>>3641
That's how it often ends. And this is why imo (and it's kind of a controversial opinion) anons SHOULD get into conversation with shills if it's possible even if just for the sake of counter-speech (i.e. to give other anons credible evidence that a shill is wrong). And also because it may not be a shill but a brainwashed person.

There's one guide reposted quite often which suggests that anons "give shills a fluffy hug" even if only to thank them for a lesson on how insincere people act. Fight evil by doing good deeds?

And after all, try to get into their shoes. You are a poor man, you get an office job. You learn about your employer quite shortly and start to despise him, but he pays you well. You start to despise yourself for your acts. Of course not every shill job is like this, sometimes shills are really complicit, but most aren't, they may even think they are spreading true content.