The Two Most Powerful Disinfo Tactics Used on ATS

reply to post by TheBigO


Not even close. Maybe on ATS it is, but I don't even see that many comments using the word "troll" on here. Troll is used normally for people who make racist, anti-logical, offensive, and other negative comments; particularly on YT. For example I just watched a video about Nigerian woman, and some guy was making comments about how all Africans are disgusting apes, and parasites who feed off white peoples wealth. He is a TROLL. Someone who is baiting others into replying to his comment. It has NOTHING to do with replacing the word "newb". Terrible comparison in that regard.

Be careful the thread might get 404'd. The true trolls are the *alert the mod* crowd if they disagree, who have the mentality that anything they dislike needs to be shut up, shut down, silenced, and taboo. Seems like tyranny to me.

Quite simply put, there are many types and levels of trolling. A troll typically posts inflammatory, off-topic, nonsensical, or baiting statements, not necessarily ad-hom attacks.

ATS even has a warning flag entitled Political Trollling for that particular type. But as someone said, trolling has been covered ad naus n ATS...not that reminders aren't good every once in a while.

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.

So basically, your point is that any conspiracy---no matter how incredibly idiotic and heinous it sounds---must be greeted with open arms; otherwise it's a false argument i.e "ad hominem" or "straw man" logic. Sometimes, disregarding a conspiracy or claim is perfectly justifiable by nothing more than brushing it to the side. If somebody makes a conspiracy about the reason there's 504 cornflakes in some boxes as opposed to 505, then I wouldn't have a problem using either of the two "logical fallacies" you've mentioned lol.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Quite simply put, there are many types and levels of trolling. A troll typically posts inflammatory, off-topic, nonsensical, or baiting statements, not necessarily ad-hom attacks.

ATS even has a warning flag entitled Political Trollling for that particular type. But as someone said, trolling has been covered ad naus n ATS...not that reminders aren't good every once in a while.

I never said trolls post ad hominem attacks.

I said calling someone a troll is ad hominem.

You need a compelling argument to prove someone is something.
Just calling them that doesn't make it so.

I can call anyone anything! Does that mean I win? NO. It means I'd LOSE for sure!

Neither of those are "dis-info" tactics.


Now "mis-info"...sure...but we don't get paid as well for "mis-info" as we do for "dis-info"...it's just too easy

Originally posted by muzzleflash
It's a straw man replacing my argument with a false and illogical argument that I did not state.

Your argument is only straw to begin with.

Let's take a look see shall we (cue music!)

Originally posted by muzzleflash
They actually have lists that they follow and use various tactics in order of effectiveness and will just go to another tactic if the first few fail.

Provide one of these lists.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
"You are Trolling!"

This almost always works at making people think the OP is just "trolling"

Conjecture - you have no way of knowing what other people think of that term (as has been proved in this thread alone by other people's replies.

Originally posted by muzzleflash.
If there isn't a conspiracy in everything, that means there are no conspiracies at all.

Black and white thinking. Closed minded as hell. If X then Y. Is there a conspiracy in one particular grain of sand on a beach somewhere?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
By making little 1 line ignorant statements like this you defeat nothing except your own potential to think.

"You need to read." firstly is one line, two is obviously incorrect as I'm responding to it and three jsut shows your need to be right on trumped up idiotic insults.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Many people among us are using it completely unintentionally due to habit and social norms, but once they realize the error of their ways this practice may hopefully come to a cease.

Again, where is this proof? How many? What are their demographics? Have you tested this on multiple occasions?

Science doesn't pander to the whims of some egomaniac (that's you by the way) just because they claim something. Prove it. Show one piece of evidence for anything you stated inn your OP.

I think you just hate losing debates and rather than learn from them you stamp your feet and hope mommy will come and make it all better. I could be wrong though.

-m0r

Originally posted by Raelsatu
So basically, your point is that any conspiracy---no matter how incredibly idiotic and heinous it sounds---must be greeted with open arms; otherwise it's a false argument i.e "ad hominem" or "straw man" logic. Sometimes, disregarding a conspiracy or claim is perfectly justifiable by nothing more than brushing it to the side. If somebody makes a conspiracy about the reason there's 504 cornflakes in some boxes as opposed to 505, then I wouldn't have a problem using either of the two "logical fallacies" you've mentioned lol.

Nope. You are making another Straw man here.

You need to judge each claim individually and investigate it yourself, that's common sense.

If you are aware of what a logical fallacy is, and why it's silly to employ them in your thinking, than you should be able to easily understand the point I am trying to make.

A conspiracy about the # of cornflakes is irrational, and easily debated with simple arguments of logic. You have no excuse to stoop to the low gutter of ad hominem attacks to win these things. It is a hollow and shallow triumph, meaningless...a Pyrrhic Victory.

You can easily show the cornflake mathematician the error of his obsessive compulsive ways, and we can direct him to some places to get the help he needs. Calling him or her names will only make the situation worse, and is not good for anyone.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Neither of those are "dis-info" tactics.


Now "mis-info"...sure...but we don't get paid as well for "mis-info" as we do for "dis-info"...it's just too easy

It's "mis"-information when normal people do it. Because it's a "mis"-take.

It becomes disinformation and deflection when someone with a ulterior / possibly sinister agenda does it secretly, especially when coordinated with a pack of collaborators who are organisational and strategic each step of the way.

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Science doesn't pander to the whims of some egomaniac (that's you by the way) just because they claim something. Prove it. Show one piece of evidence for anything you stated inn your OP.

I think you just hate losing debates and rather than learn from them you stamp your feet and hope mommy will come and make it all better. I could be wrong though.

-m0r

I bolded the most important part of your post. It shows that you didn't read the link on what Ad Hominem is.

You cannot win a debate by using that.

It's all about "ME" the poster. And pretty much ignoring the link that explains what Ad Hominem actually is.

reply to post by muzzleflash


You know, I don't disagree with that post very much but maybe it's more the fact the term is used to often. Just search 'disinfo' and you will see even the mods are ranting about the warning signs etc. IMHO apart from certain rare circumstances, disinfo is not an issue. You even said 95% of the time it isn't, certainly those calling out the trolls and the ones that don't see a conspiracy are not disinfo. Even those that don't realise they are doing it are not disinfo(OK I know, everyone has a different idea of it, for some they are). But it seems to me the term is mainly used by people who have nothing, they can't prove a thing and are going by a feeling. Not saying you are as I'm not familiar with your work, but I swear some people wouldn't know disinfo if it bit the on them butt.

Look I know the site needs to keep a mystique and sense of being an alternative to everything else but, people need to get a grip. Sure there are people that probably are paid to do what ever it is they are paid for, but I doubt it is to call a troll a troll.

reply to post by muzzleflash


There isn't a conspiracy in everything.

It's not disinformation. It's the truth.

If you spend every waking moment thinking of conspiracies for everything in your life, you have issues. Period.

Mentioning
black helicopters, tinfoil hats, take your meds , seek help, dont drink the bong water, back away from the crack pipe, I was on a ufo and sat between Elvis and Bigfoot are ways they try to derail what you say regarding conspiracies.

Eventually they will be able to merge dangerous people like the Arizona shooter with conspiracy theorists.
Its just a matter of time.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

There isn't a conspiracy in everything.

It's not disinformation. It's the truth.

If you spend every waking moment thinking of conspiracies for everything in your life, you have issues. Period.

What is a "conspiracy"?

Its just when 2 or more people get together and PLAN something secretly.

Bank robberies are usually conspiracies between crooks. The list is endless.

If you think there isn't a conspiracy anywhere at all, you are just as ill informed as the guy who thinks his 504 cornflakes are conspiring against him.

Reality is a nice balance, a mix. Half the time conspiracies turn out true, half the time it turns out false. That's the life of a detective, you have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I bolded the most important part of your post. It shows that you didn't read the link on what Ad Hominem is.

I've kept it bold and put the rest into the context in which is was originally written by me, thanks for rearranging it though sweetie.

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Many people among us are using it completely unintentionally due to habit and social norms, but once they realize the error of their ways this practice may hopefully come to a cease.

Again, where is this proof? How many? What are their demographics? Have you tested this on multiple occasions?

Science doesn't pander to the whims of some egomaniac (that's you by the way) just because they claim something. Prove it. Show one piece of evidence for anything you stated inn your OP

So we have you stating that many people are using it completely unintentionally due to habit and social norms...right....any proof for that??...but once they realise the error of their ways....so you are right and they are wrong (albeit unknowingly wrong)...this practice may hopefully come to a cease (you wish to eliminate people's habits and social norms??).

You can call this Ad Hominem all you like. If the shoe fits...

-m0r

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Fine believe in your Ad Hominem viewpoints. You have a right to think incorrectly. That's fine.

Got to love the irony with this statement.

"People always use ad hominem attacks! They think incorrectly!"

Hmm, pot - kettle - black?

Just because people disagree with you, MF, that does not make them wrong nor does it make you right. This is a discussion board where all viewpoints are welcome, within the T&C's of course. If you don't like people challenging your idea's, theories or viewpoints, might I suggest you simply not post them? If you cannot handle criticism, debate and countrary idea's, this is not the place for you.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I didn't say there weren't conspiracies. I said that not everything in life involves a conspiracy!

Work on that reading comprehension.

Though by your definition, your birth was a conspiracy since both of your parents conspired to conceive you.

Originally posted by m0r1arty


So we have you stating that many people are using it completely unintentionally due to habit and social norms...right....any proof for that??

You are not dignifying this debate very much sir/ma'am.

Let's see, what can I use as proof of "people unintentionally saying "troll" due to habit", may I present as evidence every video chat page on YouTube for your review?

It it crawling with evidence that it is a social norm to use this derogatory terminology.

Troll is just another name to call people you don't like.
No different than a cuss word...

It is a clear cut case of unintentional ad hominem.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

I didn't say there weren't conspiracies. I said that not everything in life involves a conspiracy!

Work on that reading comprehension.

Though by your definition, your birth was a conspiracy since both of your parents conspired to conceive you.

Well no it wasn't secret they told other people I was going to be born.

Also generally conspiracy refers to some type of criminal actions. Usually mafia or cartel related organized crime.