real world repercussions for individuals. Viewing post and comment history of a likely shill is not witch hunting in any sense of the word. If these folks are getting doxxed or investigated for a crime, that would be different. Accusing people of being a witch hunter is a serious claim.
Having said that it would seem to be the case that reddit has a troop of witch hunter investigators, employed or not - no way of knowing - who say the same exact shit every time a link to a PR shill is presented.
A shill's shill, if you will.
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
What evidence is there to indicate the user in question is a shill? What talking points are you talking about? What other accounts is this individual tied to?
2 unclescham 2015-02-23
What evidence do you have that I'm hunting witches?
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
I never said you were. I said that was the purpose of this thread.
Op presented no evidence aside from a user whose history contradicts many of the opinions commonly held by members of the sub. The entire purpose of the post was an accusation with no actual evidence presented. In my book, that fits the definition of a "witch hunt" that I've now explained to multiple times.
Because you were contending that this wasn't the case, I had hoped you could provide me with some information that further implicates the user as a paid shill. I am also curious about the criteria you mentioned in your last post and was hoping you would describe how it applied here.
2 unclescham 2015-02-23
Oh, then you have evidence that OP is hunting witches.
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
Jesus christ on a cracker, are you still referring to the literal translation?
If not, I just explained that to you. Multiple times.
Astounding.
2 unclescham 2015-02-23
Do you expect evidence in the form of paystubs or ss #'s?
Of course not, your requirements for evidence are greater than the evidence you use to make the determination of a crowd of people. It appears you are more the witch-hunter than anyone else. OP never called for any type of punishment, when I last read the comments, no one had.
I think it's fair to say that if anyone lacks evidence of a claim it is you and your witch-hunter accusations.You're the only individual to have inferred transgressions against the rules. Transgressions that have actual punishments up to and including bans.
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
The purpose of the thread was clear. Every poster here picked up on the intention, as the shill accusations are flying left and right. If you dont think it fits the definition of witch hunt then I could give a fuck. I think it does. Edit: I don't believe I ever specified punishment as an essential component of a witch hunt, although in this case added downvotes and the possibility of being stalked by users could fit the bill.
In terms of proof, yes, I do require something substantial. Something more than "this user disagrees with me". OP presented none of this, and neither have you. I get it, finding proof is hard. It is much easier to assert. That way you convince yourself to ignore differing opinions whenever you want! No response to an argument? That's ok, that user is a shill!
But for people who are intellectually honest, some actual form of proof is required before accusations are made. Otherwise we have to accept that we just don't know for sure.
1 unclescham 2015-02-23
Why didn't you say so. Subjective evidence is the easiest to come by.
This quote only appears in your own words. Manufacturing evidence is lying. Manufacturing evidence to support a subjective claim is not
probably because
that you need less a stringent quality of evidence to support accusations of shill watching (hunting implies capture) than do others who simply point out the evidence to which a common conclusion is reached.
Because, and this is the important part, you find yourself intellectually superior to those with
but
0 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
Your unwillingness to engage in productive or honest discussion is extremely frustrating.
The entire point of commenting is expressing opinion. I stated my opinion: "this is a witch hunt" then I supplied my reasoning for saying so, (multiple times while you were trying to wrap your head around it).
The rest of your argument in that comment stems from your inability to understand my use of quotes. I was not directly quoting anyone, I was using the quotes as a means of describing a general idea that users here have displayed (I know it may not be technically grammatically correct, but I think the intent was obvious). Obviously the folks here arent saying that verbatim, but considering not a single one has bothered to present any evidence Or reasoning to back up their shill claims, it leads me to believe that the users history is their only source of evidence. Because the only notable thing I found in his history is his disagreement with many conspiratorial views, I think that this is the reason for the shill accusations.
I've asked you twice now to back up the claim that you appear to support. You have refused. Show me some evidence and let's have an adult conversation based on observed information.
I know you thought you had a real zinger there, trying to turn my words back around. All you really did was prove that you either didn't understand what I've been saying or that you did, and you decided to dishonestly twist my words instead.
Seriously dude, just do us both a favor and Fuck off.
1 unclescham 2015-02-23
meh, all i wanted to do was waste your time. lol.
You can't claim moral or intellectual superiority over someone recognizing a PR account when you yourself defame someone by calling them a witch hunter.
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
The purpose of this thread was to accuse someone as a shill and draw the attention of others that may make the same accusation. It is against the rules to do this. My description of it as a witch hunt is hardly new or all that insulting. It is a common term. The fact that you were so hung up on this one word is confusing.
Either way, you haven't wasted my time. you've given me something to occupy my mind with for a couple minutes and gave me a few laughs along the way. But if you want to pretend that you were just trolling, go for it. Given the content of some of your comments so far, I'd be eager to distance myself from them too.
Edit: By the way, you've still provided zero evidence for the "PR account" claim.
1 unclescham 2015-02-23
You're still misguided, you don't get to define what a witch hunt is. There is an official explanation and it falls in the category of revealing personal information and equates to vigilantism. No one here s done any of that.
Parrots often say timely things in great context, but it's never in response to context clues, it's just a parrot. (you're the parrot and "witch hunt" is the clucking sound you're making, presumably because of your contentious nature.)
http://www.reddit.com/wiki/faq#wiki_is_posting_personal_information_ok.3F
http://www.redditblog.com/2013/04/reflections-on-recent-boston-crisis.html
Your personal definition has no bearing here, witch hunt actually means something to the people at large. Exposing your buddy's PR account is not one of them. Subjective definitions are not definitions at all. Aligning reddit users with mccarthyite or witch burners for linking to publicly available comment histories is not witch hunting, still, by any definition except your own and others in the shill defense league. Until personal information is disseminated, everything is public and restricted to reddit.
1 dennabebotnoos 2015-02-23
Again with this fucking word. Jesus christ, it is used in this context all the fucking time. I don't know what to tell you. Sorry it bothers you so much.
1 unclescham 2015-02-23
Actually it's misused in this context all the time. I'm glad to see you coming to terms with your regurgitation to the point of using it as a defense for itself.