For newfags and otherwise unaware. When not pushing fearporn
and disinformation, the current psyop allows shills to blend
in as much as possible. They will converse with each other and
even respond to your post. Except for overt racism, post history
may not help identify them. Lurking for several breads will
help you to recognize 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.
Filter ID+ and filter 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)
It is easy to google for, and many sites have it.
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;
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
FILTER ALL WHO RESPOND TO THIS POST