Shill, disinfo agent or bad arguer?

I found this the other day, and it is dead on. Over one hundred years ago, Arthur Schopenhauer outlined the ways in which a person could "win" an argument through any means necessary. Of course. by "win", he meant "shut the other person up." That's what seems to pass for debate in some circles. Silence the accuser or whistleblower, not with facts, but with obfuscation.

I've seen the accusation often-you're a shill, disinfo agent, etc. It's used to say, "How dare you inject facts or valid questioning into my paranoid fantasy?" On the other hand, the accusation of "You call everyone who disagrees with you a shill" is becoming way overused as well. Sometimes a spade is a spade. Spooks do lurk here, and the people hired to promote an agenda.

I don't know if ____ (enter ATS member's name here) is a shill, maybe they're just trying to deny ignorance. But when they use the tactics in this list over and over again, you have to wonder about them. If they're not getting paid, why are they doing it? What kind of person logs on to ATS many, many times to debunk/explain something out of the ordinary, for free, and uses poor arguments to do it? Not someone who is right or enjoys honest debate or pursuit of the truth.

If you like to win arguments with facts, this is not about you, so relax. But keep this list handy. I plan to, not just to watch out for these tactics being used by others, but to police myself as well.

Technically speaking anyone who disagrees with you, you can label them as disinfo agent. We are all potentially disinfo agents because we dont always agree with eachother. If there are any paid disinfo agents on here im only angry cause im not one of them.

reply to post by Snsoc

I don't know if ____ (enter ATS member's name here) is a shill, maybe they're just trying to deny ignorance. But when they use the tactics in this list over and over again, you have to wonder about them. If they're not getting paid, why are they doing it? What kind of person logs on to ATS many, many times to debunk/explain something out of the ordinary, for free, and uses poor arguments to do it? Not someone who is right or enjoys honest debate or pursuit of the truth.

What's your point?

You can counter your argument by asking "what kind of person logs on to ATS to make ridiculous claims many times for free?"

I love a good conspiracy theory.....but it has to be good! if not I will attempt to debunk/explain it......and I will do this for free!......and I'll do it all day long!


Does this make me a shill?.......if it does.....where do I get paid?

reply to post by Snsoc


Explanation: S&F!

Mostly I find that it is wrong forum placement or completely misunderstanding how a specific forum limits the discussions that can take place within them.

Example ... NEVER bring any facts to a religious forum as it is based only on beliefs and facts do not count whatsoever in there.

Conversely ... NEVER bring any beliefs to a facts based forum as the facts trump any argument however logical they may be.

Personal Disclosure: And IMO ^^^ that explains most of the aweful, useless and derailing replies on ATS.

However are there shills and trolls on ATS ... ABSOLUTELY YES THERE ARE!

But IMO they are in the extreme minority and stupidity tends to reign supreme!

reply to post by Argyll


No, I'm not saying you are a shill. I said a person who repeatedly posts and uses poor arguments was suspect. If you use facts, relax. it's not about you.

reply to post by Snsoc

Thanks for this list and I've seen them all used here several times over, but number 38 is the worst.

A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect.

I created a thread about this in regards to a specific type of attack and called it out as bullying. I was surprised to see it got 404ed pretty quick. Those of you who saw and participated in this thread know what I'm talking about.

reply to post by Snsoc

No, I'm not saying you are a shill. I said a person who repeatedly posts and uses poor arguments was suspect. If you use facts, relax. it's not about you.

Why would anyone pay a poor poster to post?

Surely you'd have to be good to be a shill?

As someone called out as a shill, disinfo agent, or whatever fairly often I think your list is interesting.
I see many of the same ploys used by conspiracy theorists. Especially the last. When someone decides to NOT continue the debate because of the false belief that the "opponent" is a shill/troll/disinfo agent, they are making it personal.
Sheer tenacity and passion will keep people on a topic they have interest in. Having an opposing view is not a sign of anything other than having an opposing view.

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by Snsoc

 

No, I'm not saying you are a shill. I said a person who repeatedly posts and uses poor arguments was suspect. If you use facts, relax. it's not about you.

Why would anyone pay a poor poster to post?

Surely you'd have to be good to be a shill?

Well, they are pretending to be a poor poster, perhaps. I use "poor" in the sense of "not actually disproving the point they are arguing against." The ultimate goal is to derail the thread with arguments that are spurious-people get tired of arguing with someone they feel is crazy or stupid, and everyone else gets bored reading it.

Given the body of proof available on the public record, it is a foregone conclusion that there are paid posters online. Whether or not they come to ATS in that form - as opposed to spammers who do pop-in from time to time and are usually banned quite rapidly - is an irrelevant question IMO.

If one has a sound argument then it doesn't matter if that argument is being rebutted by an amateur or a professional. The best a "shill" can hope to do is to excite emotions. They cannot functionally alter fact. Thus the best way to proceed is to ignore the option altogether. Argue the facts and the facts alone and nobody can pull you off track.

As for those who throw out the accusation? I'd offer that they're either incapable of structured debate - or they are naturally sore losers.

reply to post by Hefficide


Unfortunately, emotion guides far too many debates on the internet, which is why I like coming here.

People see events through their personal bias, a belief system that supports thier emotional needs. Can't have a discussion with said people, because you run into the defense system that's protecting some emotional issue.

Some of the tactics on this list do use facts, but in a way that bends or reframes them to distort the truth.

By thier very secretive nature, conspiracies are difficult to reconcile with available information-thus, the skeptic has an advantage every time.

reply to post by Snsoc


All you have to do is label your opponent "the enemy" or "the other"and you have shut out any sort of debate. It's a tactic. Go to any political discussion board, you will see this employed in almost every thread.