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

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Tucket

Point taken. To be honest I dont pay much attention to shills or skeptics. Ive called out a shill in the chemtrail forum before as it gets pretty ridiculous in there.

I thought a "shill" was supposed to mean a paid disinfo agent, or something, not just somebody who doesn't believe in the crackpot theory du jour?

Personally I avoid the chemtrail forum altogether because, really, what is there to say about an imaginary topic? But if I voiced that opinion then no doubt I would be called a shill, rather than simply somebody who knows a bit about atmospheric physics and can spot a load of bull puckey when he sees it.

If I'm a shill, all I can say is that the pay is lousy.

Youve proven my point quite well about being open to possibilities and ignoring circumstancial evidence. Thanks.

And no I wouldnt call you a shill in the chemtrail forum unless maybe you posted 2 threads a week with the sole intent of stirring up argument and were constantly being arrogant, condescending etc.. But thats not like you, right?

Mod Note:

Let's just drop the personal attacks slant right now, OK?

Do not respond to this post

.....ohkay weird double post.

Who's the better disinfo agent? The poster who disbelieves an outlandish story, or the poster who professes to believe all sorts of crazy crap and who's outlandish opinions appear to be a discredit to others of similar opinions who don't believe every wild thing posted on the internet??

The gist of the OP is: If you don't believe everything posted in certain topics I like, then you're a shill and you should be kicked out.

Clearly this isn't conducive to discussion or a credit to any one view on any topic, whether fringe or mainstream.

a reply to: cestrup

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

If an idea cannot stand up to criticism, it cannot stand at all.

When writing a thread, quadruple check your facts, sources and your sources sources. Know your rhetoric, your fallacies and your logic, then critical discourse becomes easy and almost fun to deal with.

WikiLeaks and Snowden NSA documents both showed that paid shills and stooges are all over sites like these and it's a fact. It's only an argument, debate, and discussion because the same shills are debating with themselves about how they don't actually exist.

Of course, they will also deny that the government documents that came from the NSA leaks were even real.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If an idea cannot stand up to criticism, it cannot stand at all.

This appears to be the major problem to those who like to call others shills.... they know their claim cannot stand up to criticism, so they just claim anyone who does not agree with it, or points out how silly or invalid that claim actually is must be a shill.

originally posted by: Red Cloak
WikiLeaks and Snowden NSA documents both showed that paid shills and stooges are all over sites like these and it's a fact. It's only an argument, debate, and discussion because the same shills are debating with themselves about how they don't actually exist.

Of course, they will also deny that the government documents that came from the NSA leaks were even real.

There is a world of difference between government agents spreading political propaganda (which has gone on since long before the internet era) and somebody pointing out that a YouTube video shows an insect rather than a shape-shifting alien rod, or that Bart Sibrel is dumber than a big box of rocks.

I'm sure any government shills have much more important things to devote their time to than UFO videos on ATS

For anyone who may not be familiar with it, I'm just going to throw this out there...

Groupthink

It pretty much explains everything.

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

Would discussion be better if we all agreed?

Would discussion be better if no one argued?

Would discussion be better if we all saw things the same way?

Would discussion be better if we all had the same opinion?

Would discussion be better if we all believed in the same things?

Would discussion be better if we were all made out of the same mold?

No.

Just my opinion.

a reply to: Rob48

Rob, I appreciate your knowledge and insight into my questions. I am never upset about the way you conduct yourself. You're a bad ace in my book.

a reply to: crazyewok

I'm not asking everyone to believe but to not use tactics I've seen lately. If your opinion differs, great and I'd love to hear what you have to say without being told you're 100% right and I'm an idiot if I don't think so.

There are several places here on ATS that require no supporting evidence, or citing of sources. Skunk Works and Grey Area are great examples of forums like that.

If you post a highly speculative OP in those forums, and people show up demanding "proof", "Evidence" or even "Sources", you can basically tell them to get stuffed, as you're not required to in those areas.

Well don't tell them to get stuffed, but you can ignore them. If they pester you about it: hit the ALERT! button on them. That's what it's for.

That goes for anywhere on ATS, even the other forums where you are suppose to cite sources, or show your evidence. If someone is badgering you or other posters, ALERT it. If someone is insulting you: ALERT it. If someone is derailing a thread with off topic posts.....ALERT it.

The mods can not be everywhere all the time, and they depend on members alerting them to a possible problem.

Now understand, they may or may not agree with your complaint. There have been plenty of times I've alerted something, but no action was taken. However there have been plenty of other times that they did take action.

Realize also that sometimes it my take a little while for action to happen, depending on the time of day and what mods are online.

If you feel someone is a shill, then hit that alert button. But do not call them that. It is specifically against the TCs here on ATS to call someone a Shill, Disinfo Agent, etc. And I WILL alert the mods if I see someone do that (and they almost ALWAYS take action then).

So help the mods. If you see name calling going on, alert it. If you see insulting posts, or posts simply attacking you, alert it. A certain degree of manners is expected around here, and posts have been removed for bad manners.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: crazyewok

I'm not asking everyone to believe but to not use tactics I've seen lately. If your opinion differs, great and I'd love to hear what you have to say without being told you're 100% right and I'm an idiot if I don't think so.

If someone tells you that, they are ignorant and deserve no attention.

We all need to recognize that we are human, we make mistakes and that our biases can get in the way...so we are wrong from time to time.

If one's ego gets in the way of seeing that, pity them; don't try to debate with them.

ETA: If our opinion and facts counter your opinion......be open to that as well.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Well said

Would ATS be better without posters who scream 'Shill!' at the hint of an opinion that doesn't parrot their own?

If that's what you're asking, and I know it's not, then yes, ATS would be better without them.

originally posted by: Majic
For anyone who may not be familiar with it, I'm just going to throw this out there...

Groupthink

It pretty much explains everything.

Sounds like what I refer to as "of a kind"

originally posted by: Nyiah
No, I think that would take a good deal of viewpoints away from any given discussion. Monotonous conversation is a bore.

I do, however, think conversations would be a whole lot better without the willy-nilly use of the term "shill" to denote someone they don't like or disagree with. And stooping to calling people shills is highly frowned upon on ATS anyway.

In my mind a shill is someone with an agenda who is posting here for the express purpose to get their extreme right or left wing agenda across as well as to ( perhaps with lies) discredit those who seek truth.

This is a proper definition and it is not just silly hateful name calling, it's legitimate. I don't use the term nor do i know anyone else who uses the term to denote "someone I don't like or disagree with" - that's not a proper definition of the term. I think you may be confused.

What's a "shill type" poster?

Some one who dares to think critically in the face of "group think"? Or "group hysteria"?

Or just someone who has an opinion contrary to yours?

Better? Or achingly boring?

Don't know about you lot, but some of the best conversations I've ever had here on ATS were with people with whom I'll never agree.

How boring would it be if we all agreed?

The idea of payed shills being on here is somewhat of a joke.
It certainly ascribes a high level of narcissism to a lot of ATS members, they consider this site so important governments would pay people to create accounts and post ridiculous threads.

The way I and many others perceive the situation is that it appears many on here, are only interested in FACTS if those facts validate their already pre-existing thought paradigm. If you post sound data and a logical argument, being called a shill is a good sign, as it usually means you are making people question what they thought they knew (hence the responses calling the OP a "shill", when in reality all they have is a different opinion) which is the whole purpose of this site is it not?
I didn't think ATS was here to simply confirm the masses biases.

I do not doubt people are paid to troll on large websites and stir up certain issues, however this site simply does not have the audience to merit paying "shills" to comment on things, it's not worth the investment in terms of the return it will generate.