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

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix

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.

With respect, I think you're the one who's confused, John. I said the "willy-nilly use", meaning the usage that is more akin to a slang insult than a legitimate term. We see it all the time, people with a valid objection or point being made that is called a shill for no other reason beyond disagreeing with another poster. It's like calling someone a troll when they're clearly not trolling. Same idea of misuse.

welcome to
ATS
ish

yes
I am four pages into a thread and just now replying to the OP
thhhhhp

X

a reply to: Nyiah

Ah.. your right.. i got you.. i think we balanced each others points out if not for you but for others.. i see so many people misusing the term.

ATS is a discussion board, not an agreement board.

"Shill" is simply a pathetic attempt at a strawman slur that effectively means "does not agree with me".

I'm always amused when I see someone accused of being a shill as I generally find them to be members I respect. 'Well they always post in the same forum and disagree!', yeah maybe they're interested in the subject just like you but have a different viewpoint.

Some ATS members take themselves way too seriously. The whole disagreement with me means you're either stupid or have an agenda thing is much more prevalent here than it should be.

The one I really hate is 'This is a conspiracy site, what are you doing here if you don't believe everything you read?' The debunkers and skeptics keep this place honest, and it's service you should all thank them for. Groupthink was linked up thread and it's a huge problem on this site. If everyone just agreed all the time you wouldn't learn anything, and the lemmings that think everyone is a shill would be worse than they are now, which would further poison the site until any wild ass claim would be accepted as fact.

There's a member here that chaps my ass fairly often, but I hold her in very high regard. We very rarely agree on anything but she was able to change my viewpoint on something and always makes her case extremely well and in a polite manner. If I ran around thinking she was a shill for the 'Liberals' or what have you I wouldn't have learned anything, wouldn't have challenged my own belief system and continued on with my blissful ignorance thinking I was right because anyone who dared to disagree with me only did so out of stupidity or because of an agenda.

Obvious instances are dealt with appropriately by staff. We've all seen it happen. Less obvious instances we have to give people the benefit of the doubt. It's either that or no one should post.

originally posted by: rusblued9217
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.

That's the point I was trying to make above. Governments have bigger fish to fry than arguing with people over fairy tales. When documents talk about online activities they mean spreading rumour and propaganda about real-life issues: discrediting a politician, maybe, or starting rumours about wartime atrocities. That is just a modern day extension of propaganda that we saw during the world wars and earlier.

It doesn't mean that government spooks are poring over this message board saying things like "Oh no — ATS are onto the chemtrail thing!" or "This guy's got YouTube video of our secret moon base — quick, DENY!!" or "What can we do? They've spotted the million-mile long alien craft hiding behind the sun?"

That is, as you say, narcissism: people trying to give barmpot ideas credibility by claiming that the government are trying to silence them.

I probably wasn't concise enough in my OP. For that, I'm sorry for the confusion. I don't mean to say that anyone who doesn't share the opinion of the OP and only brings official narrative to the discussion is a "shill". Heck, maybe shill isn't even the right descriptor. It seems that a team of folks all gang up on certain threads and run it straight into the ground. Provoking the OP and others in agreement into derailing off the topic, often resulting in personal attacks or questioning someone's intelligence. They almost ALWAYS side with the official narrative and criticize anyone who does not.

You know what? I'll start a thread sometime soon and see if I can highlight these exact actions. Hopefully, this time I won't let them destroy the thread.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, we need skeptics - we do not need threads to be derailed and for cripes sake - realize that everyone can be wrong. There isn't one person on here that has all the answers and these situations are never black and white/simple. Discussion is key - and maybe sometimes it's easier to see things by not giving yourself a label like, "skeptic" or "conspiracy theorist" and looking at a thread from a mile up. For me, I can see who these people are in every thread. Unaccepting of your side and constantly either berating you for thinking a certain way or nitpicking every sentence looking for someting to sway the discussion. Of course, this is my perception which will surely differ from others...

This is why I am an agnostic, it's not just a religious view. I take the critical view on anything I read and discuss. By the way, just because someone is mean or antagonistic, doesn't make them a shill. They are just humans with an opinion, and humans can get pretty defensive over their opinions. I'd be willing to bet if I were to show you a discussion among ten different people where I tell you that ONE is a guaranteed shill (government paid disinfo agent), you wouldn't be able to pick him out. I'd go on a limb here and say that the ones you should worry about are don't always take the same stance on issues. Sometimes they are skeptical, sometimes they are accepting of your story (because they know its bs). It's probably a HUGE misconception to assume that all shills are antagonistic.

originally posted by: Tucket

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Then they get angry and demand to know why I am even on these forums if I can't accept these crazy ideas as true with the little proof they have.

What surprises me about the skeptic is that usually they cant even be open to the slightest possibility that a crazy idea might actually exist.
....No verifiable evidence or mainstream scientific backing??? ...Then get the heck outta here.
I think its unfortunate that circumstancial evidence means nothing to them.

Circumstantial evidence doesn't mean nothing to us. It just ranks rather low on our hierarchy of acceptable evidence. If you can back your circumstantial evidence up with some physical evidence then it helps out your case better. But if you are just going off of what you saw in some dark woods somewhere with no photographic evidence or other witnesses, then yes it is going to be rather dubious to us.

Another misconception that you made is the reasoning that we AREN'T open to crazy ideas being true. That couldn't be further from the truth. I would like it VERY much if it turned out aliens visit this planet, ghosts are true, atlantis is real, and other big name conspiracies as well, HOWEVER without the evidence to support these claims, I cannot say with certainty that they are in fact true. It is intellectual dishonesty.

But lets not get skeptic and shill mixed up here. I appreciate the skeptics. Shills disgust me but they are good for a laugh as they are quite easy to spot imo.

Like I told another poster, I imagine that the REAL shills are rather hard to spot. You are probably just spotting idiots, they ARE easy to spot since they give themselves up all the time with their words.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'd be willing to bet if I were to show you a discussion among ten different people where I tell you that ONE is a guaranteed shill (government paid disinfo agent), you wouldn't be able to pick him out.

You're on

a reply to: cestrup

Heh. Now I gotta find one... I'm pretty sure I'd lose that bet if I were in your shoes as well.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I'd be willing to bet if I were to show you a discussion among ten different people where I tell you that ONE is a guaranteed shill (government paid disinfo agent), you wouldn't be able to pick him out.

So you have a confirmed shill pre picked out of 10 posters and it's up to us to point him/her out? Sounds interesting, can I join in?

here's a list of probable and possible "shills"....especially interesting is definition number #8....I cracked up at that one.
www.urbandictionary.com...

originally posted by: jimmyx
here's a list of probable and possible "shills"....especially interesting is definition number #8....I cracked up at that one.
www.urbandictionary.com...

HA!

That is good! So according to #8, EVERYONE on ATS is a shill! hehehehehehehehe

a reply to: eriktheawful

And #9 every ATSer is awesome



10s even better



Just read more of the definitions, there are definitely some shills on this site, some of those definitions are killer

originally posted by: neformore
ATS is a discussion board, not an agreement board. "Shill" is simply a pathetic attempt at a strawman slur that effectively means "does not agree with me".

^^ Yeah .. that. One persons alleged 'shill' is another persons 'brilliant poster'.
Authentic shills - gov't paid or politician paid posters - are rare and far between.

Everyone is entitled to expression. A good shill will also force you to do some decent research for YOURSELF as you try desperately to argue a good case against them. As will a member with an opposing view and a good argument technique.

I have learned a lot from shills and opposing views alike.

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has them and they usually stink.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Authentic shills - gov't paid or politician paid posters - are rare and far between.

I really wouldnt be so sure of that, social media has become a cornerstone of modern society, to be able to manipulate it is just common sense for a "social darwinist".

Facebook/Google isnt controlled by the CIA for nothing.

Going to add some more here.

ATS does not, in any way, shape or form, allow witch hunts.

Anyone singling out particular members and attacking them will find themselves on the receiving end of a posting ban.

If people don't have the power of their own convictions to back up arguments with sense, facts and reasoned debate and feel the need to resort to childish schoolyard name calling and attacking people because they may disagree with them, then ATS may not be the place to be.

originally posted by: Rob48
[
This is the crux of it. A skeptic (not a shill) considers the evidence and decides what is most plausible.

Perhaps that's the way it should be - but that's not how it works here - if you provide evidence counter to someone's pet conspiracy you are a shill. If you ask for evidence you are a shill. If you point out that someone is making assertions without any actual basis you are a shill.