Originally posted by pazcat
The term 'Disinfo' gets used far too much around here, seemingingly because people just share a different point of view than someone else. The way I
see it this site brings in all types, there certainly are those who come here just to play games and it really does need to be nipped in the butt,
although you can never be sure a persons true motives. But I guess it all depends on what your take on what 'disinfo' is to begin with and again
each person is different so is it really fair to put that label out there on people.
Yes, Calling people "disinfo" is a old tactic as well, it's Ad Hominem.
Generally 95% of the posters are just people with their own ideas.
But during certain events we always get influxes of many people from various organizations with a stake in the way the debate goes, and they will
sneak in and try to leverage their agenda without being noticed.
For example during election season, we will have Dems and Republicans who actually are hard core and are actually big time at other websites who will
come in packs and try to generate specific discussions and tilt the playing field in the favor of their favorite candidates. These are not super
secret agents, they are just political hacks partaking in a disinformation campaign. EVEN THOUGH they personally believe in everything they say, they
may be unaware that they are actually doing these things immorally.
Often times many "shills" have vested economic interests in a topic, such as McDonalds and the controversy surrounding them all the time (meanwhile
the rest of the fastfood world slips by unnoticed). In many cases what we are looking at is just some guy who works for McDonalds, like a manager, or
franchisee, and they honestly believe their product is good and will ignore any damning facts to continue debating their stance.
Most of this is innocuous and NOT sinister at it's roots. Only partially and it's debatable. Most don't realize they are even doing it.
However, there ARE a few people out there with sinister goals.
Like when the whole China oppressing Tibet issue happened. There were clearly massive amounts of people going around saying that China WAS NOT
oppressing them, and that they were putting down a violent bloodthirsty revolt that the murderous evil Tibetans were causing.
That was pretty sinister, I gotta admit.
I agree calling someone specifically a "Disinfo Agent" or "Shill" to "win the argument" is an Ad Hominem attack and fails 100%. Those claims
have to be proven with evidence and still do not prove the argument itself wrong.
All debates should be won purely on the grounds of a compelling argument. Not on who name calls the most.