> FILTER ALL
>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 aditional 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;
>2. 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.
>4. 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.
>5. 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.
>7. 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