Shills??? MOD ALERT

fifthofnovember · Feb 18, 2013

leftysergeant said: ↑

You should be aware that there are people who make it a life's mission to destroy movements that they consider evil.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. I'm sure they wouldn't mind getting paid for it, then.

A lot of the threads started by committed 9/11 CTers smell like Zyklon-B.
Click to expand...

Jeez, really? Another Reductio ad Hitlerum?

Hannibal · Feb 18, 2013

fifthofnovember said: ↑

What do you want? Their pay stubs? The only evidence that we would have that shills are on this site are from the posts of the shills themselves. I am still waiting on the appearance of one poster who seems to show up in every 9/11 "conspiracy" thread. A member who "coincidentally" named himself after the event, and whose screen name also claims patriotism (rally around the flag cuz of 9/11 and commence groupthink). He is a fixture in this subforum, almost as if it were his assignment.
Click to expand...

Still not very good on the research, are you? Patriot911 was banned a few months ago.
http://www.politicalforum.com/members/patriot911.html

RtWngaFraud · Feb 18, 2013

Jango said: ↑

Related to COINTELPRO? What are you talking about? When did I even mention COINTELPRO?
Click to expand...

No...you didn't. That's part of the shill strategy. Throw in things at random, then later claim you're nuts because YOU brought it up. Bullet point 27.

- - - Updated - - -

Hannibal said: ↑

Still not very good on the research, are you? Patriot911 was banned a few months ago.
http://www.politicalforum.com/members/patriot911.html
Click to expand...

Which "new" poster is he?

Hannibal · Feb 18, 2013

RtWngaFraud said: ↑

No...you didn't. That's part of the shill strategy. Throw in things at random, then later claim you're nuts because YOU brought it up. Bullet point 27.
Click to expand...

Like your 16 foot hole claim, Fraud. You're giving away your own agenda.

leftysergeant · Feb 18, 2013

fifthofnovember said: ↑

Uh huh. I'm sure they wouldn't mind getting paid for it, then.

Jeez, really? Another Reductio ad Hitlerum?
Click to expand...

Some times the players behind the false meme are Nazis. Lots of them around 9/11. Likew that worthless piece of crap who said that the fire fighters found pools of molten steel in the basements and attributed the statementy to Marc Loixeau or that creepy Eric Hufschmid. Dylan Avery m,akes extensive use of their works.

Then there is this whole idea that it was a Mossad operation.

You people never had me fooled from the start, never will. I know what your game is.

cooky · Feb 18, 2013

RtWngaFraud said: ↑

We all know they exist.

I know shills propagate this forum. I know oxygen exists.
Click to expand...

How do you know they exist??? As no one has produced any evidence that the gov't pays peole to engage in debate on internet forums it appears that your belief in the presence of shills on thos site is a totally baseless assumption.

pimptight · Feb 18, 2013

cooky said: ↑

Members of this forum are both explicitly and implicitly accused of being 'shills'- members of a gov't kabal who are paid to advocate for the gov'ts official position. I have not seen any direct evidence that would suggest a kabal of 'shills' actually exists. I'm curious if there is in fact evidence that the gov't employees agents in such a manner and/or why some people believe that such shills exist. Not having seen any evidence to support the existence of shills I am of the opinion that the shill hypothesis is little more than a baseless allegation. Am i wrong? If so, why?
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen any evidence of gravity?

Show it to me?

If you have not presented physical evidence of gravity, then the evidence you offer would be evidence of the effects of gravity, and not actual physical evidence you could hold.

These effects of gravity, and shilling are the same. I can show you time and again the expected response, and pattern of posting.

I can show you evidence of a predictive nature. You will pretend this doesn't count as the kind of evidence you are demanding, when this means you also don't believe in gravity, because you can't hold gravity in your hands.

cooky · Feb 18, 2013

pimptight said: ↑

Have you ever seen any evidence of gravity?

Show it to me?

If you have not presented physical evidence of gravity, then the evidence you offer would be evidence of the effects of gravity, and not actual physical evidence you could hold.

These effects of gravity, and shilling are the same. I can show you time and again the expected response, and pattern of posting.

I can show you evidence of a predictive nature. You will pretend this doesn't count as the kind of evidence you are demanding, when this means you also don't believe in gravity, because you can't hold gravity in your hands.
Click to expand...

Using the theory of gravity to support your hypothesis about the existence of shills on this forum is a gross logical fallacy. It should go without saying that there are tomes of publications that detail the theory of gravity and the evidence upon which the theory was synthesized. There hasnt been any direct evidence introduced into this thread that suggests that 'shills' participate in the discussions of 9/11 on this forum. My understanding of your last post is that because some members argue against 9 11 condpiracy theories with frequency it is proof that shills exist. Most assuredley there are regular conyributors on this forum that argue both for and against the official 9 11 narrative but i see no reason to implicate the gov't in their participation here. From the reasons enumerated in the post i have quoted you reasons for the existence of shills on this site could likewise be used to implicate the resident truthers in some manner of pro conspiracy cabal.

Among the reasons i doubt there are 'shills' active on this site is that the audience of this subforum is miniscule and hardly deserving of attention. Additionally, i find the idea that paid agents advocate the official narrative on behalf of the gov't to be a very remedial hypothesis that doesnt really jive with out gov'ts history of managing information. If the gov't is covertly engaged in the debate on 9 11 i think it much more likely that they would effect the debate by infiltrating the truth movement and marginalize it by advocating wild theories as opposed to directly rebuting condpiracy theories. In my opinion, a number of truthers on this site have fone far more to marginalize the truth movement than has any member who argues against a 9 11 conspiracy. At the end of the day, anyone who thinks the debate on yhis forum has any substanative impact on the 9 11 debate in the US is delusional- politicalforum.com and sites like it are hardly worthy of sny concerted information campaign

Jango · Feb 18, 2013

cooky said: ↑

How do you know they exist??? As no one has produced any evidence that the gov't pays peole to engage in debate on internet forums it appears that your belief in the presence of shills on thos site is a totally baseless assumption.
Click to expand...

Once again...

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/387.pdf

II. Governmental Responses
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).
Click to expand...

B. Dilemmas and Responses
Imagine a government facing a population in which a particular conspiracy theory is becoming widespread. We will identify two basic dilemmas that recur, and consider how government should respond. The first dilemma is whether to ignore or rebut the theory; the second is whether to address the supply side of conspiracy theorizing by attempting to debias or disable its purveyors, to address the demand side by attempting to immunize third-party audiences from the theory’s effects, or to do both (if resource constraints permit).
In both cases, the underlying structure of the problem is that conspiracy theorizing is a multi-party game. Government is faced with suppliers of conspiracy theories, and might aim at least in part to persuade, debias, or silence those suppliers. However, those two players are competing for the hearts and minds of third parties, especially the mass audience of the uncommitted.58 Expanding the cast further, one may see the game as involving four players: government officials, conspiracy theorists, mass audiences, and independent experts – such as mainstream scientists or the editors of Popular Mechanics – whom government attempts to enlist to give credibility to its rebuttal efforts. The discussion that follows generally assumes the three-party structure, but we will refer to the four-party structure when relevant.
Click to expand...

2. Which audience?
Another dilemma is whether to target the supply side of the conspiracy theory or the demand side. Should governmental responses be addressed to the suppliers, with a view to persuading or silencing them, or rather be addressed to the mass audience, with a view to inoculating them from pernicious theories?
Click to expand...

We will begin with some remarks about responses addressed to the supply side. The basic problem with pitching governmental responses to the suppliers of conspiracy theories is that those theories, by their nature, have a self-sealing quality. They are (1) resistant and in extreme cases invulnerable to contrary evidence,61 and (2) especially resistant to contrary evidence offered by the government, because the government rebuttal is folded into the conspiracy theory itself. If conspiracy theorists are responding to the informational signals given by those whom they trust, then the government’s effort at rebuttal seems unlikely to be effective, and might serve to fortify rather than to undermine the original belief. (A possible solution is for government to enlist private rebuttals; we return to this point shortly.) The most direct response to a dangerous conspiracy theories is censorship. That response is unavailable in an open society, because it is inconsistent with principles of freedom of expression. We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable. But in an open society, the need for censorship would be correspondingly reduced. In any case censorship may well turn out to be self-defeating. The effort to censor the theory might well be taken as evidence that the theory is true, and censorship of speech is notoriously difficult.
Click to expand...

Government can partially circumvent these problems if it enlists nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts. Although government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes, too close a connection will prove self-defeating if it is exposed -- as witness the humiliating disclosures showing that apparently independent opinions on scientific and regulatory questions were in fact paid for by think-tanks with ties to the Bush administration.64 Even apart from this tradeoff, conspiracy theorists may still fold independent third-party rebuttals into their theory by making conspiratorial claims of connection between the third party and the government. When Popular Mechanics offered its rebuttal of 9/11 conspiracy theories, conspiracists claimed that one of the magazine’s reporters, Ben Chertoff, was the cousin of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and was spreading disinformation at the latter’s behest.
Click to expand...

3. Cognitive infiltration
Rather than taking the continued existence of the hard core as a constraint, and addressing itself solely to the third-party mass audience, government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories, arguments and rhetoric that are produced by the hard core and reinforce it in turn. One promising tactic is cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.
How might this tactic work? Recall that extremist networks and groups, including the groups that purvey conspiracy theories, typically suffer from a kind of crippled epistemology. Hearing only conspiratorial accounts of government behavior, their members become ever more prone to believe and generate such accounts. Informational and reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest that the generation of ever-more-extreme views within these groups can be dampened or reversed by the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.
In one variant, government agents would openly proclaim, or at least make no effort to conceal, their institutional affiliations. A recent newspaper story recounts that Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms and websites in order to ventilate arguments not usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success.68 In another variant, government officials would participate anonymously or even with false identities. Each approach has distinct costs and benefits; the second is riskier but potentially brings higher returns. In the former case, where government officials participate openly as such, hard-core members of the relevant networks, communities and conspiracy-minded organizations may entirely discount what the officials say, right from the beginning. The risk with tactics of anonymous participation, conversely, is that if the tactic becomes known, any true member of the relevant groups who raises doubts may be suspected of government connections. Despite these difficulties, the two forms of cognitive infiltration offer different risk-reward mixes and are both potentially useful instruments.
Click to expand...

All these risk-reward tradeoffs deserve careful consideration. Particular tactics may or may not be cost-justified under particular circumstances. Our main suggestion is just that, whatever the tactical details, there would seem to be ample reason for government efforts to introduce some cognitive diversity into the groups that generate conspiracy theories. Social cascades are sometimes quite fragile, precisely because they are based on small slivers of information. Once corrective information is introduced, large numbers of people can be shifted to different views. If government is able to have credibility, or to act through credible agents, it might well be successful in dislodging beliefs that are held only because no one contradicts them. Likewise, polarization tends to decrease when divergent views are voiced within the group.69 Introducing a measure of cognitive diversity can break up the epistemological networks and clusters that supply conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

leftysergeant · Feb 18, 2013

pimptight said: ↑

Have you ever seen any evidence of gravity?

Show it to me?

If you have not presented physical evidence of gravity, then the evidence you offer would be evidence of the effects of gravity, and not actual physical evidence you could hold.

These effects of gravity, and shilling are the same. I can show you time and again the expected response, and pattern of posting.

I can show you evidence of a predictive nature. You will pretend this doesn't count as the kind of evidence you are demanding, when this means you also don't believe in gravity, because you can't hold gravity in your hands.
Click to expand...

The laws of gravity do not support your lies. No building accelerated at anywhere near the velocity of gravity on 9/11.

Collapses involving no explosives and no removal of inhibiting structure outside of the area of failure procede even faster that n the WTC towers.

cooky · Feb 18, 2013

Jango said: ↑

Once again...

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/387.pdf
Click to expand...

Just because the gov't can do something doesnt mean they have, are or will do something. That document enumerates the gov't option for handling conspiracies ie banning condpiracies or even taxing them. The govt has not as of yet pusued either of those options what makes you think yhey have pursued any of the others.

Jango · Feb 18, 2013

cooky said: ↑

Just because the gov't can do something doesnt mean they have, are or will do something. That document enumerates the gov't option for handling conspiracies ie banning condpiracies or even taxing them. The govt has not as of yet pusued either of those options what makes you think yhey have pursued any of the others.
Click to expand...

Again...

A recent newspaper story recounts that Arabic-speaking Muslim officials from the State Department have participated in dialogues at radical Islamist chat rooms and websites in order to ventilate arguments not usually heard among the groups that cluster around those sites, with some success.
Click to expand...

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/387.pdf

If they're operating openly, then they're certainly operating clandestinely, which is the path of least resistance, Constitutionally, in comparison to taxing conspiracy thinking or trying to ban conspiracy thinking outright.

pimptight · Feb 18, 2013

cooky said: ↑

Using the theory of gravity to support your hypothesis about the existence of shills on this forum is a gross logical fallacy. It should go without saying that there are tomes of publications that detail the theory of gravity and the evidence upon which the theory was synthesized. There hasnt been any direct evidence introduced into this thread that suggests that 'shills' participate in the discussions of 9/11 on this forum. My understanding of your last post is that because some members argue against 9 11 condpiracy theories with frequency it is proof that shills exist. Most assuredley there are regular conyributors on this forum that argue both for and against the official 9 11 narrative but i see no reason to implicate the gov't in their participation here. From the reasons enumerated in the post i have quoted you reasons for the existence of shills on this site could likewise be used to implicate the resident truthers in some manner of pro conspiracy cabal.

Among the reasons i doubt there are 'shills' active on this site is that the audience of this subforum is miniscule and hardly deserving of attention. Additionally, i find the idea that paid agents advocate the official narrative on behalf of the gov't to be a very remedial hypothesis that doesnt really jive with out gov'ts history of managing information. If the gov't is covertly engaged in the debate on 9 11 i think it much more likely that they would effect the debate by infiltrating the truth movement and marginalize it by advocating wild theories as opposed to directly rebuting condpiracy theories. In my opinion, a number of truthers on this site have fone far more to marginalize the truth movement than has any member who argues against a 9 11 conspiracy. At the end of the day, anyone who thinks the debate on yhis forum has any substanative impact on the 9 11 debate in the US is delusional- politicalforum.com and sites like it are hardly worthy of sny concerted information campaign
Click to expand...

See you call it a logical fallacy, but can't put evidence of gravity into my hands correct?

The evidence that supports gravity, is that of a predictive nature. This is considered evidence in science, just not by your standards.

Edit: I will give you that you are 100% correct about special interests planting absurd CT conclusions as a form of disinformation. The question is the right one, but the conclusion is full of speculation and false trails.

pimptight · Feb 18, 2013

BTW Cooky, I have a question for you.

Is compartmentalization a strategy used regularly in our government to suppress information, and is it effective in doing so?

pimptight · Feb 18, 2013

leftysergeant said: ↑

The laws of gravity do not support your lies. No building accelerated at anywhere near the velocity of gravity on 9/11.

Collapses involving no explosives and no removal of inhibiting structure outside of the area of failure procede even faster that n the WTC towers.
Click to expand...

Oops, who was talking about 9-11 again?

Oh wait, this is that thing I keep talking about with shills, where they attribute a stance to you. You know where I ask questions about Sibel Edmonds, and you claim this means I believe in bigfoot.

Most of you really do suck at this.

leftysergeant · Feb 18, 2013

pimptight said: ↑

Oops, who was talking about 9-11 again?

Oh wait, this is that thing I keep talking about with shills, where they attribute a stance to you. You know where I ask questions about Sibel Edmonds, and you claim this means I believe in bigfoot.

Most of you really do suck at this.
Click to expand...

You're deflecting again.

pimptight · Feb 18, 2013

leftysergeant said: ↑

You're deflecting again.
Click to expand...

lol.....

Hannibal · Feb 18, 2013

pimptight said: ↑

Oops, who was talking about 9-11 again?
.
Click to expand...

Oops, what section are you posting in?

pimptight · Feb 18, 2013

Hannibal said: ↑

Oops, what section are you posting in?
Click to expand...

So this means I believe in bigfoot, and aliens probing hillbillies, unless I agree with you?

Hannibal · Feb 18, 2013

pimptight said: ↑

So this means I believe in bigfoot, and aliens probing hillbillies, unless I agree with you?
Click to expand...

No, how did you infer that by my pointing out the section you're posting in?

pimptight · Feb 18, 2013

Hannibal said: ↑

No, how did you infer that by my pointing out the section you're posting in?
Click to expand...

Because the inferance appears to be that if you post in this section, that you know what my beliefs on 9-11 are, and that it isn't a suspect debate tactic to interject this without provocation.

Hannibal · Feb 18, 2013

pimptight said: ↑

Because the inferance appears to be that if you post in this section, that you know what my beliefs on 9-11 are, and that it isn't a suspect debate tactic to interject this without provocation.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about what your beliefs are. Want to share those beliefs? Please do so in a new thread, I'd like to hear them.

Acting indignant that someone brings up 9/11 in a thread about government-paid 9/11 shills in the 9/11 section of this forum is silly.

Hannibal · Feb 19, 2013

9/11 was an inside job said: ↑

they are in droves here at this forum like crazy especially in this section.

they came out of the woodwork in droves defending the fairy tales of 9/11 when you exposed them here in this thread of yours.

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...d-ignored-but-defended-vigorously-shills.html
Click to expand...

Yay, team.

pimptight · Feb 19, 2013

Hannibal said: ↑

Yay, team.
Click to expand...

Funny how you mention a team, when once again you came to leftysergeant's defense.

Hannibal · Feb 19, 2013

pimptight said: ↑

Funny how you mention a team, when once again you came to leftysergeant's defense.
Click to expand...

Defense? He's doing fine on his own. I'm simply pointing out your silliness.

Try not to be so surprised when someone brings up 9/11 in the 9/11 thread of a 9/11 forum.

Log in or Sign up

Shills??? MOD ALERT

fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

Hannibal New Member

RtWngaFraud Banned

Hannibal New Member

leftysergeant New Member

cooky New Member

pimptight Banned

cooky New Member

Jango New Member

leftysergeant New Member

cooky New Member

Jango New Member

pimptight Banned

pimptight Banned

pimptight Banned

leftysergeant New Member

pimptight Banned

Hannibal New Member

pimptight Banned

Hannibal New Member

pimptight Banned

Hannibal New Member

Hannibal New Member

pimptight Banned

Hannibal New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Shills??? MOD ALERT

fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

Hannibal New Member

RtWngaFraud Banned

Hannibal New Member

leftysergeant New Member

cooky New Member

pimptight Banned

cooky New Member

Jango New Member

leftysergeant New Member

cooky New Member

Jango New Member

pimptight Banned

pimptight Banned

pimptight Banned

leftysergeant New Member

pimptight Banned

Hannibal New Member

pimptight Banned

Hannibal New Member

pimptight Banned

Hannibal New Member

Hannibal New Member

pimptight Banned

Hannibal New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches