Isn't the Shill Gambit against a progressive, pro-evidence, pro-science world view?

[HuckleB]

If you're not familiar with it, this is a great explanation:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit

Alas, it is used much too frequently here, and it allows people who want to do the right thing, but aren't quite sure how to explore and understand the full evidence base on many issues to simply attack without reason.

It's, quite frankly, ugly, and I'm not sure why it is tolerated at DU. This board used to demand actual arguments supported by actual evidence vetted by those who can vet such things, etc... It's a little depressing to see that culture devolve.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. It happens because it is easier to accuse someone of bias than dig up real evidence

I think it is tolerated because well meaning people don't have at the fingertips the facts to back up what they believe to be right. When some part of their ideology is challenged it is easier to defend their ideas by assuming the other person is a chill. A lot of us share a liberal or progressive ideology. It is hard to sit down and defend what we believe with rational evidence.

[HuckleB]

2. Yup.

Oddly, I have always found that being progressive means I challenge my views. I think that was respected much more in the early days of DU. Alas...

[pampango]

3. "one party dismisses the other's arguments by proclaiming them to be on the payroll of some agency"

I did not know that tactic had a name. I suppose we have all had the Shill Gambit used on us at one time or another.

In American politics, right-wingers will often try to discredit liberal groups by showing that they, or someone they work for, are in the pay of George Soros, while left-wingers do the same to right-wing groups by showing that they have at some point received money from some corporation or other...

Alas, it is used much too frequently here ...

It's, quite frankly, ugly, and I'm not sure why it is tolerated at DU. This board used to demand actual arguments supported by actual evidence vetted by those who can vet such things, etc... It's a little depressing to see that culture devolve.

Actual arguments supported by actual evidence is less common than "Oh yeah. If you disagree with me you must be a shill for ......"

Nice post, HuckleB.

[HuckleB]

4. Thanks for the beautiful response!

Yep! It has a name, and it is used all too often at DU these days.

I guess I'm getting old, but I always found it to be ridiculous, as, it appears, you do!

[U4ikLefty]

5. Sometimes shilling for GMOs is just shilling for GMOs.

Aren't you against GMO labeling?

[HuckleB]

6. Sometimes being anti-science is just being anti-science.

You're post actually answers any and all questions I might ask.

[U4ikLefty]

10. See that you didn't answer my question.

If the shill fits.....

[HuckleB]

15. So you have nothing to offer to the conversation.

Got it.

[Fumesucker]

23. Why don't we have a conversation about GMO labeling?

I don't see any harm in the idea that people should be allowed to know what they put in their bodies.

Do you disagree?

[pampango]

27. That is a fine idea, but could we do it in an OP concerning GMO labeling

rather than here?

I find the 'shill gambit' a common one - probably moreso on right wing sites where accusation and innuendo play a larger role than science or facts in general - and enjoy the discussion of it.

[Fumesucker]

28. What discussion?

There hasn't been any discussion on this thread, there have been people agreeing with the OP and getting thanked and people pointing out that shilling appears to happen and they get insulted.

If people didn't shill then the word would not exist, there are actual shills out there and the internet has made it even easier than ever for them to shill.

You can go too far in either direction, never pointing out apparent shilling or accusing everyone you disagree with of shilling.

Everyone has seen posters whose argument gets utterly shredded in one thread come back later and make the exact same argument somewhere else, it's not at all uncommon on political boards both left and right. Sometimes those people are just stupid and sometimes there is a hidden agenda.

The love of money is the root of all evil, so saith the Lord.

[Fumesucker]

7. It's a difficult choice sometimes to decide if someone really is a total idiot or has an odd agenda

It's actually giving people the benefit of the doubt when you conclude that they must have a hidden agenda because they are presenting arguments that make no sense at all.

Especially difficult when that person appears rational on some number of other topics and then twists off into Looney Tunes Land on a particular subject.

[HuckleB]

9. I don't agree.

The Internet has been around a long time. Further, it's not hard to ask a question or two, and see if the person is even mildly open to evidence or not.

[Fumesucker]

11. That's what I'm talking about, people who argue in infinite circles

[HuckleB]

14. I'm sorry for those people.

Too bad you know too many of them?

[Fumesucker]

16. Welcome to the DU!

[HuckleB]

17. I guess you don't know how long I've been here.

Derp.

And.

Boring.

[Fumesucker]

20. I was gently pulling your leg, I do know what the number next to the handle means

Look around, if you don't see circular arguments and people arguing nutty stuff then you are missing about 90% of the drama.

Hell, it's one of the major attractions of GD, watching the Krewe of Fail try to unscrew the inscrutable.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

8. This. +1,000,000

[Chathamization]

12. Isn't dismissing people who disagree with you as "anti-science" against a progressive, pro-evidence,

pro-science world view?

Alas, it is used much too frequently here, and it allows people who want to do the right thing, but aren't quite sure how to explore and understand the full evidence base on many issues to simply attack without reason.

It's, quite frankly, ugly, and I'm not sure why it is tolerated at DU. This board used to demand actual arguments supported by actual evidence vetted by those who can vet such things, etc... It's a little depressing to see that culture devolve.

[HuckleB]

13. It would be...

... if I was dismissing people who actually offered intellectually honest responses.

[Chathamization]

18. Two of your responses were saying "derp", four more were calling people anti-science

So coming on here and complaining that people called you a shill, without mentioning what you called them, seems dishonest.

As for only dismissing people who were intellectually dishonest, these were two of the posts you responded to by saying they were anti-science:

"It's good evidence that corporate bullshit for profit exists, for sure. That article citing land use conveniently failed to mention that over 30% of the estimated 40% of land used for food production is pasture land used for livestock."

and:

"Organic foods have nothing to do with your vaccine obsession. n/t"

And two you responded to with "derp":

"Very true. But the existence of the atomic bomb demonstrates that sometimes science-based evidence is used to produce products that harm the environment. Science can be used for good or evil. Morally speaking, it is neutral."

and:

"I simply asked for a link. I thought that you were giving a website for me to look at. I didnt know I was supposed to google the term? What the hell does that mean explains everything? I simply asked for a link to what you were referring to. No need to be rude!"

[HuckleB]

24. That might mean something if I was responding to posts that were genuine.

Unfortunately, the fact that you ignore that part of the equation shows that you're not being honest.

[Denzil_DC]

26. Allow me to translate for you,

having gone a couple of rounds with this dude on an earlier thread.

When he's got nothing except links that he demands people accept without question, he dismisses any person challenging him with conterarguments as "not serious" while studiously avoiding giving anything like a meaningful response that could be described as engaging in scientific dialectic, meanwhile spouting about the need for scientific evidence.

It's a schtick that gets tired pretty quickly, but everyone needs a hobby. I don't think it's shilling. Those guys are pros.

[HuckleB]

29. Nothing except links?

LOL! Those links led to evidence to support the point. That's a rather important aspect of what I'm talking about.

Now, noting your stance on that thread, I understand why you might not want to see the evidence.

That's not exactly a good thing, however.

[Denzil_DC]

30. Links? I posted a link!

One you dismissed within three minutes, which would make you champ speedreader since the point-by-point rebuttal was pretty long and you were jousting with others simultaneously.

The post you linked to that I responded to was an op ed, not a scientific paper. Its "evidence" was opinion on partial citation of evidence that was questionable, and I drew attention to how it was being questioned and challenged, which is the scientific method. But you offered no counter to it, just dismissing it with no attempt to engage with the arguments. That's the transparent pattern of your behavior as far as I've seen.

You have shown you have no interest in scientific method in exchange after exchange despite your claims, and you're just wasting the time of those who bother to respond to you, which is why I pointed out your "method" to the poster above. I'll waste no more time myself now, having done that. Good day, sir.

[HuckleB]

31. It was more than dismissed.

You offered something that pushed a point that was clearly and easily shown to be false.

I'm sorry that your fantasies aren't real.

[Denzil_DC]

32. "You offered something that pushed a point that was clearly and easily shown to be false."

Absolutely ridiculous assertion. You did nothing to "clearly and easily" show it "to be false." Nothing. Nada. If I'm wrong, by all means point me or any onlookers with nothing better to do with their time to where you did that.

For that assertion to be true, even in your mind, you'd have to have your own unique definition of "shown" and "false." Which may be the case, but I don't think it's persuasive and I don't think it's changing anybody else's mind.

Now keep trolling away, I'll get on with more productive uses of my time.

[HuckleB]

35. I get it. You think that if you say something, then it is true.

That's not how the world works, however.

[joeglow3]

33. Wow. Do you realize you just proved the point of the topic?

Well done.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

19. Did someone accuse you of shilling?

How? What was the topic?

[HuckleB]

25. LOL!

[madinmaryland]

21. Not exactly sure where you are going? Are you suggesting that there

are anti-science, anti-evidence "woo" supporters here.

[NuclearDem]

22. Yep. See every Fukushima or alt-med thread here ever.

[alarimer]

34. It's actually true though, when it comes to right-wing think tanks and such.

They really ARE on the payroll of the Koch brothers and other anti-progressive groups.

Here is NC, Art Pope's foundations fund many front groups.

But I get what you are saying. When a scientist produces a study that says GMOs are not dangerous, the argument is that they must be on the payroll of Big Ag. It is complicated by the fact that many universities actually DO get funding from various industries for various things. Whether that makes the researchers "shills" or not is debatable, but it certainly calls into question their impartiality.

[HuckleB]

36. Thoughts From A "Shill For Monsanto"

http://www.science20.com/kevin_folta/thoughts_shill_monsanto-92265

"Here is why the throw-away "you work for Monsanto" or "shill for Monsanto" comment harms the anti-GMO movement:

1. It immediately says that you are willing to fabricate information in the absence of evidence.


2. It says that you are finished with the conversation, that nothing I communicate is valid in your opinion.

3. It shows that you are willing to try to influence other like-minded people with disinformation.

..."


There's more at the link. It's good stuff.