Shills !We don't need to be a rocket scientist to recognize them!!
Quote:
Below is series of statements taken from H. Michael Sweeney's 'Disinformation Playbook'. I have taken what I feel to be the most relevant assertions and observations, and embedded my own comments and observations to profile the common disinformant; as the full unabridged essay is very long and is not wholly relevant to this forum.
According to the above, some of the most recognizable traits of a Disinformant or 'Cointel Operative' are:
Avoidance: They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
Selectivity: They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well. Side attacks are relatively common though too, where the disinformant will select commentators to attack on a peripheral basis, to help camouflage their strike on a single target.
Coincidental: They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally, perhaps with a new controversial topic, and with no prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular forum involved. They simply appear, and start their activities without delay or interest in the temperament of those around them, or the nature of other discussions.
Anti-Conspiratorial: They often assert a disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who believe legitimate and proven conspiracies, whilst at the same time they often defend outlandish and unverified conspiracies. This is designed to confuse the issue by diverting attention away from real intelligence, and toward counterintelligence, which is no threat to the adversary. If they are not defending or promoting any particular topic, then the chances are they are simply attempting to foster doubt about all material and discussions, although this is far less likely as it nurtures suspicion about their identity.
Artificial Emotion: An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin - an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later - an emotional yo-yo, which betrays their total lack of sincerity in the topic or discussion. For them, it is likely just a job, and so they do it without emotional attachment, although this may not always be the case.
Inconsistent: There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth or discovery deep within. They can make claims of authority on a certain topic, but once they've been shown to be wrong or fraudulent; casually change their position to suit the prevailing consensus. When observed, these traits are highly indicative of a disinformant, as the disinformant is only working toward short term goals of disruption, and is not concerned with integrity or a clean track record.
Some of the key techniques and tactics used by these people; to defame sources of information or opinion, to disrupt the exchange of information, and to contaminate the information itself, are as follows:
Imply Myth or Rumor: Avoid discussing details by describing all assertions, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. If the assertion can in any way be associated with known myth or rumor, use this to your advantage and appeal to popular cynicism by stating that it is 'obviously' such a myth or rumor.
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 look bad. Either make up an issue that you can imply exists, based on your 'interpretation' of their assertions, and use that to discredit their case, or take the weakest and most insignificant aspect of their argument, amplify its significance into a pivotal issue, and debate them on that. This of course, distracts from core issues, and gives you a better chance of an 'easy win'.
Distract Introduce a new topic altogether, and encourage commentators or observers to focus on this information instead. This can be accurate, partially inaccurate, or wholly inaccurate information, but which is non-threatening to your cause and which is likely to gain more attention through sensation, controversy or curiosity. Mixing a little bit of fact with a lot of fiction is often the most effective method, as this lures people in yet leaves them without any solid intelligence to use. This means spending more time on a non-issue, which is good for avoiding real issues, and may even illicit some long term believers.
Ad-Hominem: 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', 'drunks', 'drug addicts' and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. This can also assist in provoking an emotional response in your opponent, thus putting them on the defensive, where they are more likely to try and prove your personal attacks inaccurate.
Hit & Run: In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works well in making an accusation without having to dignify the response, and avoids getting caught in a direct confrontation over a single issue, which can be risky.
Question Motives: Much like the Ad-Hominem ploy; Twist, amplify or invent any fact which could be taken to suggest that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing real issues and forces the opponent on the defensive, so more time is spent countering these allegations than dealing with the core information.
Invoke Authority: Claim yourself to be, or associate yourself with an authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows'. By simply repeating these assertions with confidence and making frequent references to jargon, you can maintain the veneer of authority without having to deal in specifics for any length of time.
Play Dumb: No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect, and simply repeat over and over so that you appear to hold the stronger position.
Enigma: Drawing upon the multitude of facts and information surrounding the assertion, claim that they are too complex and too complicated to ever come to any reasonable conclusion on. This works best when your position is weakening and it is time to move on: offer the 'truce' of an unsolvable mystery; making you appear more objective, whilst your opponent appears more subjective for trying to push the issue.
Backward Logic: Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual fact. For example: Create a faulty premise which you know will appeal to a popular misconception, and use that 'logic' as the grounds to discredit your opponent's argument to the contrary.
Demand Complete Solutions: Demand a comprehensive and complete explanation of your opponent's premise, and use any unanswered questions or uncertainties as the basis for dismissing the entire argument altogether. This works well in swaying the opinion of others, because you are demonstrating that your opponent does not have all the answers. Thus, their argument is incomplete, and is therefore faulty 'by any reasonable standards'.
Change the Subject: Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here such as 'distract'; find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of swaying attention to a new, more manageable line of discussion, where you can take hold of the narrative.
Antagonize & Provoke: If you can't do anything else, insult and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism' or how 'you've damaged their ego'.
Project: Take all of the tactics you have used to discredit and attack your opponent, and turn it all around by accusing them of using the very same techniques. This creates confusion for the casual observer or commentator, allowing you to go on the offensive, where your opponent is suddenly put on the defensive again, and the argument is reduced to a series of heated yet basic assertions.
And much more at Camelot Forumhttp://camelotforum.net/index.php?op...762&Itemid=164
You need to be a member of Peacepink3 to add comments!
Replies
To finish off where you convieniently cut off the definition;
.......whilst at the same time they often defend outlandish and unverified conspiracies. This is designed to confuse the issue by diverting attention away from real intelligence, and toward counterintelligence, which is no threat to the adversary. If they are not defending or promoting any particular topic, then the chances are they are simply attempting to foster doubt about all material and discussions, although this is far less likely as it nurtures suspicion about their identity.
LaBrat said:
Can you provide a link to where Tesla drsated the nerophone? I googled it and got these;
http://www.newneurophone.com
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Flanagan
Could the Misinformation be intentional as stated here?
Distract: Introduce a new topic altogether, and encourage commentators or observers to focus on this information instead. This can be accurate, partially inaccurate, or wholly inaccurate information, but which is non-threatening to your cause and which is likely to gain more attention through sensation, controversy or curiosity. Mixing a little bit of fact with a lot of fiction is often the most effective method, as this lures people in yet leaves them without any solid intelligence to use. This means spending more time on a non-issue, which is good for avoiding real issues, and may even illicit some long term believers.LaBrat said:
The following is Adhiminem;
LaBrat said:
dotty's 'closed to comments' sycophantic and hypocritical deep thought 'reunited at last' love-fest
Ad-Hominem: 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', 'drunks', 'drug addicts' and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. This can also assist in provoking an emotional response in your opponent, thus putting them on the defensive, where they are more likely to try and prove your personal attacks inaccurate.
This comment bringing Chomsky into two way v2k is this:
Backward Logic: Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual fact. For example: Create a faulty premise which you know will appeal to a popular misconception, and use that 'logic' as the grounds to discredit your opponent's argument to the contrary.
LaBrat said:
You just admitted that You're the very Troll i spoke to Full Name about!!!
Permalink Reply by David ofTomorrow 1 hour agoDelete
LOL!!!
You know the problem is Not that the Troll is here.....the problem is that those with authority allow the Troll to do his duty.
LaBrat said:
LaBrat said:
LOL!!!
You know the problem is Not that the Troll is here.....the problem is that those with authority allow the Troll to do his duty.
"Dereliction of Duty"
FULL NAME said:
Yes. you did accuse me of doing heroin and of trying to make it look good to other members. You have multiple times accused me of crystal meth use, as well as crack use.
Any way, please keep responding to my post. When you have used each and every item listred as troll tactics on this very blog, I will use it to show others what a troll is....Labrat.
This is the troll tool you just used in citing chomsky;
Distract Introduce a new topic altogether, and encourage commentators or observers to focus on this information instead. This can be accurate, partially inaccurate, or wholly inaccurate information, but which is non-threatening to your cause and which is likely to gain more attention through sensation, controversy or curiosity. Mixing a little bit of fact with a lot of fiction is often the most effective method, as this lures people in yet leaves them without any solid intelligence to use. This means spending more time on a non-issue, which is good for avoiding real issues, and may even illicit some long term believers.
This fact is Obvious: LaBrat has Zero experience with v2k.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next