There Is A War For Your Mind

reply to post by Dark Ghost

It's not as though these types of people have a large "spy" symbol in their member name or avatar; it is more to do with recognising a pattern in the way they argue, detract from a topic, or attack the messenger. Those that are skilled at their task are subtle, cunning and deceptive. It is not an easy task to prove that their motives for posting on ATS are counter-productive to the site's motto of denying ignorance.

So you only suspect that there may be paid spies, disinformation agents and the like posting here. Can you give some examples (made-up ones will do) of the kind of posting that leads you to suspect the author is being paid to post on ATS?

*

reply to post by 3n19m470

A lot of them make it clear with their very first post in a thread whether or not they can be reasoned with or whether or not they are poking at you just for fun.

So: you think it's easy to identify the bad guys, while Dark Ghost thinks it's hard to be sure. Can you give some examples (made-up ones will do) that will help the rest of us identify and ignore these paid posters?

*

reply to post by menneni

It is crystal-clear to me, that SO has no options to defend ATS from alleged spies. For instance, if i were a spy, there would be no way for this site to restrict my access here.

Crystal clear? Good, then it should be easy to explain. So tell us why it's 'crystal-clear' to you that he can't simply ban these people. This is a private forum in which only members can post, and that too only after having been members for a while. Why can't the bad guys for hire be banned along with the freelance trolls and other traducers of the T&C? Will The Above Network receive a threatening visit from the Men In Black?

And if you were just rolling with-a-T, be ashamed.

I am asking questions, that's all. Isn't that what independent-minded folk who don't believe the official story are supposed to do? Not take anything for granted? That is exactly what I'm doing here. Sorry if it upsets you.

*

reply to post by NewAgeMan

S.O. has acknowledged that they're here (shills)

Can you provide the reference? As I recall he said simply that there were political lobbyists operating on ATS. What he objected to was threads being spammed with posts touting the same political position, not the opinions being expressed.

I'm sure there are many who are committed to various causes who post here in an attempt to influence other people's views. And that is just as it should be; forums exist for people to consider and debate different viewpoints on a subject.

If that is all the thread is about, it's a non-issue. Discussing it would be utterly pointless. But the OP has a much more sinister take on things:

When you begin to look at the big picture, you start to see that there is indeed a war on for our minds, to control the information that we believe and give power to... There is a concert effort to draw people away from 'conspiracy theorizing' and is done by a deliberate disinfo campaign, demonization, and ridicule. Free-thinking is discouraged by labeling those who think outside the box with 'fringe'-like labels such as 'birthers', 'hoaxers', conspiracy nuts, new-age mumbo jumbo, and even accuse members of deliberately lying to others in order to get e-fame. In a world where the final stage for the battle of Good (Knowledge) and Evil (Ignorance) is being created, one begins to see that we are coming of our last days. It's as if there is a tug of war going on for the physical, emotional, and spiritual state of mankind between those who promote evil, selfishness, and greed; to good, love, unity, and compassion.

If all you and the OP are talking about is a few people who disagree with you, often in strong language, what is this thread but a four-page whine by a bunch of oversensitive, slightly paranoid souls?

Surely you can come up with more of a conspiracy than that?

*

Anyway, none of this answers my original question.

Should there be censorship on ATS?

It seems to me that censorship is what the OP and those who fear the activities of provocateurs, disinformationists and shills want. If it isn't, what do they want? Can somebody tell me?

reply to post by Astyanax


Do you honestly even care or are you just here to stir the pot?

War on Consciousness - Graham Hancock - Ted Talk

reply to post by Astyanax

...what is this thread but a four-page whine by a bunch of oversensitive, slightly paranoid souls?

Here, have one of these on me...

Your welcome.

reply to post by Astyanax


This is what a shill looks like...

"Nobody is suppressing anything from the people!"

"Oh really? *points out numerous examples of suppressed & scandalous information*

Original claimant deliberately ignores it several times.

Act more aggressive to force them to answer it.

When they do answer it, they are deliberately being deceitful and strawman your argument.

"Oh Obama was responsible for MK Ultra and JFK Assassination?!? Silly birthers."

You'd have to be a complete tool to not see that this person isn't somebody with just a set of opinions, but is being deliberately deceitful and obtuse, in order to half-ass dismiss your argument...This constitutes not a person with an opinion, but a person with an agenda.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Do you honestly even care or are you just here to stir the pot?

It does not matter as long as my questions are valid. I will ask them one last time:

1. Do those who believe that an attempt is being made to control people's minds on ATS, or at least to divert attention from the truth regarding issues debated here, wish to see certain posts censored, the expression of certain points of view prohibited, and members who insist on breaking these rules banned?
   
   
2. Does anyone feel that some members are exerting de facto censorship over others by spamming their threads, ridiculing them, asking impossible-to-answer questions or making them look foolish or unbalanced? And if this is so, what, if anything, should be done about it?

Why are you so reluctant to engage me in a civil discussion? Are you afraid of me?

Astyanax
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

Do you honestly even care or are you just here to stir the pot?

It does not matter as long as my questions are valid. I will ask them one last time:

1. Do those who believe that an attempt is being made to control people's minds on ATS, or at least to divert attention from the truth regarding issues debated here, wish to see certain posts censored, the expression of certain points of view prohibited, and members who insist on breaking these rules banned?
   
   
2. Does anyone feel that some members are exerting de facto censorship over others by spamming their threads, ridiculing them, asking impossible-to-answer questions or making them look foolish or unbalanced? And if this is so, what, if anything, should be done about it?

Why are you so reluctant to engage me in a civil discussion? Are you afraid of me?

I'm more suspicious of you than afraid.

1) Here is how I see the issue at ATS. I understand fully, that not everybody will ever agree on the points made. That is a given, and will not change. Differences of opinion are what ATS is about.. It is how people go about expressing those opinions. If you pay attention enough, you will see a trend in people, who are here on ATS for nothing MORE than to contest hotly debated ideas, and will do so utilizing strawman arguments, false dichotomies, ridicule, application of fringe labels to lower credibility, and so forth.. THESE TACTICS, are the issue and do not imply the person has a difference in opinion; but is a person with an agenda here.. This screams agent of ignorance to those who know how to interpret the signs.

2) I think that if it can be determined that these people are here for nothing more than to derail, deride, ridicule, and keep people from expressing themselves freely, and in proper debate etiquette that they should indeed be banned.

Part of my problem with you Astyanax is because I can tell that you are attempting to trap me in my statements by saying "Oh well we should just ban anybody who doesn't agree with OP's?" when you know damn well that isn't what I'm saying... It's traits in how they argue and disagree with the OP that shows whether they are in genuine disagreement, or whether they are a hidden person pushing internal agendas.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Astyanax

 

This is what a shill looks like...

"Nobody is suppressing anything from the people!"

"Oh really? *points out numerous examples of suppressed & scandalous information*

Original claimant deliberately ignores it several times.

Act more aggressive to force them to answer it.

When they do answer it, they are deliberately being deceitful and strawman your argument.

"Oh Obama was responsible for MK Ultra and JFK Assassination?!? Silly birthers."

You'd have to be a complete tool to not see that this person isn't somebody with just a set of opinions, but is being deliberately deceitful and obtuse, in order to half-ass dismiss your argument...This constitutes not a person with an opinion, but a person with an agenda.

Cast your eye back over the exchange between you and me on this thread. Your behaviour is rather close that of the 'shill' in the above dialogue. You've used diversion to avoid answering my questions. When that didn't work you deliberately ignored them. You've used ad hominem attacks ('ban-bait' and implying that I'm one of the aforesaid shills) to cast doubt on my integrity, which you further dispute by questioning my motives for participating in the thread.

After a performance like that, what's to stop anyone from concluding that you are the disinformation agent here?

reply to post by Astyanax


I did not ad hominem you. Ban-bait was referring to the fact that you are attempting to bait me into saying things that will get me banned; much like jail bait.

Secondly, I have ignored you so much because I can obviously tell that you are just here to stir the pot, as well as the fact that you are trying to bait me into an argument that will get me banned just like everybody else I was referring to does...

If you would apply logic and reasoning for a moment, you would see that your theory fails, considering the information and content that I have contributed to this forum, as well as the fact that this thread is mine..

Why would I make a thread warning people about these agents of ignorance if I was one of them? Wouldn't I just ignore it like the rest of you do?

Astyanax

Does anyone feel that some members are exerting de facto censorship over others by spamming their threads, ridiculing them, asking impossible-to-answer questions or making them look foolish or unbalanced? And if this is so, what, if anything, should be done about it?

Yes. The technique is surprisingly simple 6 step process.
Step 1, create a new "burner" account on ATS.
Step 2, post in controversial threads about controversial topics.
Step 3, ruin a thread by many different propaganda tactics.
Step 4, try to get regular posters enraged enough to lose their cool and break the terms of service.
Step 5, or they get themselves banned.
Step 6, goto 1.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Thank you for illustrating what I was saying so well for me... This is exactly the process that I am describing, and is why I had no wish to discuss anything whatsoever, with Astyanax.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

If you pay attention enough, you will see a trend in people, who are here on ATS for nothing MORE than to contest hotly debated ideas, and will do so utilizing strawman arguments, false dichotomies, ridicule, application of fringe labels to lower credibility, and so forth.. THESE TACTICS, are the issue and do not imply the person has a difference in opinion; but is a person with an agenda here.. This screams agent of ignorance to those who know how to interpret the signs.

We see people of every possible shade of opinion using those tactics on ATS. Most members use them at some time or other. You have used every single one of them in this very thread (I can cite the instances if you wish to dispute this). People are human, and do not always follow debating-club rules when they argue. That does not mean they are the paid agents of sinister powers trying to mess with our minds.

By the way, what exactly is an 'agent of ignorance'? Is it the same as a shill, or some different category that needs to be explained?

If it can be determined that these people are here for nothing more than to derail, deride, ridicule, and keep people from expressing themselves freely, and in proper debate etiquette that they should indeed be banned.

That is precisely why many members have been banned in the past. Do you feel the board staff are remiss in their duties, and that there are other members — such as myself, for instance — who also ought to be banned?

Part of my problem with you Astyanax is because I can tell that you are attempting to trap me in my statements by saying "Oh well we should just ban anybody who doesn't agree with OP's?" when you know damn well that isn't what I'm saying...

Look back over my posts. Show me where exactly it seems to you that I am trying to do this.

I am merely trying to do is ascertain exactly what it is you are saying. So far all you have given us is allusions and allegations. You say there is a war going on for our minds, yet you will not identify the combatants. If there really is more to this thread than a plea to — and I quote — 'ban anybody who doesn't agree with the OP', you should be able to give us more details, and perhaps suggest ways of dealing with the problem. Otherwise what is the point of this thread? Just to blow off steam?

reply to post by Astyanax


I don't believe you can post a single instance of me utilizing a false dichotomy, strawman arguments, ridicule, or fringe labels in application to any one single poster.. Or please show me the prima facie...

For your information, I did not oust any of the 'combatants' because to do so is against ATS TOS, which I am sure you know...

Accusing any member so straight-forwardly of being a shill is grounds for termination of your membership, which is why I do not wish to discuss this with you, and the thread was meant as a warning to the rest of ATS to keep their eyes open.

/E: An agent of ignorance, is essentially somebody who promotes ignorance, rather than denies it, by promoting circular authoritarian logic and 'information'.

reply to post by Astyanax


I can also see you are being willfully obtuse, and feigning ignorance that you have no idea what I am talking about.. I am not fooled...

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

1. I have only one account on ATS, which I have held since 2005.
   
   
2. All threads and topics on ATS are controversial, except maybe those in the Chit Chat section.
   
   
3. Any argument I present on ATS is invariably backed up by links to reliable evidence, as anyone who browses the Posts section in my profile can see for themselves.
   
   
4. I confess I am not above rattling people's chains a little, but in the end everyone is responsible for their own behaviour, on ATS as elsewhere. Nobody can make you do what you don't want to do on an internet forum.

So, O Aspiring Mason, what makes you so reluctant to 'discuss anything whatsoever with Astyanax'?

Are you afraid of being shown up? Facts (what I deal in; see my signature) can be stubborn things, I know.

reply to post by Astyanax


Being shown up? Of course I'm not afraid. But then again, I have nothing to prove here. What do you have to prove? Why are you here?

It appears to me that anyone who seeks people out and is aggressively targeting them for an argument, seems to be somebody who clearly has something to prove, a chip on their shoulder, or an agenda. So which one is it for you?

Reply to OP and thread in general.

What should be done? Hell, I don't know. I've had people on ATs call me a troll 8 times, in color, in one single post! I have seen bullying go to such extremes as member-on-member FBI threats! That's as bad as I have seen it here on ATS.

I've been around long enough (3 years) to spot these guys on first contact simply by the way they re-phrase questions, build up straw men, and cherry pick evidence. Transfer is a tactic that everybody needs to know how to recognize and respond to. It's very easy to accidently do a transfer, most people wouldn't even know if they did one unless someone else had pointed it out to them.

Look at the ATs population. There are some people here to deny their own ignorance by exploring topics and some people are are to deny others the opportunity to do that.

But do we always want to be so strict with ourselves and others on ATS? That takes immense discipline. And btw, some really good posters get tired of it after 3-5 years then they leave.

Maybe if we all take a listen to Elvis singing "Patch it Up" we might, collectively, eventually, come up with the most logical, prudent, expedient answer to all of this. It's going to take a whole lot of love.

Well this explains the migraines I've been suffering from these past few weeks :p

Seriously though, good thread. I like the quote. I abide by a similiar one. "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see".

yes we are being lied to.

For everybody thus far, who has read and commented on this thread, I would like to present you with this article..

China Uses An Army of Sockpuppets To Influnce Public Opinion

I agree that conspiracy sites have "disinfo" agents in the midst. Disinfo is a fact, a known historical part of government. There are paid shills all over the world of "professional" media - most of the national media anyway. The big news corporations force an agenda on the populace, an agenda that is a farce. Why should independent media like ATS be any different than the rest of the media?

I think an important distinction is that there are paid shills, and there are unwitting shills, who are only shills because of the mind-control they've been subjected to in learning to be a "normal" person. I think some "normal" people think ATS is a freak show, and some people like a freak show. Shills they are, nonetheless, just spouting someone else's implanted agenda for free because of the mind-control effects of "normalization".

But also, the more I've researched the subject of media infiltration by the unseen hand of "whatever is at the top of the pyramid", the more I realize how far the reach has really gone, how much money has been spent, spent like it was an infinite supply.

Having said that, I also agree with ATS's policy on "outing shills". It would be a witch hunt. I believe we need to breed tolerance, even to those we disagree with. The posts from people who I would guess are "paid shills" , are easy enough to spot, and I ignore them. Genuineness is generally lacking, imho. I know the smell test isn't very "scientific", but its my number one tool in deciding what info to trust. If it smells like a steaming pile of you know what, I'm not going to bother to get down and put my nose in it.

Finally, I have some hope that these paid operatives will learn a little something being on here, and maybe second-guess what they're doing for a living, and maybe come join the good guys. I still have hope for the future.

Oh, and for Astayanax, quoting Mao won't go very far with people like me. Democracy may not be perfect, but its a lot better than what Mao did, or Stalin, or Lenin... I've read too much history to want to listen to any of those mass-murderers.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

I don't believe you can post a single instance of me utilizing a false dichotomy, strawman arguments, ridicule, or fringe labels in application to any one single poster.. Or please show me the prima facie...

False dichotomy: assuming that one must either be a conspiracy theorist, or a slave to authority.

You have those of us here, which may be hardcore conspiracy theorists who literally see the conspiracy in everything. You have some fence sitters that have still not released the asinine idea of any 'higher authority' than oneself, and have taken to letting themselves be manipulated by those in power, by adhering to such a belief.

Straw man: creating a nonexistent enemy and demolishing it.

This is what a shill looks like...

"Nobody is suppressing anything from the people!"

"Oh really? *points out numerous examples of suppressed & scandalous information*

Original claimant deliberately ignores it several times.

Act more aggressive to force them to answer it.

When they do answer it, they are deliberately being deceitful and strawman your argument.

"Oh Obama was responsible for MK Ultra and JFK Assassination?!? Silly birthers."

You'd have to be a complete tool to not see that this person isn't somebody with just a set of opinions, but... a person with an agenda.

Nobody on Above Top Secret behaves like that — least of all the sceptical members.

Ridicule:

they are nothing more than highly-trained robots, engineered from birth to protect the system.

Fringe labels that is, name-calling:

ban-bait

That was pretty easy. Like I said, most people are guilty of these things at one time or the other. You more than most, I have to say.