you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]quickbeam 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I think we'll be okay, but thanks for the concern. :)

[–]Zahn 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

It's humorous that they assigned more than just one DNC shill to Saidit this time, the last guy didn't last all that long. These new ones make for a tasty lunch. I've learned a lot about their shared tactics in the process and have been documenting their methods.

[–]quickbeam 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

LOL - nah, dude, we're here because Reddit started censoring women and LGB people. Sorry to bust up your conspiracy racket.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Wait you aren't getting paid for this? Hit me up in the DMs my man.

[–]Zahn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah, Fed Quixote is paid. You must love self punishment to suffer humiliating defeats every day like you guys do and not get dirty money for your disservice at least.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You see it as "humiliating defeats" because you've got some NPD issues my man.

[–]Zahn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And you suffer from Dunning Kruger. Internet insults 101. *ahem. I expected better from you.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

How do you spot a shill?

[–]Zahn 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Shill spotting is a big topic. In regards to the common shill slime that they send here. Some indicators are a strict adherence to the narrative or provided script. Insofar as they won't ever meet you even on neutral ground.

Fed Quixote when he first emerged from his basement, informed us to the effect....he was here to fix this place and correct our viewpoints. Correct The Record perhaps? He's a hopeless contrarian, but I enjoy observing his methodology.

There are many subjects that a normal person would at least concede are possible or debatable that defy mainstream narrative. Not these guys though, line item mainstream scripted rebuttals, until they run out of them. Also DNC type shills frequently weave an anti Trump sentiment into their posts, needlessly even. You will notice they also seem to have a lot of time on their hands to write bloated walls of text to create conversational "noise". It's an "I am very smart" moment and they don't actually say anything that moves the conversation forward.

Oh, and these type of shills seem to be instilled with a great deal of hatred considering their frequent use of slurs, slanders and ad hominem attacks. It's almost like being a maladjusted foul mouthed person is a hiring requirement. They're trained to use propagandized slanders like: extremist, wing nuts, conspiratards, racist, tin foil hat, supremacist....etc you understand.

More insidious type shills are ones that appear to hold similar beliefs as the predominate sentiment of other users. However, they will weave a dissenting narrative that is almost subconscious until you see it.

For instance not too long ago, a user was appearing to be very right wing, until it was noticed that every third post he was injecting the statement that the "right was eating itself". Which of course is a falsehood. It's a common demoralization tactic.

There are others who also appear to be ideologically aligned but they are vitriolic and pointlessly extreme in their positions. Which could include calls to violence. It would appear that they are attempting to create a false association of legitimately concerned people with a dangerous belligerence in a partial effort to scare off people who are seeking answers.

There are so many flavors of shills, it's fun to taste them all!

It's all about perception management, consensus and sentiment influence as the goal.

There are outliers, some people just naturally do some of these things instead of pursuing professional help or a productive hobby instead.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yesterday I was arguing for violence against a tyrannical government that restricts 1A. Am I a shill then?

[–]Zahn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I caught that, I haven't seen this as a pattern with you however. It appeared to be a reaction from Fed Quixote goading you. What happens every now and then is no big deal, patterns however are different. Also, you implied violence and wasn't a direct call. That would be against TOS anyway.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

True, not a pattern yet! :P

[–]Zahn 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Lol, respond...don't react.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's simple. If you're on Saidit and they appear to be left-leaning, they're a shill.

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You appeared to be left-leaning yesterday, Fed-iNetizen, when you argued against 1A.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Argued against 1A" I think you mean tried explaining how woefully unqualified you are to tell other people what is and is not constitutional. You can tell yourself that there's no such thing as common law, or the general welfare clause, or that the supreme court only has the authority to decide a law's constitutionality when you agree with their conclusion. It just means you're delusional.

[–]Dragonerne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You can't even use the general welfare clause because it wasn't applied uniform throughout the US.

By this logic as long as its applied uniformly, you can use the "general welfare" clause to limit 2A and free speech etc. as much as you want in the name of "Welfare of the US".
The Supreme Court does not have the highest authority. It has the highest legal authority.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are still trying to convince yourself you are more qualified to interpret the constitution than the supreme court despite knowing no case history and at this point it's getting tedious. Sorry, but you're getting blocked.