It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Would discussion be better without "Shill" type posters???

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:02 PM

originally posted by: cestrup
Every thread that has to do with any major conspiracy has the same brand of posters who run in packs basically - abruptly discrediting sources and then turning on those who keep an open mind on certain subjects. It's not even a discussion as these types of posters only see one side - their side - and thinking otherwise will end up in personal attacks, as if that's their motive - then discussion is stopped and the thread is deemed out of control.

I'm all for hearing every side and every option as that is how a healthy discourse should conduct. But the tactics I see on display here are far from productive. In fact, they only want you to think one way - their way. Generally, most people post a thread as an idea to discuss and every, single, fraggle-rockin' time these know-it-alls come in and destroy the thread. Maybe there is a board where this bullying isn't allowed - because it snowballs, in every thread and then it's basically over. They have official sourcing and all we're concerned about is questioning just that. We know the official responses - what's wrong with asking "what if???"

Does anyone else feel this way or notice this?

That seems like a question (or complaint) subjectively imposed by the polar nature of human perception, cultural frame of reference, personal knowledge and so forth.

I do understand the point from my own perspective. There was a recent thread that dealt with failed immigration policies on a a federal level, which had the effect of obfuscating a widespread social problem of child molestation and more serious crimes. The person who created the thread was summarily accused of being racist, until someone posted national rape statistics in which it was stated that race had direct correlations with sexual abuse.

The lesson learned from this post for me, was that 90% of the posters were reacting to deep emotions about rape or sexual abuse for any number of reasons. Perhaps related to their own ethnicity. Some were deeply offended, writhing in denial for other reasons or just emotional dupes parroting the popular social culture that is (ostensibly) politically correct.

I can't prove it, but I get the impression that a good number of posters know nothing about the topics they weigh in on. Even 15 minutes on the web could help them review a topic that is well referenced.

You mentioned how they run in packs. That's true, but then so do those with open minds and some education. Why is it that the antagonists are better organized than the others? Why not gather your friends and form a committee to look at the negating patterns, then devise a simple plan to engage them in a way that puts them in the hot seat?

If someone is the antagonist, ask him to make his case and then you can also dispute his points and sources. If he refuses to make his case, he's invalidated on the spot and its time to move.

edit on 25-5-2014 by Gianfar because: grammar, arraingement

posted on May, 25 2014 @ 08:17 PM
edit on 25-5-2014 by Gianfar because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 27 2014 @ 10:17 AM
I've only seen one poster on ATS that I think was a shill, and that poster was banned.

There may be others, but I haven't spotted them. Mostly the people I see being called "shills" are those who support the mainstream view and cite mainstream type sources, and honestly they don't appear to be shills.

There are certain aspects of mainstream that have bias, and often it's in the form of big industry/big money lobbying groups that have financial incentive. Can we trust GE owned media to report the worst news about the Fukushima disaster when GE also owns a company trying to sell new nuclear reactors? I think it would be foolish to not note such a possible conflict of interest.

If someone cites such a possibly biased source, you'd be far better off pointing out the conflict of interest in their source, or whatever other problems you see with their information, then calling them a shill, which seems to be mostly a form of "name-calling" that is frowned on here. Make your argument based on evidence, not on calling names.

If you have no evidence for your idea, post in "The Grey Area" or "Skunk Works" forums, where no evidence is required, but otherwise, in other forums, refute the comments you disagree with using your evidence, not by calling the poster a "shill".

new topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in