You really think trolling is the solution? You don't think that type of behavior further polarizes the divide that already exists?

So, if we follow that logic, the ends justify the means? That's never been a bad idea...

You seem "concerned"

9/11 was a ZOG job

I'm "concerned" that, in a sub that bans trolling, there's a post inviting trolling.

...or you could, you know, just not encourage trolling and instead rely on the integrity and content of your argument.

Is trolling immoral to you?

Immoral is a pretty heavy word - I wouldn't go that far. Immature? Ineffective? Disqualifying? Yep.

If it's ineffective why are there companies and organizations that spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year "trolling" online. I.e. media matters, jidf, elgin afb, and the like.

Well, if your mind is so weak as to be easily influenced by someone who is simply antagonizing the message for no other reason than to sow discord, I don't know what to tell you, man...maybe good luck in the world?

That doesn't answer my question.

My mind as weak because there is a literal multi million dollar industry in trolling. Yet you claim its childish and not effective.

Why do these companies and governments "troll" if it's useless?

That doesn't answer my question.

Actually, it does.

My mind as weak because there is a literal multi million dollar industry in trolling. Yet you claim its childish and not effective.

No, I suggested - via a hypothetical - that if your mind is so weak as to be easily influenced by shilling, there's really not much hope for you.

Why do these companies and governments "troll" if it's useless?

So, let me get this straight - after months of bemoaning "trolls" and "shills" on this board, you know are in support of that activity?

How is the effects on me relevant to the discussion of the effects of "shillong", spreading information, to the masses?

I just find it a bit dishonest that you've regularly posted on threads in this forum about how much you hate "shills" and "trolls" (heck, I'm pretty sure you've accused me, at one point or another, of being one). And now you're arguing that there's an effective and legitimate means of disseminating truth. It's...confusing...to say the least.

When did I say I hate "shills"?

So now you're suggesting you've never been against trolling/shilling?

Now you are equating my identification of a phenomena as approval. That's totally what I said and totally a good faith argumentation method.

Pointing out their tactics is saying i hate them?

So you've been in favor of them all along?

It's pretty telling that you equate my identification of a phenomena as approval.

Good to know you've been in favor of it all along. I guess I just completely misread the tone of so many of your posts - my bad.

Good to know you've been in favor of it all along. I guess I just completely misread the tone of so many of your posts - my bad.

Okay, is misrepresenting what I had to say something someone posting in "goof faith" would do?

Okay, is misrepresenting what I had to say something someone posting in "goof faith" would do?

I'm pretty sure we're able to link to past comments we've written ourselves - maybe you could include a few examples of where you've posted about shilling/trolling in a positive manner?

Well I never have. I have only ever pointed out there existence of the phenomena.

You call people weak minded when the present an argument to you?

Well, if your mind is so weak as to be easily influenced by someone who is simply antagonizing the message for no other reason than to sow discord, I don't know what to tell you, man...maybe good luck in the world?

Trying reading that again.

Is your only goal to "sew" discord here?

I'm confused - why did you use the inaccurate form of the word?

Sow is a pig.

Sow is a pig.

That's the noun form - there's also a verb form: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sow

Absolutely Talmudic

Lol!

Isn't this the exact scenario that justified the Trump-Russia collusion investigation?

Do you really think Americans are stupid enough to be influenced by Russian trolls?

Because I believe in truth and promoting alternative thoughts in order to reach that truth. Shilling/trolling is the antithesis of that.

To you are jokes about a serious matter shilling/trolling?

You're going to have to provide a bit more context for that if you want an honest response. I don't think jokes are appropriate when discussing an event that traumatized a nation - whether you believe that event was accurately portrayed by the media is irrelevant.

Have you ever studied rhetoric?

So you would censor jokes people might find offensive as trolling?

We can't joke about the Civil War then?

So you would censor jokes people might find offensive as trolling?

Please inform me where I used the term "censor".

Have you ever studied or read up on rhetoric? It's a pretty powerful tool people use in debate. It's much more effective than trolling.

So you would censor jokes people might find offensive as trolling?

Please inform me where I used the term "censor".

Have you ever studied or read up on rhetoric? It's a pretty powerful tool people use in debate. It's much more effective than trolling.

Trolling is just spreading information. It is literally a from of rhetoric...

Trolling is just spreading information. It is literally a from of rhetoric...

Wow.

Is it not?

umm I thought you were the one who "studied rhetoric"?

Where did I say I studied rhetoric? I'm familiar with rhetoric, yes, but where did I say I studied it?

No need to get aggressive...

Huh? Aggressive? I asked you a direct question - you claimed I said something that I did not.

Where did I say I studied rhetoric?

Asking me if I knew anything about it presupposes you have enough information in your head to carry on a discussion on the subject, .i.e. usually people who ask questions like that already know a little bit about the topic.

Guess I shouldn't assume with you.

Asking me if I knew anything about it presupposes you have enough information in your head to carry on a discussion on the subject, .i.e. usually people who ask questions like that already know a little bit about the topic.

Agreed. I'm quite capable of holding a conversation about rhetoric - but to suggest I've studied it, when I've never said anything in regards to that, is inaccurate.

I know a lot about Star Wars, too - doesn't mean I've studied it. Study has an academic connotation - it suggests a formal engagement with a topic.

Guess I shouldn't assume with you.

You know what they say about assumptions...

Rhetoric can lack substance. But it can also contain ethical and logical appeals.

Can you give me any examples of ethical and logical examples of trolling?

Absolutely - an ethical appeal is going to rely, almost exclusively, on the credibility of the author, or speaker. So, for instance, if I'm a doctor and I'm writing an article about how important it is to eat healthy, I'm probably going to include a line or two about my background in medicine. I'm going to encourage the listener to take my words seriously precisely because of my credibility as a speaker.

A logical appeal is going to use measurable facts or statistics - if I'm arguing for the failure of the drug war, I'm going to use statistics that show how overdose deaths or incarceration rates have increased. If I'm trying to discourage drinking and driving, I might bring up the statistics related to deaths caused by drivers under the influence.

There's some really great resources on the whole rhetorical triangle here: https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/RhetoricalTriangle.htm

Come to this post or to this sub?

I came to this post because I wasn't sure why someone would encourage trolling. Especially since it seems to be such an issue nowadays.

I come to this sub because, since I was a child, I've enjoyed conspiracy theories - everything from aliens to Bigfoot to MKULTRA. I enjoy alternative beliefs and I think it's important to support free thought and transparency.

Why did you ask me for examples of ethical and logical appeals? You claimed you could provide me with examples of "ethical" and "logical" trolling...

Can you give me some examples of ethical and logical trolling?

Let me try again. This time let's see if you can answer the question without insulting someone.

If it's ineffective why are there companies and organizations that spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year "trolling" online. I.e. media matters, jidf, elgin afb, and the like.

Let me try again. This time let's see if you can answer the question without insulting someone.

Please point me towards the insult - I must be so bad at composition that I didn't realize I injected one.

If it's ineffective why are there companies and organizations that spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year "trolling" online. I.e. media matters, jidf, elgin afb, and the like.

Why are you repeating yourself?

Well, if your mind is so weak

Today I learned that responding with hypothetical statements when prompted is akin to insults.

It just doesn't seem like a very friendly way to start a conversation... We are all a family here. No need to be negative.

It just doesn't seem like a very friendly way to start a conversation... We are all a family here. No need to be negative.

Trolling doesn't seem to me a very effective means of communicating a message. That's what I originally posted in response to OP's suggestion we "troll" people with different opinions. Mind you, my comment was not - in any way - negative other than to say I disagreed with the sentiment. Are you suggesting that we can't disagree with each other?

Can't answer a simple question? Why does media matters exist if trolling doesn't work?

To some people, questioning the status quo is a form of trolling

What's wrong with shilling for the truth?

Oh, nothing, if you don't want to be taken seriously.

Oh, nothing, if you don't want to be taken seriously.

Spreading facts that can be checked is somehow going to make people not take someone seriously?

Isn't the truth more effective than a lie?

OP's message wasn't to spread "facts" - it was to "troll any or all of these deniers and propagandists peddling and perpetuating false narrative".

There's lots of ways to do things - I think doing it legitimately through authentic argument and credible evidence would be a cornerstone of conspiracy theory belief. But now you're telling me shilling/trolling is acceptable?

So you're advocating trolling...got it.

Spreading truth in any form is positive. I'm sorry if that's too radical for you.

It's not positive if it doesn't work and pushes people further away from the ideas you're trying to legitimize. If you believed in the truth, you'd want everyone to access that. Instead, you waste your time engaging in pointless back-and-forth's that further divide those who wish to learn more. It's really sad.

I can agree 100% with that statement - but portraying the truth via trolling isn't going to win you any supporters. Which makes me question whether or not the purpose is to gain support or to simply enjoy the troll.

To you what is "trolling". Trolling is a fishing term that just means putting it, as in the baited hook, out there to drag in the wake.

You do know that right?

What do you think trolling is?

It's the spreading of information. That's all.

So again - just to clarify - you're in favor of trolling now?

I'm not in favor of your made up definition of trolling.

So again - just to clarify - you're in favor of trolling now?

You've now repeated a question I answered three times. Yet you still haven't answered my simple question... Very interesting.

Are you here in good faith? If so why did you ignore my question and instead insult me as "weak minded"?

You've now repeated a question I answered three times. Yet you still haven't answered my simple question... Very interesting.

I repeated it because you haven't answered it.

Are you here in good faith? If so why did you ignore my question and instead insult me as "weak minded"?

I've said this several times now - I used a hypothetical to suggest that people who are easily influenced by shilling are going to have a hard time in the real world. You took that as a personal attack - I can't help it if you're so sensitive as to not be able to separate hypothetical statements from personal attacks.

Because I didn't give the answer you wanted you had to repeat it?

That's not the best tactic. If people aren't responding to your bait maybe it's time to change out the lure.

Because I didn't give the answer you wanted you had to repeat it?

Are you in favor of trolling? Do you think it should be an acceptable method of spreading information?

Define trolling.

If you mean the nautical definition I have no problems with it. If you mean your definition that carries with it a negative connotation then I think it is inappropriate.

I already have - but since you have a short memory, I'll include the definition cited by this sub:

In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

So, again, are you in favor of trolling? Do you think it should be an acceptable method of spreading information?

I'm sorry I've been using the actual dictionary definition... The fishing one.

Why?

Because I use authoritative source that are accepted by the majority of the population. Not some random internet definition.

Wouldn't the "authoritative" source be the one used by the sub you're participating in?

Wouldn't the "authoritative" source be the one used by the sub you're participating in?

Of a definition? No the authoritative source would be a dictionary. There is no "authoritative source" for slang. That's what makes it slanfm

Of a definition? No the authoritative source would be a dictionary.

Which dictionary?

There is no "authoritative source" for slang. That's what makes it slang.

Is that why mods link to a specific definition in the rules listed on the sidebar?

No I am not in favor of them form of trolling that is negative and nefarious. I am in favor if fishing.

Okay clearly we are talking about different things, can you define shilling and trolling for me so that I can get on your level?

I thought shilling was more or less advertising. I.e. "go to that play OMG it's so good! Sorry for shilling for it, I just loved it!"

I consider a shill somebody that isn't intending to contribute to the conversation - there's no good faith effort. I'm aware of additional definitions, ones that pertain more towards marketing, but that isn't the context in which I'm using it now.

A troll is somebody that's attempting to be edgy or provocative for no other reason than attention. They offer nothing but childish insults and continuously pick away at semantics.

Alright what are you contributing to thus discussion? Snide remarks, insults, and ignoring questions. Hmm. Does that fit a certain definition...

Are you here in good faith? If so, why are you being so antagonistic to people in the conspiracy community?

Alright what are you contributing to thus discussion? Snide remarks, insults, and ignoring questions. Hmm. Does that fit a certain definition...Are you here in good faith? If so, why are you being so antagonistic to people in the conspiracy community?

Wait, what? I posted about how I was concerned OP was encouraging trolling, a bannable offense by this sub's rules. You proceeded to reply to every single one of my comments - sometimes with repeated information - and yet you're going to suggest I'm a troll? Cute.

Wait, what? I posted about how I was concerned OP was encouraging trolling, a bannable offense by this sub's rules. You proceeded to reply to every single one of my comments - sometimes with repeated information - and yet you're going to suggest I'm a troll? Cute.

More antagonism... Is the world fighting against you? We are all here to learn together. No need to be nasty.

Why the need to call me "cute" I mean I'm flattered but a bit offended at the same time. I mean I know I'm cute, but I really feel like you're saying it in a way to belittle my existence.

More antagonism... Is the world fighting against you? We are all here to learn together. No need to be nasty.

We are all here to learn together. We're also here to stand for truth and free-thinking - shilling/trolling does not accomplish that.

Why the need to call me "cute" I mean I'm flattered but a bit offended at the same time. I mean I know I'm cute, but I really feel like you're saying it in a way to belittle my existence.

Oh, no, I never called you cute - I called your attempt to project cute.

Can you prove you aren't trolling in this thread?

Is someone who intentionally misrepresents a person's statements participating in good faith?

Can you prove you aren't trolling in this thread?

My comments speak for themselves.

Is someone who intentionally misrepresents a person's statements participating in good faith?

OP's original text:

We really need to put the message out there that 911 was not solved they covered it up and we are all living a lie. Please find time today to troll any or all of these deniers and propagandists peddling and perpetuating false narratives. will be updating as I find them.

Please point me to the part where he doesn't encourage trolling...

So misrepresenting the answers someone gives you to a question isn't trolling? It's actually acting in "good faith" to you?

Are you looking for an emotional response by implying I said something I didn't??

So misrepresenting the answers someone gives you to a question isn't trolling? It's actually acting in "good faith" to you?

Once again - where did I misrepresent?

Are you looking for an emotional response by implying I said something I didn't??

No, I was looking for a legitimate response - but I'm beginning to see that's just not possible.

When you asked me repeatedly the same question I clearly answered. It's like you were fishing for a specific response.

No, I simply asked you to back up your accusation.

So you can't prove it?

All I can do is point to my comments and let people make up their own minds. Considering the thread itself was shut down for breaking the sub's rules, I'd imagine my concerns were at least shared by others...

No I asked if you could prove you aren't trolling. Can you?

You already posted this. Spamming isn't helpful.

Troll is kinda the wrong word lol

Removed OP, reddit site wide TOS prohibit calling for coordinated action of this kind and such behavior could result in the subreddit itself being banned. Please consider this a formal warning and please avoid direct calls to action of this nature in the future..

So you're advocating trolling...got it.

It's not positive if it doesn't work and pushes people further away from the ideas you're trying to legitimize. If you believed in the truth, you'd want everyone to access that. Instead, you waste your time engaging in pointless back-and-forth's that further divide those who wish to learn more. It's really sad.

So you would censor jokes people might find offensive as trolling?

Please inform me where I used the term "censor".

Have you ever studied or read up on rhetoric? It's a pretty powerful tool people use in debate. It's much more effective than trolling.

So you would censor jokes people might find offensive as trolling?

Please inform me where I used the term "censor".

Have you ever studied or read up on rhetoric? It's a pretty powerful tool people use in debate. It's much more effective than trolling.

Trolling is just spreading information. It is literally a from of rhetoric...

Wait, what? I posted about how I was concerned OP was encouraging trolling, a bannable offense by this sub's rules. You proceeded to reply to every single one of my comments - sometimes with repeated information - and yet you're going to suggest I'm a troll? Cute.

More antagonism... Is the world fighting against you? We are all here to learn together. No need to be nasty.

Why the need to call me "cute" I mean I'm flattered but a bit offended at the same time. I mean I know I'm cute, but I really feel like you're saying it in a way to belittle my existence.

Asking me if I knew anything about it presupposes you have enough information in your head to carry on a discussion on the subject, .i.e. usually people who ask questions like that already know a little bit about the topic.

Guess I shouldn't assume with you.

To some people, questioning the status quo is a form of trolling