dChan
Anonymous ID: 428cac May 25, 2020, 3:09 p.m. No.9313340   🗄️.is 🔗kun

For newfags and otherwise unaware. The current psyop allows shills to blend in as much as possible. They will converse with each other and even respond to you. Except for obvious racism, post history may not help.

 

Referring to the 25 rules of disinformation, of which a shill is trained (or brought up with, if they live in a cabal family)

 

http://www.renegadetribune.com/25-rules-disinformation-propaganda-psyops-debunking-techniques/

 

When a post is not overtly divisive or based on a weak premise, posts will often still follow the 25. (Pay close attention to the posts others respond to this post with.)

 

Some examples from the list;

 

  1. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

 

  1. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

 

  1. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviants”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

 

  1. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.