Has the accusation of "shills" become an independant conspiracy ?

JRBids

Senior Member.
Funny enough, I look upon it, in a twisted sort of way, as a sort of badge of honour, it means that I'm getting up the noses enough for them to take notice, it's a step up from 'stooge' and two up from 'sheeple' and I'm looking forward to promotion to dis-info agent and to then FBI / CIA / MI5 / mossad / NWO / NWA / BOC / BRMC / (insert name of shadowy organisation of choice here) spokesman.

I find it perversely funny that anyone who sheepishly follow and then blindly propagate the real dis-information the CT gurus disseminate via their money making websites and panicvision you-tube channels, will then call anyone who has done real research and really has balanced as much information as possible before making up their mind on an issue such blindly dismissive names. Talk about the ignorance and hypocrisy.

And as for being paid by the word, I am a copy writer, I normally get paid by the word (or by the 250 or part there of), but believe me unless the NWO pay at LOT more than most of my clients I aint gonna get rich discussing the science and politics of conspiracy on Metabunk. :D

When you look at it that way, I must be doing a FABULOUS job, cause not only am I a shill, but I get PAID to shill! ;)
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Since the topic is shills/'disinfo agents'/whatever term is used, do they actually exist here in America? I see the theme of the topic is to talk about personal experiences with being accused of shilling and there's a lot of joking going on, but I was hoping someone could shed some light on if it is actually happening in our country.

Do lobbyists count?
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
A close relative of mine was involved in various types of "guerrilla marketing", where he would employ people to post on chat (public forums).....to promote a product amongst the forum population.
Example....(in a forum asking about which product was the best)....his employees would comment that xxx product was the best, or better than the competition. He was paid to promote the product, under the auspice that his (fake) posters have had (or do possess) real-life experience with such product.
I find this disturbing, but not surprising, as it is commonly found among many product reviews, throughout the internet.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
I find this disturbing, but not surprising, as it is commonly found among many product reviews, throughout the internet.

Which is what makes it so very very very very hard to prove that when you post something counter to the popular notion of the site or blog or forum you're on, that you're NOT a shill.. That and absolutely no evidence of same is required to label a person as such.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
A close relative of mine was involved in various types of "guerrilla marketing", where he would employ people to post on chat (public forums).....to promote a product amongst the forum population.
Example....(in a forum asking about which product was the best)....his employees would comment that xxx product was the best, or better than the competition. He was paid to promote the product, under the auspice that his (fake) posters have had (or do possess) real-life experience with such product.
I find this disturbing, but not surprising, as it is commonly found among many product reviews, throughout the internet.
Almost 14 years ago (Feb '01?) was the first time I saw anyone in the media address this "guerrilla marketing"...
it was on PBS' Frontline series, called "Merchants of Cool." Despite that episode being a bit long-in-the-tooth now,
I know some business professors still show it...I'd recommend it...streams free, here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/view/
 

Astro

Senior Member
None of my YT vids have ad revenue.
About half my vids are of a debunking nature.
So, "profiting" from my debunking efforts, is nil.
I have never felt the need to mention this.

Whether this is significant....seems to be a pointless justification aimed to the paraniod. There may be some YT critics that feel that I, and others. ....are being paid elsewhere-somehow as shills. They have no evidence of this.
I could easily claim that a large majority of "chemtrail" videos are indeed gathering revenue from You Tube hit counts......but that would not speak to the evidence of the overall debate.

So I feel that if someone garners revenue from YT...set that aside....and speak to the facts.
It's not a good debate of the facts, if "revenue" becomes a deciding point, in place of scientific evidence.

In other words....if someone is making $1k a month by spouting shit.....it does not make that shit palatable, or true.
While I agree with you in principle, the reality of the situation is that I find most of the time even when a debunking is flawless and irrefutable on every point, the typical lay person sitting on the fence and prone to conspiracy belief will still be left asking "why?" This is especially true in cases where the original claim was a hoax. I can't count the number of times I've been asked "why" someone would go to all that effort to make a hoax, because "surely no one would do that just for attention." Setting aside the sweeping generalization and taking the argument to a matter of simple logic, a move that will probably cause them to get defensive, I like to point out the youtube ad revenue issue in cases where it really does apply. There are entire youtube channels that consist of nothing but viral hoax videos made exclusively to generate cash on youtube. Perhaps pointing it out engages in arguing to the man in a way, but it serves a useful function of persuading the fence sitter that there can be a monetary motive behind such behavior. The difference is, I'm not crying hoax over a perceived motive of deception and basing my debunking on the fact that they're making money, but ironically the counter-arguments leveled against me always seem to boil down to accusing me of being paid to lie all without any proof (shill gambit).
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
...Perhaps pointing it out engages in arguing to the man in a way, but it serves a useful function of persuading the fence sitter that there can be a monetary motive behind such behavior.
I agree. Since many people don't realize that money can be involved in YouTube traffic,
informing fence-sitters of that speaks directly to motive. It's not saying that the content is
necessarily untrue merely because the channel generates cash...
but almost everyone agrees that easy money will motivate many people to bend (or pulverize) the truth...
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
While I agree with you in principle, the reality of the situation is that I find most of the time even when a debunking is flawless and irrefutable on every point, the typical lay person sitting on the fence and prone to conspiracy belief will still be left asking "why?" This is especially true in cases where the original claim was a hoax. I can't count the number of times I've been asked "why" someone would go to all that effort to make a hoax, because "surely no one would do that just for attention."

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, a particular historical figure called this principle The Big Lie - "It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
The problem is when people are rude, and obnoxious....when responding to "chemtrail" or other conspiracy theory suggestions in other forums and chats around the web.
Often, in turn, the "believer's" response is defensively rude, in response.
So we all get labeled "trolls", and "shills".
It becomes a name-game....and goes nowhere.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
In all fairness, Leifer, one doesn't have to be rude to evoke the "shill" or "troll" label. Sometimes all one has to do is question. I've seen many times on CGS, a believer questions something they find too out there, like ALL weather is manufactured, or Niburu, and the next post is "TROLL ALERT!" The believer then spends the rest of the thread saying "I'm with you guys! I marched! Look at my wall!"
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
The problem is when people are rude, and obnoxious....when responding to "chemtrail" or other conspiracy theory suggestions in other forums and chats around the web.
Often, in turn, the "believer's" response is defensively rude, in response.
So we all get labeled "trolls", and "shills".
It becomes a name-game....and goes nowhere.
In all fairness, Leifer, one doesn't have to be rude to evoke the "shill" or "troll" label. Sometimes all one has to do is question. I've seen many times on CGS, a believer questions something they find too out there, like ALL weather is manufactured, or Niburu, and the next post is "TROLL ALERT!" The believer then spends the rest of the thread saying "I'm with you guys! I marched! Look at my wall!"

Both of you guys are right. This is when it breaks down into the psychology of the situation. We've all run into people who are so far down the rabbit hole they forgot they fell down in the first place.. and others who are just looking for answers to things theyve never noticed before..

The hard part about ALL of it, as @Astro and @NoParty pointed out, is getting beyond the single most potent element in all of nature.. Handwavium. Have a question about something, introduce a little handwavium to the chemical mix and all the answers suddenly appear. There's no need for further information because a single dose of handwavium makes you understand that these are not the droids you're looking for.

Logic, Science and provably falsifiable evidence scare people. Its scary because it means the world as you understand it DOESNT exist. You lose that sense of control.. AHA!!!! I KNOW WHY THE WORLD'S SO FUCKED UP, THE NWOILLUMINATIMASONSCIAFBI ARE DOING IT TO US. Which is a lot easier, quicker and requires a LOT less effort to understand than getting into the science of condensation trails, with all the math and counter intuitive aspects of weather in general. The same's most likely the same for just about every other crackpot conspiracy out there... and when a real conspiracy DOES rear its head.. it sends people off in a tizzy because it plays into their confirmation bias.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
and when a real conspiracy DOES rear its head.. it sends people off in a tizzy because it plays into their confirmation bias
how would you know you have a real conspiracy to send you off in a tizzy, if you think everything is a conspiracy?
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
how would you know you have a real conspiracy to send you off in a tizzy, if you think everything is a conspiracy?

The housing market crash was a legit conspiracy. There were several people (or businesses in this case), all working together which caused the crash.. now, granted that wasnt the GOAL.. they wanted to make a quick buck, but it was still a conspiracy none the less. Conspiracy to commit murder.. there are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of that if you know where to look.. Charles Manson is a good example of a murder conspiracy. It all really depends on how you look at the word conspiracy and how you're using it. In some minds, a single conspiracy.. ANY conspiracy... is proof that all conspiracies exist, even when thats not the case.
 

Heather S.

Member
The problem is when people are rude, and obnoxious....when responding to "chemtrail" or other conspiracy theory suggestions in other forums and chats around the web.
Often, in turn, the "believer's" response is defensively rude, in response.
So we all get labeled "trolls", and "shills".
It becomes a name-game....and goes nowhere.

I get what you're saying there. It is hard not to be rude sometimes though when a person keeps repeating the same claim even though you or others have shown it to be a false claim. A guy I have been talking to lately told me that he got into the 9/11 conspiracy when he noticed that the Commission Report had no mention of building 7 in it. I politely pointed out that the CR had to do with how and why of the attacks, which had nothing to do with building 7. This is why it doesn't show up in the report. He acknowledged that, but still asks why the Commission wasn't told or looked into about this or that when it comes to building 7. He also expects me to tell him what made up the dust around the WTC after the attacks. I've pointed out where he can find that information, but still expects me to tell him for some reason.

I haven't been doing any name calling, but I have started to get a little rude about. I don't really mean to be, but getting frustrated with him repeating a claim when he knows he is wrong to do so.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I haven't been doing any name calling, but I have started to get a little rude about.

I've been 'down this road' many times.

And yes, it IS difficult, especially when emotions are introduced. I'm not perfect at it...(as some here who are "Admins" fully know).

I've decided to attempt the "Spock approach" (means, since there is, yet, no real "meme" for that phrase...the iconic "Vulcan" approach to logic, in a discussion) from now on. (Of course, that is a "Star Trek" reference)....maybe the best way going forward?
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
"The Spock approach".
Despite being a scripted character, Rodenberry's character Spock did seem to have a way of helping quell the "human emotional response", as a fact-based reaction and summation.
Smartly and ironically, the Star Trek writers played "DR. McCoy", as a protagonist against Spock, possibly to examine all sides of a decision....which then rested within Cptn Kirk's fair sense of decision making.

Was Spock a "shill", simply by being logical ?
 
Last edited:

JRBids

Senior Member.
The housing market crash was a legit conspiracy. There were several people (or businesses in this case), all working together which caused the crash.. now, granted that wasnt the GOAL.. they wanted to make a quick buck, but it was still a conspiracy none the less. Conspiracy to commit murder.. there are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of that if you know where to look.. Charles Manson is a good example of a murder conspiracy. It all really depends on how you look at the word conspiracy and how you're using it. In some minds, a single conspiracy.. ANY conspiracy... is proof that all conspiracies exist, even when thats not the case.

As a real estate agent, I'd be interested in learning what businesses/people worked together to cause the crash in home values. And also by what definition you are using the word conspiracy in that case.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
The housing market crash was a legit conspiracy. There were several people (or businesses in this case), all working together which caused the crash.. now, granted that wasnt the GOAL.. they wanted to make a quick buck, but it was still a conspiracy none the less. Conspiracy to commit murder.. there are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of that if you know where to look.. Charles Manson is a good example of a murder conspiracy. It all really depends on how you look at the word conspiracy and how you're using it. In some minds, a single conspiracy.. ANY conspiracy... is proof that all conspiracies exist, even when thats not the case.

Then you run into the people who declare: "IT'S NOT A CONSPIRACY... IT'S REAL!" :rolleyes:
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
As a real estate agent, I'd be interested in learning what businesses/people worked together to cause the crash in home values. And also by what definition you are using the word conspiracy in that case.

The legal definition of the word, and the housing crash was a result of a form of short selling taking place on Wall Street whereby banks or investment companies (similar to JP Morgan.. but I dont think they were involved.. Im going off of memory and at work so forgive me for inaccuracies) placing bets, in layman's terms, on the number of housing loans would default and making money from the defaults. Thats the conspiracy angle.. not that the banks were setting ppl up to fail or anything like that, but that those that moved the money had figured out that the loans were going to default and rather than trying to curtail the defaults they made money off of them. John Stewart did a great piece on this a couple years ago.. I'll dig it up and post it here as soon as things calm down here at the office.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The legal definition of the word, and the housing crash was a result of a form of short selling taking place on Wall Street whereby banks or investment companies (similar to JP Morgan.. but I dont think they were involved.. Im going off of memory and at work so forgive me for inaccuracies) placing bets, in layman's terms, on the number of housing loans would default and making money from the defaults. Thats the conspiracy angle.. not that the banks were setting ppl up to fail or anything like that, but that those that moved the money had figured out that the loans were going to default and rather than trying to curtail the defaults they made money off of them. John Stewart did a great piece on this a couple years ago.. I'll dig it up and post it here as soon as things calm down here at the office.
i thought a conspiracy had to be 'a secret'? that wasnt a secret. even i knew that was going to happen and i dont really follow business stuff. that was lax regulations. no? of course people are going to make money within the law.
my friend with bad credit, barely one income that didnt cover her mortgage/expenses.. not only got a 'free' house with no money down..they for some reason actually GAVE her 500$! when she closed. crazy stuff.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
i thought a conspiracy had to be 'a secret'?

Thats why I said the legal definition of the word Conspiracy. Now, in SOME respects, the housing thing WAS done in secret.. the only ppl that really knew about it were the players involved, but the common vernacular meaning of the word has a more clandestine and evil connotation to it. In this case, it was still a conspiracy just not one of those evil mega villain type of conspiracies.. it was just greed.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Thats why I said the legal definition of the word Conspiracy. Now, in SOME respects, the housing thing WAS done in secret.. the only ppl that really knew about it were the players involved, but the common vernacular meaning of the word has a more clandestine and evil connotation to it. In this case, it was still a conspiracy just not one of those evil mega villain type of conspiracies.. it was just greed.
The way the banks packaged the mortgages to sell overseas was probably unlawful as far as their customers... true. But the bubble was going to pop either way. Of course, in my neck of the woods it was super obvious the bubble was getting WAY too big as property values sky rocketed. (if it seems to good to be true, it usually is). So my perception may be off.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
The way the banks packaged the mortgages to sell overseas was probably unlawful as far as their customers... true. But the bubble was going to pop either way. Of course, in my neck of the woods it was super obvious the bubble was getting WAY too big as property values sky rocketed. (if it seems to good to be true, it usually is). So my perception may be off.

Yep, but if I understand how things went down, those same groups saw it coming ages before it actually popped and let it ride anyway.. like I said.. lemme get to a point where I can try to hunt down those articles again and I'll get'em posted here as well as that video with John Stewart.. they break it down pretty well.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Yep, but if I understand how things went down, those same groups saw it coming ages before it actually popped and let it ride anyway.. like I said.. lemme get to a point where I can try to hunt down those articles again and I'll get'em posted here as well as that video with John Stewart.. they break it down pretty well.
Drifting off topic here. We're not discussing the derivatives markets.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Thats why I said the legal definition of the word Conspiracy. Now, in SOME respects, the housing thing WAS done in secret.. the only ppl that really knew about it were the players involved, but the common vernacular meaning of the word has a more clandestine and evil connotation to it. In this case, it was still a conspiracy just not one of those evil mega villain type of conspiracies.. it was just greed.

was it really a conspiracy or was it just people taking advantage of what they thought would happen?

IMO for it to be a conspiracy they would also have to have created the circumstances to run the value of properties UP.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
Just trying to get some insight into what Swartbjorn considers conspiracy.

Each is different, there's not really a one size fits all. If you're coming at this in a tin foil hat sort of angle, then yes Id agree theyd have to set everything up from scratch etc... but in the realms of conspiracies in the terms of legality, it was a conspiracy. The actions they took, while maybe not ENTIRELY illegal, werent EXACTLY legal either.. a loop hole was exploited.. or several loop holes. As stated in the definition above, in this PARTICULAR instance it would be considered a conspiracy because two or more entities were engaged in an act that, in itself was innocent, but when done in concert became unlawful. Basically, the hedge bets fell through and the companies involved got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They knew the bubble was going to break and rather than trying to prevent it, they encouraged it by increasing the bets. Those bets increased the availability of bad loans, which increased the the ability for people to buy homes, which increased the price in the homes being sold, and when the loans defaulted the whole thing collapsed in on itself.

So, while they werent directly responsible (which is what a supervillain mentality of a conspiracy would see.. that the whole thing was precipitated intentionally), their collective actions and lack there-of to prevent the burst ultimately lead to the fall of the housing market which triggered the collapse of the economy as a whole. Its more of a cause and effect than a direct correlation. Does that answer your question JR?
 

E**

Member
I get what you're saying there. It is hard not to be rude sometimes though when a person keeps repeating the same claim even though you or others have shown it to be a false claim. A guy I have been talking to lately told me that he got into the 9/11 conspiracy when he noticed that the Commission Report had no mention of building 7 in it. I politely pointed out that the CR had to do with how and why of the attacks, which had nothing to do with building 7. This is why it doesn't show up in the report. He acknowledged that, but still asks why the Commission wasn't told or looked into about this or that when it comes to building 7. He also expects me to tell him what made up the dust around the WTC after the attacks. I've pointed out where he can find that information, but still expects me to tell him for some reason.

I haven't been doing any name calling, but I have started to get a little rude about. I don't really mean to be, but getting frustrated with him repeating a claim when he knows he is wrong to do so.

Yes I think what most debunkers miss is that CTers see name calling as winning. Of course they are going to find any reason to doubt you no matter what but making fun of them feeds into their paranoia as they see it as a tactic used by shills to discredit them.

If you watch enough youtube videos, infowars, etc evidence is besides the point a debunked stat gets thrown in at the end as "all of us that are awake already know that to be the case"

Of course the reality is most debunkers are just laid back people who get fed up with CT believers inability to see evidence and resort to humor when all else fails. But pretty funny that they start off by calling everyone who disagrees with them asleep sheeple and wonder why debunkers end up calling them mentally ill.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
The most important thing IMO regarding the cry of shill is that it allows the accuser to ignore facts. Mick has spent a lot of time on the Contrailscience site and included an enormous amount of links to facts. Instead of confronting those facts a certain type of person will cry shill and run off. I have often been criticized for asking for evidence to support (what often are specious) claims. For those people coming on this site and declaring government operation/shill, there are plenty of evidence to support the removal of bunk. If you have contrary evidence then present it here (or in the proper thread). Just don't be in violation of the no click policy.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
and if you want to accuse anyone on this site of being a paid disinfo agent, then you had better bring some concrete evidence to back that up, rather than just assume it cos they say stuff against your pet theory.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
The most important thing IMO regarding the cry of shill is that it allows the accuser to ignore facts. Mick has spent a lot of time on the Contrailscience site and included an enormous amount of links to facts. Instead of confronting those facts a certain type of person will cry shill and run off. I have often been criticized for asking for evidence to support (what often are specious) claims. For those people coming on this site and declaring government operation/shill, there are plenty of evidence to support the removal of bunk. If you have contrary evidence then present it here (or in the proper thread). Just don't be in violation of the no click policy.

Most of them have adopted the stance that the chemtrail story has already been proven beyond all doubt, so the very act of asking for proof is suspect.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Along with the snap-accusation of being labeled a shill, is also being accused as "sheeple", simply if there is a belief that the gov't and science is correct (and that the conspiracy may be wrong or misunderstood).
According to many, if you believe:
"Box-cutter wielding terrorists committed 9-11" = you are a sheeple.
"Excessive UV rays are not verified by the gov't and university study programs" = you are a sheeple.
....etc, with other examples not listed here.

It seems to me, the accusation can be applied in the other direction, that the majority of conspiracy believers are hypocritically following and engaging in the very same path and definition of "sheeple", ....and are actively doing something very similar, to which they are accusing others of.
And that their zones and sources of information are to be the only trustworthy information available, in order to seek a "perceived or real truth".
The accusers, that other people are being sheeple (and maybe shills ?)....are actually partaking in their own community of sheeple-ness, or "herd" thought.

Also ironic (or logically troubling), is the percentage of involvement or action, in which these conspiracy believers partake. Often it's just online complaints, accusations, suggestions of belief, and half-hearted plans of action. (To a lesser percentage, some people do involve themselves much more.)
Given the suggested "enormously wicked corruption" levied, it is surprising how few believers actually "do anything" about it, beyond online posts and anti-establishment opinions. And they often keep these opinions away from friends and family.

Perhaps it's just me....but if I actually believed the govt and science was involved in dubious world-wide cabals, I would certainly be pounding on the doors of the gov't, lit torch in hand. (figure of speech)

So in a certain way, it is the anti-establishment conspiratorial believers who are becoming "sheeple and complacent", and "oh well this is the way it is" as their furthest involvement would be youtube vids, forum comments, and blog editorials.....and (for many (most?)), not anything more.
It's rare to find "conspiracy" believers, that do much more than described above, lending me to conclude that they are only half-believers, but excite themselves by promoting the conspiracies anyway, as a means of voicing their dissatisfaction of the system as a whole, and muckraking the system from their computer keyboards, attaining an internal psychological feeling of well-being, that they "now have a voice", despite if the conspiratorial topic has not quite enough evidence to be true.

In their defense....even the average person feels a "lack of power" in the decisions made for them, in social and political arenas....but to latch-on to wild conspiracies...is not the most effective path.
So I do have some empathy, albeit with boundaries of belief.

Interesting, is the in the Wikipedia suggested "see also" terms, for "sheeple"....
(note, Slacktivism)
 
Last edited:
Top