It's a label that gets recklessly thrown about. Even I have been called a shill. My response was "who am I shilling for?"
A shill I think is someone whose only purpose is to peddle propaganda mobilized by some kind of political operation. Or someone who acts upon, is covertly a representative of someone else. An evil person using a good looking honest looking shill as a disguise and surrogate. Kind of like Obama just being a surrogate for Henry Kissinger or everyone who were SHILLS for Pfizer. Pfizer shills doing the pfizer marketing for free like brainwashed dummies.
I lean more towards not banning. Meaning if someone is unpopular, perhaps has unpopular ideas, but is genuinely an unique person trying to participate in a forum of discussion, then they should at least be allowed to make their often perceived contrarian argument. I kind of like to debate and perceive arguments with such people in the forum as sparring battles. I used to seek out intellectual debates on the internet but eventually realized demoKKKrats do not objectively believe in truth or logic and therefore i was violating the Bible and arguing with fools which the Bible says is folly.
Anyways, moderation is hard work and, at times, probably frustrating. I expect that moderation here lays off until people submit reports. I also trust that moderators here equally apply the rules, unlike government which allows Jew criminals to do whatever the fuck they want like fund invasions of our border or loot the treasury.
What is the definition of a "shill" ?
It's a label that gets recklessly thrown about. Even I have been called a shill. My response was "who am I shilling for?"
A shill I think is someone whose only purpose is to peddle propaganda mobilized by some kind of political operation. Or someone who acts upon, is covertly a representative of someone else. An evil person using a good looking honest looking shill as a disguise and surrogate. Kind of like Obama just being a surrogate for Henry Kissinger or everyone who were SHILLS for Pfizer. Pfizer shills doing the pfizer marketing for free like brainwashed dummies.
I lean more towards not banning. Meaning if someone is unpopular, perhaps has unpopular ideas, but is genuinely an unique person trying to participate in a forum of discussion, then they should at least be allowed to make their often perceived contrarian argument. I kind of like to debate and perceive arguments with such people in the forum as sparring battles. I used to seek out intellectual debates on the internet but eventually realized demoKKKrats do not objectively believe in truth or logic and therefore i was violating the Bible and arguing with fools which the Bible says is folly.
Anyways, moderation is hard work and, at times, probably frustrating. I expect that moderation here lays off until people submit reports. I also trust that moderators here equally apply the rules, unlike government which allows Jew criminals to do whatever the fuck they want like fund invasions of our border or loot the treasury.