あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]dejenerate 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (37子コメント)

Yup. It's funny, I don't think they realize how well they actually perform the opposite of their intention. Plenty of things I didn't really question very much (vaccines, for instance) until I saw the flies gather and decided to dig deeper, wondering why they were buzzing so fanatically.

[–]adamwho -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (36子コメント)

It is called the Back fire effect

The "backfire effect" is a term to describe how some individuals when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs come to hold their original position even more strongly

You see this in religion, politics, and pseudoscience beliefs. It is the natural result when people are confronted with evidence debunking their beliefs.

Which is why people like me who post on science issues understand that we are not trying to change the mind of the conspiracy theorist (they are too far gone). It is the lurkers who see the facts and evidence vs. idiots screaming SHILL!!11!! when ever they get debunked.

[–]042na[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

How is this a science issue? You literally just admitted you do keyword searches (eg. This time for 'Monsanto'), came to this thread to argue something that I specifically outlined in the OP to avoid as that exact thing happened in r/conspiracy (arguing the existence of shills). You are the people I am talking about. Sure, you might not be getting paid but why post in this thread? There are no lurkers in this sub that would be convinced by your "facts and evidence".

Stick to actual Monsanto posts if you want to avoid getting called out :)

[–]omenofdread 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (9子コメント)

The shill argument is a sign of desperation. If people had the evidence on their side they would present it instead of making some rationalization that people are paid to argue with them on the internet.

I have made the accusation that people are paid to argue on the internet.

You are "ever present". Not once in this thread have you stated any "facts and evidence". You fail to realize that you yourself could be subject to this backfire effect, although the likely reality is that you are well aware of it.

This thread is not a "science issue". You have not "debunked" anything. This is not related to "pseudoscience".

However, I do find your use of those words to be quite interesting.

[–]Triviaandwordplay -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Not once in this thread have you stated any "facts and evidence"

He does all the time in other subreddits. There's an askscience subreddit, unless you're another anti science idiot. You'll see the same arguments adamwho would make regarding GMOs in askscience or anywhere science is respected and understood.

As far as I'm concerned, the argument is over. You're in the same league as anti vaxxers or climate change deniers if you're still clinging to anti GMO arguments.

That's why I slacked off from commenting about it, the anti GMO BS has had a fork stuck in it, it's dead.

[–]strokethekitty[M] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

regarding GMOs

This thread is not about GMOs, but about a particular question concerning shills. Do you understand that?

the argument is over.

It is now.

[–]042na[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah but this thread isn't about anti-science or GMOs. I don't understand why he would post in this thread if it was asking a specific question unrelated to the benefits/shortcomings of GMOs if that's his "niche"...

[–]omenofdread 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He does all the time in other subreddits.

Yes, but not once here, thus my point stands.

unless you're another anti science idiot

Are you insinuating I don't believe in science? I hope you've got some of those cherished "facts and evidence" to back up that statement.

or anywhere science is respected and understood.

See, there's that language again. The tone here is quite disrespectful. You insinuate that "here" is not one of those places. I'd suggest you look up the definition of "premise" and "conjecture", and maybe realize that these are important to your understanding of science and the scientific process.

You're in the same league as anti vaxxers or climate change deniers if you're still clinging to anti GMO arguments.

This is a completely unfounded statement in the context of this discussion, as well as being completely unrelated to the overall discussion. However, it does provide a bit of evidence to the overall premise, which is that people are paid to sway your opinions online.

Your post history leads me to believe you would have little reason for joining a sub like this, so you either found this discussion by some kind of keyword/search software ( lending credibility to the original premise ) or that you were called here by someone else ( meaning that you are violating rules related to vote brigades ).

[–]dejenerate 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (24子コメント)

No, but nice try. The effect is when someone questions something with real backing and a thousand harpies jump on accusing the questioner of being unintelligent and steeped in pseudoscience, instead of answering the question.

Why can't you folks answer questions? Why always rabidly, spittingly attacking? Real people see that, and suddenly their trust in the establishment falls, and they dig deeper.

You self-touting "pro-science" harpies (that's a jolly laugh, because y'all rarely seem to even understand the science behind what you proselytize, I just see you guys and gals parroting talking points and avoiding real questions) actually actively sabotage yourselves.

[–]042na[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (23子コメント)

This is what I am trying to say! Why dont you trolls act like regular users and contribute to the discussion with actual questions and answers for the poster that are related to the OP (in a mature way), rather than just jump straight to attacks and condescending attitudes. Shills/trolls expose themsleves for this reason....

[–]Triviaandwordplay -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (22子コメント)

Why dont you trolls act like regular users and contribute to the discussion with actual questions and answers

Says the guy whose only arguments are calling someone a "troll" or a "shill".

It's what followers of nonsense use as arguments in lieu of having any valid ones.

[–]omenofdread 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

act like regular users and contribute to the discussion with actual questions and answers

Which you have again failed to do.

just jump straight to attacks and condescending attitudes

Which you did again.

[–]Triviaandwordplay -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Holy fucking shit! I open my email to 5 nonsensical ramblings from you in less than one hour.

Take your meds, nutter.

Holy fuck, make that six.

Get help.

[–]omenofdread 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is hilarious. As if I didn't open my mail this morning to find 4 messages from you, which I replied to.

just jump straight to attacks and condescending attitudes

It seems I have established your M.O. here friend.

[–]042na[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Sorry for using the word "shill". Is it like the word "Voldemort" now?

Let me put it simply. When someone derails a thread with something unrelated to the OP then they are trolling at worst or at best, not contributing to the conversation and adding personal attacks. I'm not sure what your definition of trolling is?

Also, I'm not trying to participate in ANY arguments. I just wanted to have a civil discussion. There is nothing inflammatory about my OP so it's a little shady when you and other people get so defensive about it.

[–]Triviaandwordplay -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (17子コメント)

The word is exactly what we said it is, it's in lieu of having any sort of valid argument.

not contributing to the conversation and adding personal attacks

Don't whine like a bitch about personal attacks after making personal attacks.

[–]omenofdread 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (15子コメント)

In lieu of having any sort of valid argument you commence to personal attacks. Seems pretty clear cut here friend.

[–]Triviaandwordplay -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Why are you whining about personal attacks in a thread that got started with you making a personal attack?

You accused adamwho of being a paid shill, that's what got my reply. Your evidence was his mere presence in this thread, by your own admission.

[–]omenofdread 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Insinuating the presence of someone paid to sway opinions or beliefs does not constitute a personal attack. My "evidence" stands. You are carrying quite a torch for adamwho. Did he ask you to "white knight" for him or are you just doing it out of a greater desire to spread truth and justice on the internet?