Stop this nonsense. A shill has a very precises meaning, and taking single definitions out of context to try to obfuscate the meaning is fruitless, so is engaging in this dilution of the definition. There are two essential properties of a shill: 1. They endorse or promote a product, concept, idea, person or whatever 2. They try to lend credibility to their pitch by pretending to be unaffiliated or connected to what they are promoting. Obviously, point 2 here is where things fall apart. Reggie is a well known employee of Nintendo, it is virtually impossible for him to act as a shill in any videogame related capacity. The technique to water down the definition of the word and then applying it to something might look convincing if you take it at face value, but if you examine the King of the Wild's position of this, shill is a word that no longer has a meaning. To make the argument valid point 2 above has to be completely removed from the definition of the word which renders it useless. Under that definition anyone who ever recommends a place to eat to their friend is a shill, anyone who creates a commercial for a product is a shill, anyone who supports a political idea is a shill, I could go on.. |
Let consult a dictionary on your second condition.... Nope not there. Point one however... Yup that's explicitly stated there... Hmm curious
Best you can do at this point after three definitions haven't supported your claim is say something like, "a shill is generally reserved to describe someone who tries to act unaffiliated with the product they are promoting " because yes, obviously, those fulfill the definition of a shill... But so does Reggie.
