There has been a common theme here, in which the top post in this sub have a bountiful amount of comments accusing and insinuating the op is a shill. It's honestly been going on for quite some time but has gotten to the point that you can read a post full of legitimate information and leads, and before you get 5 comments in someone is calling the op a shill. I firmly believe that the opposition is working overtime to discredit this sub and the hard work and research being done here. It might not be a bad idea to take note of those calling people shills for posting legitimate research and findings.
view the rest of the comments →
reasonedandinformed ago
Here is the key. If someone is accused of being a shill, or if they call someone a shill, look at their history.
Creating an account and posting some outlandish claim/lunatic sounding theory, without documentation = shill (helps "fake news" and "lunatic fringe" narrative)
Creating an account to regurgitate old, unsubstantiated posts = shill (wasting time, to slide legit posts off front page)
Creating doubt in the mods without ANY evidence = shill (although sometimes they are just being confused since they do not understand the importance of documenting claims). Remember, we are NOT fake news.
Including incendiary, violence-provoking language or bigotry/hatred is likely a shill (fits MSM narrative of "racist haters"). Unfortunately, some of these people are not technically shills, but those types of posts are not welcome on this platform as we are in a fight against the MSM and must be welcoming to the new arrivals that join our fight each day.
Inconsistency: Being overly cautious to a possible lead and then making exaggerated claims = shill.
Calling others shills, downplaying findings, going off topic = shill. This is done to instill division, remove enthusiastic pursuit, or create distraction. Using the above filters makes most shillery pretty obvious.
CJJacobs ago
Each of your warnings relies on finding fault with a posters rhetoric, not with their logic.
There are important differences. Logical and evidentiary consistency is what is being looked for and is what is most important, not necessarily rhetorical consistency.
IE - 'posting some outlandish claim' -- is an appeal to rhetoric. Simply posting something 'outlandish' does not a priori make it untrue. ALL of pedophilic activity is outlandish by its very horrific nature. It is outlandish...but in the case of pizzagate it also happens to be true. Something outlandish can also be true.
IE - Incendiary language is not necessarily always useful or pleasant, but it does not a priori rule out a person's information from BEING LOGICALLY TRUE.
Again, logical consistency is the plumline. Not necessarily rhetorical consistency.
reasonedandinformed ago
Just to be clear, in the bullets:
First bullet involves logic. A claim lacking support is not a logical argument. While it may even be true, we are looking for support/evidence to move it forward. Otherwise, it is a disconnected theory until someone documents the connection.
Bullet 2 is actually a documented technique of CTR...reposting old information that lacks substantiation. They do this many times each day.
Bullet 3 is also a logical flaw. If you are to accuse a MOD of being a shill, then provide evidence. Otherwise, you give us no reason to listen.
Bullet 5 is all about logic. Someone who jumps from being highly cautious and questioning what looks to be legitimate information and then is seen to post bold claims with zero support is not behaving consistently. It is a common trait for the CTR shills that hang around beyond the normal wall-text post to slide the front page.