Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

There Is A War For Your Mind

page: 7
58
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


For those that were under the employ of a wealthy individual, I think that content detection just wouldn't be possible as they really are there for their own personal purpose and sometimes it's simply to read and summarize content for their employer and they just happen to get compelled to post from time to time. The one experience that I had with a highly probable government "shill" (used proxy ips til a late night slip up and that ip went to Langley) was definitely content related. He mostly centered on two subjects--global warming and 9/11--and his opinions were thoroughly in line with the Bush Administration. In fact, sometimes it seemed like he could've been Bush's script writer--it was that intense. He'd use the same verbage, sayings, repeated without attribution and slipped into his posts in such a manner to emphasize particular ideas. Doing a content analysis on his posts, he was definitely using a formalized persuasive writing style. Furthermore, he would outright dominate any thread that started up on either subject to the point where at least 50% or more of the posts on that thread would be by him. He hit them hard.

It was all of these things that the site administrators and moderation team of that particular site noted that got us looking at him in the first place. So, content can definitely indicate but, like I said, unless you've got an ip slip up, you really don't know if what you're dealing with is an indoctrinated gifted writer or a shill. Hence why I always say that if one encounters such an individual, it's better to just beat them at the debate itself. Goes a heck of a lot further than just saying "you're a shill".




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 



I always say that if one encounters such an individual, it's better to just beat them at the debate itself. Goes a heck of a lot further than just saying "you're a shill".

Agreed. Calling people shills is not only insulting, it is an admission that one has run out of meaningful arguments to support one's case and has already lost the argument.

By the way, for the enlightenment of those who require it, calling somebody a shill is the most perfect possible example of an ad hominem argument. The OP is just one big ad hominem rant against people who disagree with Veritas Aequitas.

edit on 30/12/13 by Astyanax because: I have to earn my shillions.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Thread of the century.

Boards are like this; you'll never know who's who. A perfect place to induce paranoia, but I guess it has thought us a lot, like how easy it is for someone to derail threads and cause general havoc.

I was a very active member of a certain occult board discussing a wide variety of topics, that place (like ATS) was an illumination for all of us. First my (and some other peoples) username got faked and hijacked, I got harassed by several new "members" and finally the board was hacked and got shut down. The attack was very sudden and surprising, it happened when we started to approach some VERY out-there topics.

After that, nothing on discussion boards and chats has really shocked me that much. You really learn to identify these people, and for some reason, especially esoteric subjects and things dealing with truth, unity and love tend to rub these people the wrong way.

Was it a very organized attack? I don't think so, just a bunch of sad individuals. But does that really matter? That would be the case anyway.

We'll have to get back there. Much love peeps.
edit on 30/12/2013 by Tryptych because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Veritas Aequitas

This will be my last post on your thread.

Those who feel I have hijacked or dominated the proceedings should note that, with the exception of my first (two-line) post and one short reply each to HanoiLullaby and 3n19m470, every one of my posts has been a reply to someone who addressed me directly. And to repeat what was earlier said, I have neither dragged the thread off topic nor used it to present any arguments or theories of my own.

I propose now to break that self-imposed rule, and present here what I believe is the true origin of the perceptions and opinions you expressed in your opening post — opinions with which so many contributors to this thread have hastened to agree.

It is to be found in the following lines from the OP:


One sub-group is the highly intelligent and creative members here who tend to see the world through a kind of supernatural eyeglass, and understand it for what it really is. These members tend to have interests spread out over a broad spectrum, and usually have many thought-provoking ideas.

I would hazard a guess that you regard yourself as a member of this 'sub-group'. Your posting history — astrology, chakra healing, third eyes, the Kabbalah, remote viewing, precognition, etc. — certainly suggests that you are. And this, I think, is the root of the problem: your 'supernatural eyeglass'.

Supernatural eyeglasses distort reality. They make you see things that aren't there. They make you believe in things that don't exist. Things, moreover, that are usually quite easy to disprove.

When you express these false, superstitious beliefs on an internet forum like ATS, many of those who look at the world without distorting eyeglasses and who dislike superstition for its pernicious effect upon people's minds and morals will hasten to prove you wrong. And since their arguments are supported by solid, verifiable evidence and yours are not, you will, alas, be defeated in argument time after time.

Eventually, sick of being forever trounced and debunked, you react by accusing those who have prevailed against you in fair debate of being shills, disinfo agents, Slaves of the Machine and what not. The classic ad hominem comeback.

Of course, the people you hit out against are not the real propagandists and provocateurs — the ones whose modus operandi, as persuasively described above by AliceBleachWhite, entirely differs from your caricature; your quarrel is with ordinary members who are skilled in argument and have no time for superstitious nonsense. It is they, not some putative disinfo agent, who oblige you to face, time and time again, the uncomfortable, desolating evidence that much of what you believe is false.

You have my sympathies. No, I honestly mean it; I'd hate to be in such a desperate position as you. Although I do not care for your ATS persona, I am willing to believe that, in the flesh, you are probably a very different (and much nicer) person.

Perhaps a change of eyeglasses is indicated? it may bring better results in real life, as well as on the internet.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Well stated, and this could be a description of many posts here. Some posters, obviously intelligent, get to the 90 yard line and throw the ball away with a bible quote or some reference to the supernatural. Why come to a conspiracy board, only to wrap an opinion with a dogma-tainted ribbon? I would say there are boards where like-minded theists and/or self-appointed spiritually enlightened beings can all drink the same water, and not get bogged down with annoying details like critical thinking and the natural world. The natural world is far more interesting than the supernatural, and there's not enough time to study it.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I agree with both your response to me and much of your final post. Additionally, I agree that you have been responding to people directly addressing you and that is the reason why you are dominating this thread, nor have you attempted to derail it as your posts have been on subject.

To Veritas Aequitas, I do understand that we all may have different experiences in life. I've mentioned a few times here on ATS that I have electrical abnormalities and those that believe me do so in good faith as I am unable to proffer any direct evidence without impinging on my privacy. I value my privacy/identity infinitely more. I've actually been accused of being a NSA agent in the past on another board coupled with the accuser attempting to identify me personally along with attempting to find out where I live and I'm pretty darn sure the guy was mentally imbalanced. He was inviting others to "take me out" (the post was removed by moderators). Do you have any idea how scary that is?

Because I know that others' experiences in life may lead them to differing beliefs, I don't fault those who may not believe me because I proffer no evidence beyond my word. That does not make those people to be shills or disinfo agents. Their life experience has simply been different from mine and I readily comprehend that difference. When one has an experience or belief that is counter to the norm, then one should readily expect to be argued with as the norm is, well, the norm. That's just how it is and the subjects that you're interested in are going to get hit with that.

Heck, I don't put any stock in astrology and have concerns about the pushing of ideas such as chakras, the third eye, and kabbalah for my own reasons. Remote viewing and precognition? I'll acknowledge that our government had an interest in such things so I find those two subjects interesting. My overall frame is more scientific, however, as one of my degrees is in biology after all. I've even argued with somebody that believed me when I mentioned my own little oddity because they were perceiving it through a spiritual lens and not a scientific one, lol. We all frame things based on our experience and body of knowledge and those frames can be different. That's my default view and I steadfastly maintain that view to avoid sinking into ad hominems because those prove nothing.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


I wouldn't trust Buddha. I once realized that most of his religion can be best served if you lost self-awareness. This is not exactly pro-human

It's even worse when you realize he founded it only a few decades after the 2nd temple period began. He was likely responding to this strange religion coming from the west, as Persia linked trade routes. It's why he used a lot of light imagery.

He's just anti-human, anti-common sense, and from what I could tell, rejected what I believed as truth.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I know social networks are a bad idea but I do use them but it is interesting now a lot of people are on facebook, the more comfortable people get, the more they show their true colours.

On here we are mainly anonymous to each other and if someone was to say something obviously racist full of ignorance they will either be punished or have explained thoroughly why they are so wrong but on facebook sometimes the less of a response can be more telling,it also does ''out'' a lot of bigots.

I see a lot of people in a different light since facebook grew even people in my own family.

Furthermore add in a picture of a soldier and some random message next to it and watch the hive mind explode.
It may be a public government experiment but its free for all to see.

The speed a message can be picked up by millions is now at hyper speed, add in a dose of witch hunting/pitchforkers and things can go ugly quick, safe to say when it does go ugly it will probably be aimed at the wrong people.

edit on 31pm55pmWed, 01 Jan 2014 17:34:31 -060031 by Taggart because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I do not agree with you; at all...



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


firstlook.org...

Happy now? I told you guys that this was going on, that there is a mental, spiritual, and emotional war being fought at this time, and all you guys did was follow your orders to the letter...






top topics



 
58
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join