Yep, pretty much. Taking over mod positions on forums is part of the JTRIG playbook.

When n00bs visit a sub like this, what effect do you think it has on them to read about how 'shills' are out in force?

what effect do you think it has on them to hear you calling them n00bs?

A n00b is a n00b, is a not a loaded term.

desperate times call for desperate measures..

what ever they do. it will hit them two times back in the end :)

Well they are not literally everywhere because that means they would be on my roof, every square inch, on the bottom of lake eerie every square inch, on the Mcdonalds sign, on top of the billboard in New Hampshire, on I75 mile marker 234, etc.

shills = everywhere = me = op

checkmate

Slider? Explain that, please?

How are you Judge Dredd, being judge, jury and executioner for accounts you deem as a shill?

But at what point do mods become part of the problem, and not the solution? It seems that calling out the most obvious of trolls and astroturfers gets a swift ban, while the most notorious spammers continue, untouched. When is enough, enough?

What happens if someone calls you out? Honestly to me, attacking shills and hunting shills and creating a demon about shills is exactly what counter-intelligence shilling would want. Then a safe space of acceptable content is presented to the masses because all else is pushed by a paid shill on the internet a place known for truth.

You're creating a narrative for me and creating an environment where my speech doesn't feel protected because I lost internet points.

The only thing that censors my speech is a moderating banning me. Nothing else. I'll defeat any shill. At least, I'll pretend I did.

If someone called me a shill I wouldn't give a shit because I'm not a shill. Only shills actually care about getting called out. All I have to do is say "check my post history if you think I'm a shill" but, shills can't do that because typically their post history makes it obvious that they are shills.

Another Judge Dredd type. You seem to be able to make the call on accounts you do not agree with.

So let's do what you say and "check it"

Oh football. So if my account doesn't talk about football I'm a shill, nevermind it's basically corrupt at every level now with it's own NFL paid shills out there.

Guess I'm a paid shill. I guess you have me figured out. They are everywhere after all.

Wtf are you ranting about? I never called you a shill, but your paranoia speaks for itself

9 day old account people are the best.

I dunno. Plenty of people use Reddit differently. Many of the most respected users here only post to this sub and do so constantly, some only on select topics. Which is what I would do if I were a shill that wanted to control the tone and dynamic of a sub. Lots of people also have separate accounts for general use and places like this, or just creating new accounts.

I'm not in any of those groups. I have 5 years of continuous, varied activity (in comment sections ranging from mindless shitpost comments to discussions/arguments and so on. But I still don't believe anything conclusive can be drawn from user histories most of the time. What separates a passionate user of /r/conspiracy trying to "redpill" people from a shill trying to push falsehoods that can be seen from post histories?

When I go into a thread, usually some sort of political thread, and see that the majority of users commenting are accounts that are less than 6 months old and only comment or post about a single topic it's becomes pretty obvious that particular thread is under a shill brigade. The problem I have with it is I don't want to waste my time talking to bots or people with fake opinions

its true, that accusation doesn't make me mad at all. Been called a russian bot plenty and you just laugh and go "sure buddy"

I'm getting 503'd to hell and back now

Same. We both just got probed.

Still, everything you say is you implying that only you know the real truth and are the only unpaid shill in this place. Same with other people around here.

Because you twisted everything I said into bullshit tbqh. Also denial.

The hell is a slider?

I'm not interested in your probing, slider.

Back off the rule 10s please or the thread is over.

Did I nuke the thread and ban you or did I politely ask you to back off a bit? I get it's a touchy subject but direct accusations aren't necessary. If you can't make your point with unemotional factual arguments maybe you should just stop now.

That's all I'm asking, if people disagree just prove them wrong. There's plenty of good data on r/shills to support your claims without personal attacks.

Lol sure

How are you Judge Dredd, being judge, jury and executioner for accounts you deem as a shill?

Because we have critical thinking skills.

Honestly to me, attacking shills and hunting shills and creating a demon about shills is exactly what counter-intelligence shilling would want.

That's not counter intelligence. That's propaganda. Counter intelligence is thwarting enemy intelligence operations.

You're correct that it is effective propaganda, which is why shills are always hunting for shills, and real users only call them out when there's a lot of evidence.

Yea. I wish there were an neutral place on the Internet dedicated strictly to maintaining genuine interaction.

You will have to have real conversations with real people in the real world for that to happen and even then you should be skeptical.

You could, you know, make a site

What would prevent that site from having "users" created to shill? Google has probably made the best effort at that by having everything linked to your verified account, but people hate that because it takes away their anonymity.

So how do you fight shills without having to lose out on privacy?

Teach the shills the error of their ways.

The reality of the future of humanity is that there is no effective method to police everyone that isn't evil at its foundation, so people are going to have to like... learn about morality and stuff...

Teach the shills the error of their ways.

Hard to do that when they earn a livelihood at it.

Chans are the best. Sliding a thread takes a lot more manpower than vote-botting, and if it gets any popularity, you can't stop it.

the only true place that still has freedom of speech

neutral place on the Internet dedicated strictly to maintaining genuine interaction.

Honestly we can no longer expect this on the internet. The whole damn thing is a marketplace now, and we're the goods.

We can however get off our computers/phones/etc. and find plenty of genuine interaction out in the real world.

Conspiracy just purged the shitty biased mods. It's finally starting to seem "normal" again.

Ironically one of those Mods made a subreddit that attempted to takeover Conspiracy with bots.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170830162732/https://np.reddit.com/r/ConspiracyRight/comments/6wx3iv/how_were_going_to_beat_the_shills/

Ironically one of those Mods made a subreddit that attempted to takeover Conspiracy with bots.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170830162732/https://www.reddit.com/r/ConspiracyRight/comments/6wx3iv/how_were_going_to_beat_the_shills/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Huh? I never said it was only that guy. It was an inference that the purged Mods partook with the operation and where not interfering.

they were interfering with the AstroTurf

Odd given one was shown to have at least one alt solely made for astroturfing and disinfo campaigns, and the other two vehemently supported and protected him best they could.

Yeah, they sound like bastions of integrity.

One of the mods you just claimed was fighting astroturfing was the person doing the astroturfing.

DronePuppet admitted to using numerous alt accounts on this sub with the sole intention of trolling and banning people who replied to his alt accounts.

It's pretty disingenuous that you say the mods who were astroturfing... were the ones fighting astroturfing.

So how were the mods astroturfing and banning users they disagreed with also fighting the astroturfing going on? Not to mention their failed takeover of the sub. You didn't answer that.

What's being done? Well, for starters, the mods who were astroturfing and banning people they disagreed with are not mods anymore. So there's that.

We don't know how many alts fly or Sarah had, all we know is that DronePuppet admitted to using a bunch of alts after he got caught. But, I am 99% sure that fly was banning some of the people replying to DronePuppet's alts.

You can pretend fly didn't know, if that is your prerogative, but seeing as how they both retreated to "conspiracy right" together and were behind the failed takeover, I would say that's bullshit.

Conspiracy just purged the only two mods who were around long enough to be sure they weren't shills. Say what you will about their politics, but Sarah and Fly both modded this sub well for years.

Sarah and Fly both modded this sub well for years.

That's a stretch. Sarah tried to commandeer the sub and had to be removed.

We can disagree about her actions and motives on that occasion but the fact that this sub was moderated well for years isn't negated by your contention of the single negative moderator action last month.

I trust Sarah and Fly more than all the junior mods combined. If SC wanted to unilaterally fire all the new mods then I trust his judgment.

Not all of them, as we saw with one banning like 10 users for disagreeing with them (wasn't their first time doing this either). Luckily that was reversed, but the mod is still here.

If this sub is really infested by shills this thread will be closed almost instantly and its op banned.

Why would the mods delete this? Leaving it up gives the impression that the mods aren't shills. Not that they are, but if they were then it would be better to not delete it so the users who see it get the impression that the mods are legit

If this sub is really infested by shills this thread will be closed almost instantly and its op banned.

This "war" is irrelevant if you're aware of your biases, capable of critical thought, and stick to the Socratic Method when having discussions online. Ignoring someone's arguments in favor of labeling said poster a shill (even if they are a shill) is intellectually dishonest.

Repeat a lie often enough, and loud enough, and people will believe it.

Which is why this part is so important.

This "war" is irrelevant if you're aware of your biases, capable of critical thought, and stick to the Socratic Method when having discussions online.

If you stick to those basic axioms, then whether a lie is repeated enough or not becomes irrelevant.

Being unable to call out shills effectively, is what makes this strategy so effective.

Wrong. If you can point out how a "lie" is logically inconsistent or fallacious (or outright wrong) then you do more for your argument than simply calling someone who you disagree with a "shill". That's why this part is important -

Ignoring someone's arguments in favor of labeling said poster a shill (even if they are a shill) is intellectually dishonest.

I see so many people in this subreddit who do not understand the subject being discussed simply hand wave away a comment while calling the person in question a shill. If you can't address a "shill's" comment and instead resort to ad hominem, then you should spend more time learning about the subject.

stick to the Socratic Method when having discussions online.

oh but we can dream.

I've seen several folks use it, recently. It really is a tried and true method to provoke critical thought.

This "war" is irrelevant if you're aware of your biases, capable of critical thought, and stick to the Socratic Method when having discussions online.

That's false and dangerous. Most people cannot think for themselves, which is why propaganda works.

The mod team here seems to believe this myth, however, and continues to tolerate blatant propaganda, vote botting in the comments, and other shenanigans that they can shut down.

Best solutions are to either have no moderation of comments outside reddit rules (so the sub doesn't get banned), or aggressively remove obvious shilling.

Best solutions are to either have no moderation of comments outside reddit rules (so the sub doesn't get banned), or aggressively remove obvious shilling.

Wrong, yet again. If the person posting is clearly a shill then surely they have flaws in their premises. Attack the logic behind their argument, don't attack the poster. It's literally fallacious reasoning.

Person A and Person B are discussing voter ID laws. Person A provides several examples to support their argument while person B accuses them of being a shill while ignoring person A's argument. What do you think that the readers will think when they see this exchange? I would think that Person B doesn't actually understand what is being discussed and is lashing out.

If the mods want to improve this subreddit then they would foster an environment where critical thought is rewarded instead of enforcing a circle jerk. The Socratic Method is a tried and true method to provoke critical thought. Again, simply attempting to shout someone down as being a shill is intellectually weak.

Person A provides several examples to support their argument while person B accuses them of being a shill while ignoring person A's argument.

Contrived example designed to undermine the point being made. Shills don't use arguments. They screech and trick a few people without critical thinking skills, then they run vote bots.

The vote botting is the main reason shills need to be aggressively removed on reddit. Mods can't control the fake votes, but they can deny a platform to no-content garbage and deny them any opportunity to bot it up.

Again, simply attempting to shout someone down as being a shill is intellectually weak

"4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

That's false and dangerous. Most people cannot think for themselves, which is why propaganda works. Maybe 2% of the US population exhibits consistently clear, critical thinking.

Everybody thinks they are part of the 2%. You think you're in it with absolute certainty, and I think I'm in it with absolute certainty. It's obvious some of the ideas we have are false, that's just life, but we don't know which ones. Saying only 2% of the population is capable of critical thought is incredibly narrow minded. Perhaps they come off sheepish to you because their opinions are different, but we all have lived different lives- its impossible for us to see things the same way. Perhaps somebody doesn't think 9/11 was an inside job. That doesn't mean that person is incapable of critical thought- just that they may have come to a different conclusion than you.

Try to put your inherent bias aside and go talk to people. I bet you'll find them smarter than you assume. It's easy to think someones an idiot online where the only connection you have with them is a tiny text box with no context or backstory.

Very well said. There are some... derpy people out there, but it's nowhere near as bad as many like to believe. I've been in discussions where it's clear that the person that I'm conversing with is much more knowledgeable than I am and vice versa. That's why I love the Socratic Method.

You have to be cognizant of your biases and willing to engage in intellectually honest discourse or you're just wasting your time. Echo chambers are something that you should avoid at all costs, however.

Information is absurdly relevant. There are truths and routes to take related that are very important.

I'm afraid that I don't understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?

I've never seen a shill here. People have different opinions than you, get over it.

I hope that guy is trolling. Lol.

Hey do you know who I contact to start getting those sweet Soros paychecks?

David Brock

"In April 2016, Correct the Record announced that it would be spending $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about Clinton"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record

$1 million won't fund that many people. I'm still waiting for my cut.

Useful idiot

In political jargon, useful idiot is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.

Most are this. I mean have you seen r/politics and r/worldnews?

There is a lot of info on the astroturfing organizations Correct the Record, ShareBlue (formerly Correct the Record) and Media Matters. They are all run by David Brock. Their official mission statements that are publicly available state their intent to use propaganda for the DNC on the web and on social media such as Reddit, Facebook and Twitter. This implies the use of social community opinion management software and other tools.

Task force will help Clinton supporters push back on online harassment and thank superdelegates

Hillary Clinton PAC Spends $1 Million "Correcting" People Online And Reddit Is Furious

Hillary PAC Spends $1 Million to ‘Correct’ Commenters on Reddit and Facebook

Podesta meets with super PACS (Priorities USA and CTR) at law firm (Perkins Coie LLP.)

Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada

Reddit is Being Manipulated by Professional Shills Every Day

Troops, Trolls and Troublemakers: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation

From this Oxford research paper on astroturfing:

There is no doubt that individual social media users can spread hate speech, troll other users, or set up automated political communication campaigns. Unfortunately, this is also an organized phenomenon, with major governments and political parties dedicating significant resources towards the use of social media for public opinion manipulation.

... In many countries, political actors have no reported ability to field social media campaigns. In some countries, one or two known political actors occasionally use social media for political messaging, and in a few other countries there are multiple government agencies, political parties, or civil society groups organizing trolling and fake news campaigns.

Astroturfing Information Megathread- revision 8

I've never seen a shill here.

I just have to laugh sometimes.

hard to see things you put purposeful blinders on. At least that means he does not believe in russian bots. That's a start.

hmmm...

Am I a shill because I point out cherry picked data, point out logical flaws in reasonsing, and/or I insist on evidence?

Why the bait? Do you not like the topic? Or would you like me removed for a clear rule violation? Both?

Given you haven't defined what a shill is and the topic being discussed in shills it makes it difficult to have a discussion without a definition now doesn't it.?

You obviously didn't look at any of the numerous links. Thanks for playing.

I do so love the downvotes for asking you a legitimate question about the topic you started. It seams like, to me at least, you aren't on a quest for truth in this, you are instead on a religious quest of some sort.

I miss the old days when you could actually talk to people on this sub...

I linked to a post, which linked to a staggering number of specific organizations, actively shilling all over the internet. The post wasn't supposed to be about you. But your baiting question, asking me to call you a shill, after I'd already linked to very specific info about shills... Well, it was a pretty transparent ploy. But don't let me stop you from doing what you do. Feel free to ask any disingenous questions you have, trying to get others into trouble with the mods.

Sigh.

Gotta be upsetting when they don't take the bait.

It isn't bait. I actually thought I could have a discussion about it. While shills may be a problem, calling other shills for having a different opinion, for having facts, for asking questions, is even more destructive in my view of things.

No you're right. You're allowed to ask questions, but I think OP has done a pretty good job of answering them. The original post is full of info. What more do you want? He's not gonna call anyone out specifically because that's a violation of rule 10, and it'll get him banned. Asking him to do so is essentially asking him to get banned.

It seams like, to me at least, you aren't on a quest for truth in this, you are instead on a religious quest of some sort.

"7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

the gold standard that one is, of some users, it seems like.

"You dont care about justice for Seth Rich, you only want to use his death for political purposes."

"You dont care about PG, you only want to hurt democrats."

those are the true gold standard. Probably seen those sentences written almost as much as "this is T:D version 2 now" or "russian bots influence this sub!"

Ignore all the evidence of paid shills!

Let's argue about what words mean!

Sponge Bob here is not a shill man. The guy is actually very intelligent. He just try to show the person the right path. But yes I have even encounter several shills and bots here.

If your on here long enough you will get used to seeing certain users. I do it only to redirect toward the truth. I see what your saying man. Your not wrong what so ever. I always look at people commenting and post history. But to spot a true one it's how and what they type. I could go on about this for a long time but won't. If you need help pm me and I can show you better ways how spot one.

Sponge Bob here is not a shill man.

No one said that. Why are you shifting the discussion away from the hundreds of examples of confirmed shilling in the OP?

I assumed he was calling him that, that's all.

And wasn't trying to just defending then explained to op in another comment of what to actually look for. That's all man.

No, you didn't. You were trying to shift the discussion away from all of the examples of confirmed shilling in the OP.

Dude I really wasn't. Again I was just trying to help him out in what I have been seeing here since August 12. Listen I have seen you on here and know that you are knowlegable also. Honestly was just trying to help him.

"7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

"26. Pick a rule randomly and pretend it applies."

"26. Pick a rule randomly and pretend it applies."

"26. Pick a rule randomly and pretend it applies."

I know you are, but what am I?

Pathetic.

1. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Fuck dude, you need a break, you are starting to see shills everywhere.

FYI, it is the nature of comment chains like this to have some drifting and shifting of the discussion. You can't just start whining about topic drift and shift every time someone makes a valid point or shoots a hole in your logic.

Pretends I accused someone of being a shill

Tries to shift the discussion even further away from all the confirmed examples of shilling in the OP

"5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues"

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

I am starting to think you are the shilling disinformationalist here. You can't even have a civil discussion, and copypasting responses like this are the actions that trolls and shills employ to push people's buttons.

You are clearly not interested in having a grown-up discussion. You are a child.

You can't even have a civil discussion!

you are a shilling disinformationalist

You are a child

You're right. I'm just no good at this "civil discussion" stuff. Should I call you names next time? Will that be a "grown-up discussion"?

My initial response to you was measured and it was civil. You are the one who decided to see if you could push some buttons, troll with copypasta that, in essence, accused me of being a shill and a disinformationalist when all I was trying to tell you is that SpongeBob is not a shill in the context of the OP's post. He has been in this sub far longer than you, or any other "alt" that you may or may not have, and he has always been someone who will challenge somone's views. That said, he has always been civil and polite about it, sometimes he can seem a little dickish, but in the end he's not a bad dude and has been in this sub for years. He's like Rockran and a couple other guys who will disagree with others without being disagreeable.

He's what is known as a "longtime regular" of this sub. His questions and challenges have value here and he has a solid track record of keeping things civil, even in the midst of all the shit he has to put up with sometimes from those he calls to question.

(and yes, your sarcasm and incomplete quoting out of context are noted, but I stand by my criticisms of your actions and behavior in this thread.)

SpongeBob has been around here forever. Longer than many of his accusers have even been aware of reddit itself I imagine.

Ignores hundreds of confirmed examples of shilling

"You think everyone who disagrees with you is a shill!"

"4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

I think he is talking more from his own personal experience. He gets accused of being a shill a lot, but I have seen him around for years and years, and he has been always been exactly like he is. He has always been someone who will point out logical flaws in people's arguments. He has been doing this well before "shill" became the buzzword that it is today.

I find, especially today, that "shill" is becoming a more and more meaningless term, despite the wall of links and articles posted by the OP. Yes, political, commercial, corporate and MIC shilling exists, and it is only increasing as time goes on. Shills have been spreading and this sub is not immune.

However, not everyone who disagrees with you, or points out someone's logical fallacies is a shill.

Right?

Don't look at all the evidence in the OP! Shill is just a buzzword, not a fact confirmed by dozens of sources! This is old news!

"10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

You do understand that I upvoted OP's submission and agree with their premise?

I am on your side, but like many others here, are getting exasperated with your ironic inability to have your thoughts and ideas challenged and engage with someone in a manner that is not so completely confrontational and combative.

Many of us have known of the "25 Rules of Disinformation" for several years now. You are acting like you just read it yesterday and want to show-off your newfound knowledge.

I should report you for accusing me of being a shill, because that is what you are doing when you respond by copypasting.

The irony is that both you and Op are "forum sliding" your own topic with all your paranoid and combative responses.

your paranoid and combative responses.

"5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues"

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

Yeah, I reported you to the mods. These copypasta's are clear rule 10 violations and I am simply not going to allow you to call me a shill. You are a fucking T_D migrant and have not shown an ability to have your views challenged or engage like an adult with someone who tried to engage you respectfully.

Yeah, I reported you to the mods.

"24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

I am torn now...

Should I ^[a] tag you in RES and not block you because you still have a +20 score in my RES, or ^[b] just block you outright because it's probably best to just wipe you from my existence and think no more of it...?

I guess I'll just try option ^[a] for now and see how it goes...

[c] stop making shitty arguments

Oh FFS you can't even outline and summarize what my "arguments" are in your own words. You can't even articulate my main point in your own words and demonstrate comprehension without resorting to insult and succumbing to your ego's need to "win".

However I am sure you can copypaste them like a pro.

You can't even articulate my main point in your own words and demonstrate comprehension

I'm quite capable of doing this, but I chose not to because you pride yourself on being totally objective, but your argument are, frankly, really unsound. Just read back through this chain, it's full of ad hominem.

Especially without resorting to insult

This is why you got treated the way you did. You're not even getting facts straight. You insulted me repeatedly. I didn't insult you once, I insulted your arguments.

You are the poster child for false consciousness, and you have a lot of work ahead of you to dig yourself out of it. If you're wise, you'll thank me in a year.

No, you trolled and then patted yourself on the back for pissing off someone who is normally on your side and in agreement with you often.

You also demonstrated, in your own words, that you do not understand and comprehend my argument.

This is why you got treated the way you did. You're not even getting facts straight.

Then you rationalized your way into intellectual laziness to spare your clearly fragile ego, because you know, somewhere in there, that your trolling behavior is pretty immature. The inability to admit one's mistakes, like you can not and will not do is false consciousness by definition. You're concept of your own "evolved" consciousness is clearly fraudulent as your behavior demonstrates.

..but I chose not to because you pride yourself on being totally objective..

-When someone shows you who they are, believe them. ~Maya Angelou

your clearly fragile ego

"18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

Yawn

Thank you. I know I am an ass but I do try to be consistent UNTIL I am provided with evidence otherwise which I will listen to.

Why is that website's graphic design straight out of 2002?

More importantly, why do you keep spamming this thread with links to fringe rightwing talking point sites?

"5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

OK, cool, you don't plan to have a conversation, and would rather just copy/paste stuff from some site.

Thanks for this A+ interaction with a true American patriot.

No, but you're definitely contributing to the problem by fighting amongst your fellow man instead of focusing on the fact there is a problem with society. Instead of banding together with other people you choose to spend your energy arguing over semantics and nick picking all the little intricacies of an issue. The worst part is you think doing this makes you smart.

I used to think you were a shill. I like some of your non emotional posts.

are you a shit disturber because you try to bait people in to breaking the subs rules?

are you a shit disturber because you try to bait people in to breaking the subs rules?

Really?

its a question.

annoying when some one does it like that isnt it.

People wouldn't even realize the level of Schills on Reddit these days.... pretty much every single ridiculous opinion that's "pushed by the masses" is artificially generated propaganda. The push for war , the push for Israel ,the push for unsafe and unregulated vaccines , the push for fracking , the push for the right vs the left, the push to get rid of masculinity, the push to create a race war to distract us from the war on the poor , I could go on for hours....

They have active accounts that are perfectly normal until it comes up to one specific topic. Then you see their true colors, that one time, then back to incognito mode. They can edit stats on them too like karma and the creation date

the push for unsafe and unregulated vaccines

when you have a marginally good comment then fuck it up completely

And also "the push to get rid of masculinity."

Why don't you Google it? it's a valid conspiracy.

How about you tell me about the people that don't like masculinity? I'm feminist but I love men who are masculine but don't go around trying to be the alpha.

Your preferences and opinions don't matter.

Okay, but whose preferences and opinions are against masculinity? If I said there was a push against feminity, I'd sure as hell have an idea who said it.

You don't think they should be regulated? Because they should.

No one is pushing for unregulated vaccines.

Yes. This is correct. You can see them on imgur vaccine posts on full display.

Does anyone else ever notice how they only show up on certain subjects? I've seen them show up like CRAZY for anything related to the Clinton Cabal but when it's something like the lunar landing or something else unrelated (no matter how ridiculous) the contrarians seem to dissipate.

because this sub is fucking infested with people who jerk each other off 24/7 about Hillary being bad. it's not relevant to shit anymore.

this sub is supposed to be about actual conspiracies, no matter how dumb. this hillary bullshit is long since dead and meaningless, and it proves nothing except this sub is overridden with r/the_donald fucktards spewing their propaganda.

Oh fucking LOL. I guess her starting a Super PAC or going around trying to rewrite history with her salty book tour are meaningless, right? I guess we aren't still feeling the impacts of every shitty thing she's done, right? If you're a corrupt fuck up in power you get talked about. Get over it.

There's lots of shit that's happened a long time ago but for some reason they don't have a bunch of posters coming out to angrily tell us we can't talk about it because it happened almost a full year ago, unlike 9/11 or the lunar landing, which obviously happened yesterday.

trying to rewrite history with her salty book tour are meaningless, right?

yes. yes. it is meaningless. it is a fucking book. she's drumming up drama to sell copies.

I guess we aren't still feeling the impacts of every shitty thing she's done, right?

wtf? like what?

I guess her foreign policy blunders are meaningless, right?

Fucking up the 2016 election?

Or this? http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

Or perhaps how she is clinging to relevance in order to maintain a semblance of power in Washington to keep making money?

Or perhaps she and her cabal are still trying desperately to anoint the new Democratic nominee in 2020 despite her people being fucking garbage?

if you want to blame Trump on Hillary, then i agree with you. i'm not a fan of the dems for the most part. is she fucking up her political party? sure.

but acting like she's some scourge on the country or really has any impact on any normal person anymore is just ridiculous.

She still has influence as does the rest of her corporate democrat cabal, so she gets talked about. DEAL WITH IT.

Or not, just your choice.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Hillary loves people like you that are obsessed. You guys are doing PR for her book for free.

Ah yes, making sure that her narrative gets stifled is exactly what she wants. I'm so totally played!

Let me try to make this easier to understand. Have you ever heard the phrase "any publicity is good publicity?" It means it doesn't matter what you say about Hillary; the point is you're talking about her, and that sells books.

Definitely not true in this case so I'm gonna keep posting because if people like me fell for that than her narrative becomes the accepted reality.

Post all you want, and she will laugh all the way to the bank.

My bad I wasn't aware she gets paid every time I post.

"any publicity is good publicity?"

like passing out at the 911 ceremony? That got talked about a whole lot.

Yes, it did, and I remember you guys thought she was going to die any second now. I still read every day how she got tossed in a van like a side of beef.

Best meme that one. Still can look up side of beef and see her on google.

Just because someone's a terrible person that doesn't mean that discussion of them is relevent to r/conspiracy.

This isn't r/terriblepeople, or r/vilifymypoliticalopponents.

Just because someone is really hated, doesn't make them irrelevant to very important conspiracy theories that profoundly impact us today.

Took the words right out of my mouth, man.

what? Hillary's a fucking worthless politician. nobody likes her. it's just that most people don't have a raging hardon for attacking her nearly a year after she became obsolete

what are you getting at? usually i just ignore trolls like you but im genuinely curious. what is your point here?

you are fucking creepy

Dude, you look mad weird in this exchange. As a 3rd party, seriously, what is your point?

Let me get this straight: you think (and I agree with you) that there's clandestine and fully funded operations to sway public opinion online - but that they are physically or psychologically incapable of saying anything bad about Hillary Clinton, even if it would fully keep their cover intact? And that they won't do it, thus outing them as a shill?

....seriously?

Comparing a supermarket to an online public opinion farm seems pretty apples and oranges there, pal.

Wouldn't it just be easier to have them say something negative about her, to keep their cover?

Even if the main part of your job is to blend in with regular folks? This ain't really adding up, man.

People not caving into the random demands of an anonymous internet user isn't exactly telling of much, except to maybe the intellectually lazy.

Or they never CARE to do it, but it's obvious you don't see the distinction.

I still just think an actual shill would just say whatever to keep their cover. Seems silly otherwise, and I'll go with the more realistic option.

See now, my natural reaction is immediately to tell you to fuck right off and not even take part in your weird little lame duck experience. Even though I know exactly what you're up to and agree with all of the shilling. You do realize it's strange and patronizing and not at all not annoying, right?

But i'll play along, since you'd dismiss me otherwise: Hillary Clinton is a lazy lover.

There, I said it.

I'm not sure what you win for playing this long, but wow, that's endurance.

Haha, thanks. Workin' in a cafe and basically using any excuse to procrastinate on a project that has a far away deadline.

But I'm pretty sure I lost. All of us this far down the chain have lost.

What did I deflect? You're not being intellectually honest in any of your arguments, and you're fairly creepy.

You are not going to get your answer because you are coming off as a creep.

No. Go back to before the election and read my comments if you want to know how I feel about Hillary. Stop being coercive.

What answer will you accept? I'm not going to play your game, but I'm still curious as to how one passes your litmus test.

He thinks this is a way to show if you are a shill or not.

lol that exchange is gold.

"hillary clinton got a known child trafficker off from prosecution and made her head of amber alert."

i mean its not hard, there are straight facts you could just say. Like she destroyed email servers while under subpoena. I mean how hard is that.

Instead of, "i gotta take the highroad! I wont play your game!" just say one bad terrible fact.

did she rig the democratic primary?

She still hasn't paid for any of the crimes she committed.

Hillary Clinton is a criminal that is using her money and connections to keep herself out of prison. Evidence also points to several members of her campaign and party being corrupt and criminal.

US intelligence assets in China and was systematically removed (disappeared, killed or imprisoned) during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.

We all know she was running her illegal unsecured e-mail server (in order to run pay-for-play schemes and avoiding FOIA requests among other things) full of highly classified intelligence material during this time.

Killing CIA informants, China crippled U.S. spy ops

CIA Incompetence Allowed China To Murder A Dozen CIA Assets While Hillary Clinton Was Secretary Of State

Hillary’s emails included CIA officers’ names, report says

Inside the scramble to cover up Clinton’s private email server

Hillary sent a lot of highly classified information through that server and it was basically wide open for intrusion the whole time.

Adding to this is the Clinton Foundation investigation and it's role as a moneybag for the Clinton's shady activities such as under the table payments for favors.

A standard Google Mail account and servers are more secured than the server Hillary Clinton was running in her bathroom.

I see no reason to let her fade from public view without exposing her for the deplorable human being she is.

Most Damaging Wikileaks

Anything that makes conspiracy theorists look crazy (flat earth, nazi base on the moon, etc) is allowed. Anything that has some truth in it (pedogate, seth rich, dnc screwing bernie) are met with derision, unless it's anti-Trump, in which case it's pushed as "the only conspiracy that matters".

For real though... it was like watching these people tell me that Hillary is irrelevant is the most laughable shit, ever.

Hillary may still be relevant to you, but lots of other people have moved on. She is no longer a politician. Time to move on.

The funny thing is, the more hate that gets thrown her way at this point just gets the people that support her even more fired up to play this silly assed team sport called "politics"

Ah yes, it's been several months, and clearly any damage she has done jas healed and is not important to talk about anymore.

She's not running for office. Why in the world would anyone care enough to do a poll?

Fuck if I know but they are there.

Also, her poll numbers are lower than ever so you're gonna have to try a better argument. One based in reality.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. Poll numbers wont reflect what Im talking about. I would try to explain it but it seems like you would rather be a jerk than talk about things.

I ran out if arguments

Ftfy

You want an arguement? Please show proof that you understood this sentence.

The funny thing is, the more hate that gets thrown her way at this point just gets the people that support her even more fired up

Because poll numbers are not relevant to what im saying.

Because when her poll numbers sink, it means they're deserting her. The more exposure she gets to the public, the more people disapprove of her. This isn't rocket science.

She has been exposed to the public for 30 years. If you are changing your mind about her after the election you didnt even try to pay attention.

Her poll numbers were never really that good, but for arguements sake I take your word that they have dropped. Why would they have gotten better? She lost, people generally dont want to associate with losing.

This isn't rocket science.

Its not, but you still dont understand it. And saying shit like that makes me not want to talk to you. Stop.

I plan on voting Democrat. Honestly, this is great that you guys are still fixated on Hillary. Keep spending all your time and money breaking down a candidate that probably wont even run again.

Literally all of your arguments are vague platitudes that are backed up by exactly zero sources of raw data.

She had a 60 point lead against Sanders and every advantage in the primary and had to rig it to fight him down to a photo finish.

She had an 11 point lead against Donald Trump right after the conventions and he still beat her in the electoral college.

She just announced today that she may contest the election, so she's relevant and is going to get talked about. Not my problem that the truth hurts about her.

Im going to paraphrase you for the sake of entertainment.

She had a 60 point lead against Sanders and every advantage in the primary and had to rig it to fight him down to a photo finish.

Hillary had to cheat to beat Sanders

She had an 11 point lead against Donald Trump right after the conventions and he still beat her in the electoral college.

The person who cheated to win the primary didnt bother to cheat enough to win the election

She just announced today that she may contest the election

The cheater might accuse someone else of cheating.

Did you do this on purpose? Because its great.

Sorry I didnt bring any raw data, Im not goung to either because I dont want to defend Hillary. You can try and distract from the actual problem sitting in the Whitehouse all you want. But your posts on reddit are not distracting Robert Mueller.

Not my problem that the truth hurts about her.

Shit like this makes you sound petty. If Trump wasnt the person that beat her I might be happy she lost. But here you are rubbing your hands together thinking youve triggered another Hillary supporter. Sorry to burst your bubble. The only thing that hurts me about Hillary is that she didnt beat Trump. Nothing else about her matters.

Yes, Hillary had to cheat to beat Sanders. This is common knowledge and why the Wikileaks dumps had sunk her later in the campaign. This is common knowledge.

She would have cheated in the general if she could, but it's much easier to rig a primary than a general election. I thought this was common knowledge but apparently not.

The cheater yes, will more than likely accuse someone else of cheating because she is so narcissistic due to the fact that she lost to President Orangutan.

Now you can pretend to care about issues and act like we should only talk about Trump (despite how awful Hillary would have been) but I obviously made you feel some sort of way considering that you've spent the entire day responding to me with things you can't support and know nothing about.

You haven't exposed me as having no argument. Youve only exposed your self. You criticize me for having no sources or "raw data" but all you have provided were poll numbers that have no source to confirm them. If poll numbers are now "raw data" wouldnt that prove that Trump cheated? Being that he was going to lose according to poll numbers?

because she is so narcissistic due to the fact that she lost to President Orangutan.

Losing an election doesnt make someone become narcissistic.

Shills will attack anything disagreeing with CIA or liberal talking points, occasionally defend Trump, and push flat earth, aliens, and Jews.

This is getting to be an everyday thing now. It's all a bunch of people that can't conceive that anyone could possibly disagree with them unless they were getting paid for it. It's really the height of arrogance.

Your attitude and the way you respond to people is diminishing the point you're trying to make. Regardless of who is right, you're responding in a childish way to a lot of people's legitimate comments and concerns.

Your linked post has 100s of other links that would literally require days upon days of reading. How could you expect someone here to read every single linked article in the linked thread you posted? What even is your expectation?

Your linked post has 100s of other links that would literally require days upon days of reading. How could you expect someone here to read every single linked article in the linked thread you posted?

Gish Gallop, maybe?

Don't look at the evidence of shilling!

OP is just butthurt because "people" disagree with him!

"7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

I love how this tactic applies better to your own post where you link the tactic than the person you're replying to. Top-notch self-awareness. (Hint: you both questioned each others' motives, but only you did so in away that attempts to avoid discussing the issue at hand.)

"2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

There you are lol

Just let Reddit and YouTube die. Jewish/Zionist war propaganda posing as a free speech message boards have been exposed for what they are. Just let them die and let the idiots fight the shills

Jewish/Zionist

Not the same.

Lots of overlap

That's why it's a good limited hangout.

Pretty fucked Up hangout imo

Which shills tho? The shills that think Hillary throws pizza parties for kids or the shills that want to focus on our actual one party government?

Mastigia bamned tall_trombone_guy today!

I have noticed several. The ones that post the pro antifa posts. They have been creating new accounts. If you went through there comment history, the wording they use is exactly the same. Word for word.

It's easy to call out shills without actually doing so.
"Source?"
Or questioning their motivations?
Unfortunately we can't really know the truth, and it's not helpful to open it up to wild accusations.
Do you want the shills to accuse us of being shills with impunity?

i feel like people grossly overusing the word 'literally', to the point where the definition was 'changed' to make the word essentially meaningless, is a psyop of some kind.

It seems that calling out the most obvious of trolls and astroturfers gets a swift ban, while the most notorious spammers continue, untouched.

The problem with this is that some people seem to think a person is an obvious shill when that person disagrees with a strongly held personal belief. 'No one could believe that unless they were paid to do so' seems to be the mentality.

Honestly, this whole subreddit makes a lot more sense if you replace every instance of the word "shill" with the phrase "person who disagrees with me."

I disagree. When you ignore the emotional shills posts, discussion of both sides is clearer.

emotional shills

Good example of what I am talking about right here. The term "emotional shills" makes no sense if you understand "shill" to mean "someone who is paid to post content." They are by definition, not motivated by emotion - they're motivated by money. It's a contradiction of terms. It completely makes sense if you understand "shill" to mean "people who disagree with me," though.

When you are around the sub more, you'd understand why I put it that way. Not all shills are paid, not all shills use logic or reason and are instead skilled at strongarmong emotion to slide the discussion.

I disagree with you, but see your perspective.

Not all shills are paid

LOL WHAT? that's the literal definition

see my explanation above.

Not all shills are paid

Not all water is wet!

see my explanation above. I did enjoy your reply though.

I see you comment in this sub a lot and most of the time what you say makes sense, so this comment seems really out of character for you. Claiming that not all shills get paid is just silly. That's admitting that the definition of "shill" is so watered down and misused that it is completely meaningless. It's just a buzzword that can be thrown at any and all criticism, opposition, or unpopular opinions.

I enjoy your posts so thanks for the question. As an example, if you take someone who is a zealot, or useful idiot as some might call them, someone that is very much into a certain point of view and trying to change people's perspectives to theirs - they are not getting paid, but they are very much pushing a narrative. It ends up being a behavior that is no different than one that is paid.

There was a lot of motivated posting during the election, whether by pro or anti Hillary - strongly pushing their opinions and trying to convert. This is the behavior I am talking about. It is indistinguishable to posts by those that are paid, other than the zealot works around the clock.

There is a huge difference between these two groups of people though. The zealots as you call them actually believe in what they are arguing for. No matter how little evidence they have or how much evidence is against them, they aren't likely to change their views. I know plenty of people like this in real life and it's frustrating trying to debate with them. I believe these people make up the majority of the problems in this sub (and on Reddit in general).

Actual shills on the other hand are only motivated by their paycheck, which probably isn't even that big. They are the ones posting weak, overused talking points. I'd also be willing to bet these are the ones running a lot of the political subs and organizing the narrative that the zealot users then eat up. I'm sure there are shills on Reddit, but I have the feeling that gullible, easily manipulated users outnumber them 100 to 1.

You are changing the meaning of the word shill and just muddying the water. The idea of you being an actual shill seems more plausible.

I don't think anyone can take a sample of my posts and make the conclusion I am a shill. You can make the case of course, but betting you will fail readily.

Sure they could! They just have to disagree with you "strongly". I usually enjoy your posts, but it's odd to see you espouse these ideas as I'm sure that you've seen folks accused of "shilling" for no reason. I

I've been called a shill many times in this subreddit. It usually happens when I post a wall of text, including links, or just post a contrary opinion. It's essentially an intellectually dishonest "get-out-of-debate-free card". The term has been watered down, much like SJW, racist, and facist has.

The forum sliding (a negative Trump post gets traction then 30 anti-Clinton/Liberal posts attempt to push it off the page etc), along with being called a shill for simply having a different opinion (plus obvious mod bias) pretty much ruined this subreddit for me. For all of the shit that we got, the level of discourse was usually really good. Since the election, however, we get "daily reminders", accused of being a shill for having a contrary opinion, and intellectually dishonest discourse. Maybe it's my rose-tinted glasses, but I swear that discourse used to be so much better than it is now.

I've been thinking about making a post about the Socratic Method, but I procrastinate too much and I'm not sure if it's even worth the time.

I disagree. I've debated with plenty of people that I disagreed with, and some that had convincing arguements to my being wrong, I changed my opinion or point of view. But I don't come here to convince, I come here to learn.

Some people like you said you didn't enjoy my contributions in this thread. That is okay, it is because you disagree with me here. :)

Yes, fellow user. I too believe all shill accusations are just people mad because someone disagreed with them. Don't worry about that OP full of evidence!

Also, can I have exactly 14 upvotes like this comment and the one above it saying the exact same thing?

That's the entire basis for shill accusations around here, heck, one mod tried banning people for disagreeing with him but that was quickly reversed.

Mods are human unpaid volunteers. I don't know the incident you speak of, but could be a case of over reaction to a brigade.

Nahh, no excuses for this fuck up, not the first time this mod has let his bias interfere with his moderation either, this is just the most egregious.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6yqohn/this_image_shows_hillary_clinton_with_special

I disagree.

You think it's fine for people who let their biases interfere with their moderation to continue being moderators?

Wasn't that mod using a honeypot technique to catalogue brigaders?

Many people have biases. Even judges. A good judge and mod keeps their bias shelved generally - but they are human.

Yet none of us who were banned were brigading. Just a bs excuse to ban people he doesn't like.

Being human is no excuse for this type of behavior. It's a simple concept, if your bias prevents you from doing a job correctly you are not suited for that job.

To add to this, the excuse that the other mods gave afterwards was that "Sabremesh was drinking at the time, and said it won't happen again." Never mind the fact that he's done stuff like this before or that he continued to make trolling, accusatory comments in the original thread and a followup thread for at least a day afterwards. Either he has a serious drinking problem or this is normal behavior for him.

What a horrible excuse, especially considering I've seen him do it twice before and it's very likely there have been times I haven't noticed.

That's the entire basis

It's the entire basis for a lot of alt-right thinking - that no one could possibly, genuinely believe in justice or equality or progress, so they must have some ulterior motive. Just look at the language around "white-knighting", "virtue signalling", etc.

There's a reason that "Soros bucks" became such a meme.

I agree, fellow user. I'm so glad exactly 14 people have upvoted all 3 of the comments saying the exact same thing, and ignoring all the evidence in the OP!

None of the evidence in the OP points to users on this sub exposing shills, or users on this sub making good arguments to why they think someone is a shill.

I know shills exist, but I think the majority of shill accusations are bs.

The difference is that shills will break down and just start spouting gibberish if engaged, eventually. They don't have the logic nor the creativity to get away from a certain point, and they rarely admit mistakes or properly address trains of thought. They will also try to be "quirky" but almost always fall terribly flat. Like Big Bang Theory bad.

I disagree with a lot of people on reddit. Anyone I disagree with is a shill. A lot of people on reddit are shills. QED

-OP

"4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

This is a deadend. If you read the (https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/)[disinformation techniques like those leaked form the GCHQ (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group)], COINTELPRO and others, you'll find that they try to control the public discourse through manipulative stages. However, also accusing others of shilling or infiltrates, creating division and controversy, is a known tool to destroy an online reputation, relevant topic or even forum.

In my opinion only pushing critical thinking and arguments will temporally disable the shills intentions, because obviously, they won't go away and isn't positive for a board that calling anyone a "shill" is enough to actually others believe they are.

This is a deadend.

What? This is outrageous. People think they're talking to real users, and they need to know this whole sub is confirmed to be manipulated by paid disinformation agents.

Most people that would read a conspiracy board or forum would assume there can be some degree of manipulation, influence, political interests and even monetary reasons to push or hate a topic). From what you say, we can only conclude that this sub is absolutely lost, so whats the alternative?

From what you say, we can only conclude that this sub is absolutely lost, so whats the alternative?

Not lost, just jammed with bullshit. You can fight the bullshit, create your own shills and bots (and risk a ban), or leave.

I think his idea of countering it through use of users that focus on critical thinking and facts over use of emotion, which anyone can fake, is the ideal.

Shills can only fake intelligence so long before they lean on some emotional tactic.

"Confirmed"?

The dozens of links in the OP don't exist?

"9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

Have you provided a shred of "evidence", "logical argument" or "proof"?

All I've seen from you is an assertion.

Doubles down pretending not to have seen the link

"9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

I see you're playing dumb in response to a request for evidence to your grandiose claim. I think your link is telling us that you're a shill.

Is given link twice

Still pretends no evidence

"1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

See, you keep doing the thing you accuse others of doing! don't bother replying to me, Mr. Shill. I won't feed the troll anymore.

"2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

For once can you respond to the question instead of spamming this stuff every time?

It helps if you read the actual OP. Or the comment you just responded to. Once again:

https://np.reddit.com/r/shills/comments/4kdq7n/astroturfing_information_megathread_revision_8/?st=j1y5la6q&sh=75667764

Cool. Re read it. Now can you respond to the question?

What question?

It helps if you read the actual comments.

Doesn't ask a question

Asks why I didn't answer the question

I ask what the question was

Still doesn't ask a question

It's right there in this comment thread. Don't know why this is so hard for you. Doesn't even take google.

The question "where was this confirmed?", lmao. So transparent of them. "Sources?", "Here.", "Answer the question.", "What question?", "The one I asked"

In my opinion only pushing critical thinking and arguments will temporally disable the shills intentions, because obviously, they won't go away and isn't positive for a board that calling anyone a "shill" is enough to actually others believe they are.

Put your fist to your screen... internet fist-bump, of course.

You can't call anyone a shill, it's against the rules. But pretending they don't exist doesn't help either because otherwise they create a false consensus

Agreed.

You can't call it out but it's pretty easy to spot a shill. They're comments at just overwhelming more negative than most others.

They frequently call people names. Don't listen to a single thing you reply instead they just attack and disrupt. Multiple accounts will reply to your same thread to back up original shills.

They know they've lost. Their narrative doesn't make any sense and the more they push it the more people are seeing the lies.

If we weren't winning they wouldn't be here. They'll be at home laughing it up on how great they think they are. Instead they have to put up getting beaten by us on online debates all day every day fighting for their life. Of course they hate it.

What topics do you guys think attract the most shill-attention?

What I've seen? Pizzagate, Judy Wood, and Steven Greer.

Pizzagate takes the cake though.

I've never seen anything like the shilling that occurred after pizzagate, really was amazing. Celebrities were mocking it instantly, the phrase fake news was basically made in direct response to it.

People have been claiming this a while but It's safe to say that Reddit, including r/conspiracy is fully compromised and heavily censored by outside sources.

I think we need to decide what to do next, how can we keep hunting for truth? Is it another website? is it more videos? or should we start gathering in person since the internet is only going to become more convoluted.

Tell it!

Tthe pod mods want you to believe the Earth is not an infinitely extensive planar surface with space fractal mirrors for edges, don't let them convince you!

Shills really aren't anywhere near as common or as well funded as you're making them out to be. I'm sure they exist, but they wouldn't have a hundredth of the influence that you're saying they have; especially here.

Ever hear the saying "If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole." Well replace the word "asshole" with "shill".

I think the point was how do we know you are not trying to manipulate the online community?

"9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

can someone define shill for me, with the context its used in? the dictionary definition doesnt help me understand how everyone here uses it

The definition here would generally refer to someone that is paid to post in an attempt to shape a narrative. The problem here is it is often over used and mis-used. People will accuse others of being a shill because they have a different opinion or arguement.

thats what got to me! i had that idea in mind but its overuse is what made me doubt it. thank you

I used to agree with that notion because in really stupid posts, like chemtrails or flat earth etc I will be the one that is against the conspiracy and I am not a shill, just a scientific mind. However in other cases, where shilling is obvious, you can tell if someone is just passionate or a shill by looking at the following:

• Are they just 'onelining' with stupid comments and insults? = Shill

• Are they taking their time and using effort by making a proper case with links etc. = someone who believes the opposite and tries to convey this [rightly or wrongly]. You can then follow their links and point out where they are going wrong [or maybe right].

That's how I judge the posts.

OP, the comments in this illustrates your point perfectly.

Sigh

I would suggest coming up with a phrase to reply to suspicious posters with that lets bonafide users know the poster in question may be a shill, but doesn't use the word, hence violating rules.

'Ignored' would work. So you post that once in reply to a suspicious post and then ignore all their other comments in that thread.

If you feed them with a response, they will grow more powerful.

If all forums similar get flooded with shills or bots it dilutes the effectiveness and trust of all forums/boards.

Who gives a shit. The masses will always be asses, L7.

If someone called me a shill I wouldn't give a shit because I'm not a shill. Only shills actually care about getting called out. All I have to do is say "check my post history if you think I'm a shill" but, shills can't do that because typically their post history makes it obvious that they are shills.

What would prevent that site from having "users" created to shill? Google has probably made the best effort at that by having everything linked to your verified account, but people hate that because it takes away their anonymity.

So how do you fight shills without having to lose out on privacy?

When I go into a thread, usually some sort of political thread, and see that the majority of users commenting are accounts that are less than 6 months old and only comment or post about a single topic it's becomes pretty obvious that particular thread is under a shill brigade. The problem I have with it is I don't want to waste my time talking to bots or people with fake opinions

you are fucking creepy

Ignore all the evidence of paid shills!

Let's argue about what words mean!

This is a deadend.

What? This is outrageous. People think they're talking to real users, and they need to know this whole sub is confirmed to be manipulated by paid disinformation agents.

How are you Judge Dredd, being judge, jury and executioner for accounts you deem as a shill?

Because we have critical thinking skills.

Honestly to me, attacking shills and hunting shills and creating a demon about shills is exactly what counter-intelligence shilling would want.

That's not counter intelligence. That's propaganda. Counter intelligence is thwarting enemy intelligence operations.

You're correct that it is effective propaganda, which is why shills are always hunting for shills, and real users only call them out when there's a lot of evidence.

lol that exchange is gold.

"hillary clinton got a known child trafficker off from prosecution and made her head of amber alert."

i mean its not hard, there are straight facts you could just say. Like she destroyed email servers while under subpoena. I mean how hard is that.

Instead of, "i gotta take the highroad! I wont play your game!" just say one bad terrible fact.

In my opinion only pushing critical thinking and arguments will temporally disable the shills intentions, because obviously, they won't go away and isn't positive for a board that calling anyone a "shill" is enough to actually others believe they are.

Put your fist to your screen... internet fist-bump, of course.

Oh FFS you can't even outline and summarize what my "arguments" are in your own words. You can't even articulate my main point in your own words and demonstrate comprehension without resorting to insult and succumbing to your ego's need to "win".

However I am sure you can copypaste them like a pro.

"5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/25-rules-disinformation/

Doesn't ask a question

Asks why I didn't answer the question

I ask what the question was

Still doesn't ask a question

You can't call anyone a shill, it's against the rules. But pretending they don't exist doesn't help either because otherwise they create a false consensus

You can't call it out but it's pretty easy to spot a shill. They're comments at just overwhelming more negative than most others.

They frequently call people names. Don't listen to a single thing you reply instead they just attack and disrupt. Multiple accounts will reply to your same thread to back up original shills.

They know they've lost. Their narrative doesn't make any sense and the more they push it the more people are seeing the lies.

If we weren't winning they wouldn't be here. They'll be at home laughing it up on how great they think they are. Instead they have to put up getting beaten by us on online debates all day every day fighting for their life. Of course they hate it.

see my explanation above.