To give an example. There might be a person who is discussing controversial issue because he wants to resolve the issue with legitimate understanding. One of these provocateurs will step in and try to make it look as though the honest investigator is trying to stir up trouble by promoting one of the canonical counter-theories such as bumble planes. Since the provocateur has already established himself as a trusted "authority" on disinformation techniques, the clueless moderator gets the idea that the honest investigator is the problem and banns him form the site where the discussions are taking place.
This strikes a chord with me, I call the tactic 'passionate ones with a clue removal.'
I do believe there is a natural human tendency that could supply ample motivation for this kind of behavior without the straight 'paid disinfo' tack -- after all, the Internet is this in-your-face sort of medium where bullies can go on the prowl and step right in front of and between people -- without a hint of fear that something on the face might become dislocated... which can be a natural consequence of direct, uncivil and untoward behavior in real-life settings. Thus, the Internet allows a greater (and less subtle) type of 'misanthrope' to emerge.
And with that natural tendency, enough people who are honestly and emotionally vested in the most outlandish theories -- especially those who fronted them in the first place (my own idea, my own opinion) just might represent the lion's share of what we so-I-call-it rational investigators face today. It would not take many.
But I'm not in favor of the velveteen gloves or 'gatekeeping for truth' when what is in dispute is not merely interpretation of evidence, but base fact. For gatekeeping is another of those silly words where the bullies will try and try again to cast as conspiratorial. And when you're facing down a persistent person who (oddly and perversely) lays down misinformation over time, I honestly believe that while there are tricks one might use to spice the language for a time... when it gets down-to-point, when faced with true persistence... there is really no earthly human way to avoid ad-homeniem.
Or taking a 'real' stand, weighing in on a matter, being direct and honest same-time.
"This appears for all the world to be a deliberate incorrect foundation fact meme injection attack to compromise 9/11 researchers pursuing scenarios of conventional demolition explosives. Or some bizarre natural phenomenon that just happens to resemble this motive closely. From me this will garner the same response, the subject being gravely serious. One man's 'nitty ad homenim' being another's due dillegence, delivered."
~Hocus Locus [link #2 below]
- http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1007...
(an essay on bullies)
- http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2221...
(passionate ones with a clue removal)
Undivided attention is the Gold standard of bullying. It buys all the nicest things. Set against its opulent iridescence ... mere agreement is overrated, inflated currency. One can never be quite sure where agreement has been or where it will be tomorrow. Nothing might ever get done but surely we all agree on must-needs, we thinks. Or not. So learn to be an effective bully! And if you think bullying is all about violence, think again.
~Hocus Locus [link #1]
"An insidious philosophical theme tends to surface -- cultivated when pointed, bitter disagreement centers on base fact. Parry to openness. Give the fellow his say, we muse, don't gang up on him now. After all (here's the poison) it's all just this-theory and that-theory after all. This is played to the hilt, especially when surrounded by those who choose to zero in on the tone and the drama, interpret it as a groundless childish rumble of sorts. The crowd steps back, falls silent or goes elsewhere.
There will always be a need for self-restraint. But dismissing pointed disagreement as uncomfortable or undesirable conduct -- is an easy armchair sentiment to hold... but is also a Darwinian dead-end.
In such a hypothetical world where no one even tries to draw lines, no boundaries of expectation imposed, few if any feel compelled to go off and find out, return and weigh in on the matter, form a firm personal opinion (subject to revision if called for) but nevertheless possessed of a level of surety... if this stops happening altogether, we may wake some day to find ourselves in a world where all things within reach have been placed there... and even critical venues of change and debate... such as the vote... will be 'for entertainment purposes only'..."
~Hocus Locus [link #2]