Shill indicators and patterns:
-
They have not submitted any or very little content to the forum, but are very active in comments. They do this because it is much harder to hide their non-supportive agenda in titles of posts, and they are not here to contribute. They are here to sow discord and doubt, disrupt, dampen morale, ect.
-
Many of their comments will be "debunks", but they are not done in a respectful or supportive way. Their TONE is the biggest tell. They are not polite and are disruptive. There will be outright insults to subtle mockery. Also look for directives like "stop spreading bullshit", "don't be lazy", ect.
-
Besides the insulting rhetoric, look for phrases like "you people", "the people here should", "you are all", "everyone needs to", ect. They do not see us as individuals, and judge us as a whole like a bigot. This bleeds into their commentary.
-
They camp the new tab, so pay attention to the first few commenters on your posts. They do this to make sure other shills and their alternate accounts will upvote the disruptive comment to the top of the post. Many times they will comment to this first comment with another account, to attempt to legitimize the first comment. This is also a good way to forum slide, pushing legitimate comments further down the page.
-
They attack sources instead of addressing the evidence and information. This is called the Genetic Fallacy. They also ask for sources just to use the fallacy to dismiss your comment. Learn this fallacy and call them out on it.
When you see subtle indicators go to their history and look for these patterns.
We should be diligent about spotting and deporting these types. They have changed their tactics since the initial purge of the more blatant shills.
Also see techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum for more.
I’m sorry but we need some clarification on #5. We DO need sources for claims, guys. But you don’t need sources for opinions or conjecture. You have every right to think out loud without actually making an argument. But if someone is making an argument and they’re referencing what should be verifiable shit, don’t assume someone is shilling by asking what they’re referencing. We don’t all know all the same things.
For example: today I asked someone not for a source on the claim that Paul Walker was likely killed by the cabal, but rather simply what facts contributed to him thinking that. He was a defensive asshole about it for some reason but he ended up giving me a really good verifiable fact that definitely lent credibility to his suspicion and I now too find myself suspicious (Paul Walker was involved in Haiti charities).
Understand the distinction.
Not sure why you think I’m saying we don’t need sources. Did you go to the link and read the definition of the fallacy?
u/#emopepedance
Asterisks * = Italics
Double ** = Bold
Triple *** = Both
Quote
Sorry not I’m not saying you’re saying that. Just wanted to drive home the point a bit more. It’s a great post, bruv.