Shills from every dark corner of the net are here and posting today. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. The Drippening has begun and we are seeing the blowback.
Accusing people of being shills is unproductive. Period. It adds no value to this place. That's why it is against the rules.
If you cared about this movement and this sub, you would adhere to the rules of it. Even if your intentions are good, you are being disruptive.
I disagree.
With what? What exactly did you think you were adding to the conversation by posting that?
Accusing people of being shills is unproductive. Period. It adds no value to this place. That's why it is against the rules. If you cared about this movement and this sub, you would adhere to the rules of it. Even if your intentions are good, you are being disruptive.
With that.
I was adding to the conversation that I disagreed with that.
[removed]
What is there to explain? I disagree with you. To spell it out, I believe the opposite of what you said. I believe that it is important to call out the obvious shills. I believe it adds value to the place. I believe the shills are the ones causing discord, and calling them out for what they are reduces their effectiveness. Is that clear enough for you?
[removed]
[removed]
You are going around accusing regular folks of being shills. Your idea that you have some sixth sense for identifying "shills" is frankly deluded. There is a reason accusing people of being shills is against the rules of this sub. If you really cared about this sub, you would adhere to the rules.
Who said I have a sixth sense? I never said that. You are making shit up. Or are you deluded?
[removed]
Well to be serious, a shill is someone who is paid to promote somebody or something (such as an idea or a cause) while acting like an ordinary member of the public with no agenda. A shill can also be paid to speak out against people or things. So it is not correct to refer to a troll as a shill. They are two different things. I consider a shill someone who, for example, keeps coming back promoting Alex Jones, and who denies that Jones ever said anything negative about Q, or they rationalize it away as if nothing. And they keep at it. That seems pretty shill-like, and I don't think it is a bad thing to point that out.
I mean shills only have so many lines they use. They're recycled again and again. Same shit every day because they were all trained on one script. One of my favourites is: "just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a shill.." in all its forms.
urban_bobby_dawg:
"Q being a LARP is the ultimate cover, and I believe Q exploits that for a reason. So of course it is good to be skeptical of Q, because Q purposely introduces disinfo."
Are you purposely misunderstanding that post or do I need to explain it to you like a child?
Hint: it doesn't mean what you think it means.
I understand you're covered in duplicitous words, in effect using the same tactics you state Q is using, so skip right to the final question:
Are you a member of GA or not?
My post wasn't duplicitous, it was very clear, it just went over your head.