For newfags and otherwise unaware. The current psyop allows shills to blend in as much as possible. They will converse with each other and respond to you. Except for overt racism, post history may not help; As in the past, lurking for several breads will help you to identify them over time, and while it is impossible to completely avoid them, you will become more skilled at discerning them.

Remember first that nobody except a shill cares if you filter. Fil ter ID+ and filt er Post+ produce good results. (Pay close attention to the post history of those who respond to this post.) Absolutely do not reply to the filtered post, you will trigger 5 additional posts, so it is counter productive.

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.

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.