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

JDubyah

Member
I tend to think of Conspiracy Theorists who call others 'Sheeple' as themselves 'Black Sheeple'. Many are just regurgitating different sets of information provided by alternate sources. The guy who initially approached me with all the Chemtrail stuff fancied himself a 'free thinker', mainly for his political views. However, most of his free-thought is verbatim repetition of the standard CT stuff found on the internet. Contrails don't persist, all that jazz.
 

DesuMaiden

New Member
I was once called a shill for merely questioning the Rothschild Banking Conspiracy. I merely asked what proof did certain conspiracy theorists had for:

1) the claim that the Rothschilds banking dynasty and family is worth trillions of dollars. (Some claim the Rothschilds are worth hundreds of trillions of dollars, which is about as much as/more than the entire GDP of the global economy).

2) proof that the Rothschilds are secretly controlling the entire globe's economy. Apparently, some people claim that the Rothschilds (and other banking families) secretly cause economic calamities and wars around the globe.

I was called a shill because I tried to show how implausible the Rothschild World Domination Banking conspiracy theory really is.

Then again, I did this on a site called 8chan, on their politics board, which is dominated by an overwhelming majority of conspiracy theorists. Most of the people posting there are conspiracy theorists.

I tried my best in changing their minds, and getting them to stop believing in bunk. But they refused to be reasoned with, and continued to unquestioningly believe in bunk. I didn't use any ad hominem attacks on them, but they certainly did on me. In fact, one of them even tried to unsuccessfully report me to the site's moderators for intentionally trying to spread disinformation aka doing shilling.

It is very difficult to change people's minds, especially if they have the support of group think. Since the overwhelming majority of the posters on that forum were conspiracy theorists, it would have been very difficult for anyone with a non-conspiracy world view to spread dissent amongst the conspiracy-theory-believing conformity. In other words, it would have been very difficult for anyone to change anyone's mind, and stop more people from believing in CT nonsense, let alone change the general consensus of the CT-believing group.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I was once called a shill for merely questioning the Rothschild Banking Conspiracy. I merely asked what proof did certain conspiracy theorists had for:

1) the claim that the Rothschilds banking dynasty and family is worth trillions of dollars. (Some claim the Rothschilds are worth hundreds of trillions of dollars, which is about as much as/more than the entire GDP of the global economy).

2) proof that the Rothschilds are secretly controlling the entire globe's economy. Apparently, some people claim that the Rothschilds (and other banking families) secretly cause economic calamities and wars around the globe.

I was called a shill because I tried to show how implausible the Rothschild World Domination Banking conspiracy theory really is.

Then again, I did this on a site called 8chan, on their politics board, which is dominated by an overwhelming majority of conspiracy theorists. Most of the people posting there are conspiracy theorists.

I tried my best in changing their minds, and getting them to stop believing in bunk. But they refused to be reasoned with, and continued to unquestioningly believe in bunk. I didn't use any ad hominem attacks on them, but they certainly did on me. In fact, one of them even tried to unsuccessfully report me to the site's moderators for intentionally trying to spread disinformation aka doing shilling.

It is very difficult to change people's minds, especially if they have the support of group think. Since the overwhelming majority of the posters on that forum were conspiracy theorists, it would have been very difficult for anyone with a non-conspiracy world view to spread dissent amongst the conspiracy-theory-believing conformity. In other words, it would have been very difficult for anyone to change anyone's mind, and stop more people from believing in CT nonsense, let alone change the general consensus of the CT-believing group.
Ask them for proof that you are a shill. People use that as a throw away argument.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
If one were ever in a genuine, formal debate,
and clearly getting their ass handed to them...

and then they blurted out:
"You're just saying that because you're secretly being paid to do so!!!"
they would rightly be humiliated and laughed out of the building.

But when it's done on the internet, it's called "Tuesday."
(& Wednesday, & Thursday, & Friday, & Saturday, & Sunday, & Monday...)
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
lending me to conclude that they are only half-believers, but excite themselves by promoting the conspiracies anyway,

I have believed, for a long time, that at least half of all seeming "believers" are just people who are doing it mostly for the LOLS.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I have believed, for a long time, that at least half of all seeming "believers" are just people who are doing it mostly for the LOLS.
I agree, but we have no proof...other than their responses.
Not everybody is a leader, though many seem to be followers.

And followers will use the "shill" or "sheeple" excuse, because the leaders use those aspersions too.
So we could blame the leaders of a conspiracy, for setting bad examples.
 
Last edited:

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
In some ways I think it's binary thinking. With a claim as big as "the government is poisoning you and your children with chemtrails", there might not seem to be a middle ground. Either the government is in on it or it isn't. The world is ruled by shapeshifting reptilians or it isn't. Sandy Hook either was or wasn't an inside job. When CTers read and trust inflammatory, biased 'evidence' from the [...] mouths of Alex Jones and David Icke, there isn't any middle ground because their evidence is all one-sided. I mean, let-it-happen theories aside, how can a die-hard truther of 15 years possibly imagine that 9/11 was 'sort of' a controlled demolition? It isn't like AE911 is saying 'now, we could be wrong here, but listen up', so a truther who has dedicated his/her life to this theory won't be able to easily phase out of it, taking baby steps back to reality. The information they've been given and believed like gospel doesn't really allow it. One is either completely against it or completely with it, and maybe that gigantic leap scares people, so they stick with the theory they're comfortable with.
Maybe. I'm no expert.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have been accused of being a shill many times, and it is the standard argument when all else fails for a conspiracy theorist confronted with arguments for which they have no answer. The view seems to be that you can't possibly be disagreeing with someone because they are wrong, you must be doing it because you're being paid to. It's a cop out, not a conspiracy.

I have two responses to them. Firstly, it doesn't matter who I am or represent, facts are facts - refute them or don't, but you can't dismiss them just because you don't like whoever it is that you think I work for.

Secondly, a shill (to my mind) is someone pretending to be something they are not, and I have never hidden my contempt or derision for some of the people with whom it has been my misfortune to deal when discussing topics such as UFOs and NASA.
 

JesseCuster

Active 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."
This seems to be a common issue when some "whistleblower" who worked (or claims to have worked) for the air force, CIA, defense contractor claims to have seen little green men, UFOs, evidence of anti-gravity technology, etc. Any reliable evidence (or even half-assed evidence) doesn't arise and so the argument from the believers becomes "but he's not making money from it so why else do it?" "why would he risk his reputation?" "he's risking his life by coming forth with this?" Any when evidence that actively disproves or throws doubts on the claims being made are brought up, then that's just evidence of a coverup to discredit the "whistleblower".

To which I always respond that I don't care what someone supposed whistleblower's motivation is. Where's their evidence?

Edward Snowden is a whistleblower. People like Bob Lazar aren't.
 
Top