>>2645961

>you get kind of immunized.

Herd immunisation (AKA the smart cow problem reversed).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_cow_problem

Now for tips on counter-shill tactics:

1) Emotions/emotional arguments imply by default they don't have sound facts or logic to back it up.

2) When shills do finally present evidence(?), it classically has the following flaws (any/all/some):

2a) The source they're using is bias (and is not factually accurate)

2b) The source uses factually correct information, but skewers it through a perception filter or lense that eclipses a serious issue (for example, one person posted the DoJ admitted no-one got arrested for terrorism, tried to claim Trump was lying - which eclipses the fact the media has endlessly reported on terrorism and terrorists being arrested etc so more a damning refutement to their own position).

2c) The source uses opinion but the arguer tries to use it as fact (appeal to authority fallacy)

2d) They source 'clean' facts but the facts have been cherry picked (EG ignore other facts that change the context, only focus on one side, cherry quotes only specific parts etc)

2e) The source has a credibility problem or tries to use dishonest arguing tactics themselves (EG snopes)

2f) The source makes claims that simply aren't substantiated by any citations (typically done by mainstream media, for example, when 'debunking' PizzaGate they make circular self-references to each other that don't lead to any substantial refutement - three men make a tiger fallacy)

3) When arguing, the shills goal isn't to win you over, but the fabled 'audience' (EG the silent majority). You'll sometimes see me address the audience directly by using third-person pronouns and references ('see how this shill can't even get his facts right?') in order to counter it.

4) Shills will try to provoke, traumatise, infuriate, rely on semantics or pedantry. Always call this out, and never engage ('that's an argument to semantics, which I'm going to ignore').

5) When you get a 'direct hit' on a flaw in a shill's argument, they've been taught to ignore it and not respond (which is why they never requote your posts unless your response is garbage).

This is called 'minimisation', their goal is to make your counter argument have the least amount of exposure. You can thwart this by re-referring to their sidestepping of your argument in subsequent posts ('why won't you answer me on…').

The more desperately they cherry pick your post's quotes, the closer you are to a winning argument. If you do it right, you can force them into a 'non-reply' state (because quoting any part results in them being beaten).

6) Shills want you to look bad (same tactics Media Matters did at the Trump rallies), so they try to provoke and then capture you at your worst. Don't rise to the occasion, and call out any and all abuse (ask questions why they're doing it).

7) Don't give them any personal information, don't try to 'prove' yourself to them (or if you do, give them bogus info), because the shills datamine and then use it to attack you by looking for personal weaknesses. Your sex life, age, financial status, colour, whether or not you're disabled, etc (yes, a Democrat organisation does use such slurs) will all be used to harass you. It's always worth bearing in mind the shill has a shitty job and doesn't contribute to the human race in any meaningful way, and worth reminding them of that any time they get abusive.

From argumenters standpoint, you have three key argumentative approaches to use:

1) Emotion

2) Logic

3) Rhetoric

Emotion is where you appeal to the inner feelings of the audience ('don't you find this shill abusing me to be a sad, evil thing?').

Logic is where you appeal to 'just the facts' ('statistically speaking, there are 300,000 people in this area who own a gun').

Rhetoric is almost Greek-style philosophy in that you combine an emotional appeal with logic in a casual banter style format ('I find my opponent here has ignored the fact there are 300,000 people who own a gun, why is that?')

Each style has it's strengths and weaknesses, and varies depending on which and what type of audience you're trying to appeal to. So say you wanted to sway scientists, you'd likely rely heavily on logic alone, which means your facts and the credibility of your sources will need to be up to spec.

When approaching normies, the general public have an 'intuitive' approach, and tend to sway better with either emotion or rhetoric. Bland facts are often not easy for, shall we say, less cognitively inclined individuals, to process, and so you will need to break down their meaning for them ('spoonfeeding').

For example: 'there are 300,000 gun owners in this area alone, and their voice is simply getting ignored, are you going to ignore the general public on this one?' - the spoonfed implication being their own vote would just as readily be ignored if the boot was on the other foot.

Rhetoric works best when you're dealing with a seasoned philosophical debater (who themselves uses rhetoric), as they're a mixture of both factual statements and interesting verbal presentation (almost like poetry, really).

You must ALWAYS consider what audience you're trying to appeal to, when dealing with a shill. Ask yourself who is the shill trying to convince, and then counter that approach with your own.

I often multi-layer my approaches in a single argument, so one rebuttal might be factual, the next portion rhetorical, another an emotional appeal (it often works best if you match like-for-like, so emotional retorts for emotional, factual for factual, and rhetoric for rhetoric).

There's subtle naunces in difference case scenarios but you should be able to read between the lines of how your (vocal) audience reacts.

Whatever you do, a couple of pro-tips:

1) Don't generalise (not every liberal is going to disagree with you, so don't say 'all liberals do X' - no, wrong, don't make more enemies than you have to, instead say 'doing X is wrong because…')

2) When debating a shill, focus on the shill primarily. Innocents (which I call 'collateral') will often try to wade in, add their own opinions, and initially their opinion will be against you. It's best to treat the innocents with politeness and decorum (even if wrong) and continue to engage the shill with full force.

What you'll find is the innocents won't 'polarise' (most are aversive to arguing) but may even start to come round to your position. If you treat them nicely but they turn full-blown hostile and aggressive, then you can treat them in the same vein as the shill (everyone else will see how hostile they are becoming despite how polite you've been).

Remember: half of an argument is PR. Yours.