The thread basically was a free-for-all discussion about enhanced interrogation techniques (which some people refer to as “torture”). I stated my position on the subject, which is as follows:
A long-winded and predictable discussion ensues where several people claim torture is ineffective. I ask one such person to support their claim that there is a consensus of professional interrogators that torture is ineffective. That person posts some cites that don’t support his claim. Other people insist that I must post cites saying EITs are effective. I respond that I haven’t claimed that EITs are effective, so I don’t need to post cites to that effect. Then, tomndeb posts the following:
So, somehow failing to post cites in support of a claim I never made is trolling. And explaining my position to other posters who don’t understand it is also trolling.
If that’s not an overbroad definition of trolling, then I don’t know what is.
Somehow, heckling me to provide a cite for a claim I didn’t make is apparently not trolling. And insisting that I “ignore facts” because I “love Republicans” is also apparently not trolling.
So, I ask the teeming millions–is this the moderation you want here? Or has tomndeb over-reached once again?
Sure I was trolling, if by that you mean “posting a political position that’s not in line with most SDMB members.” I don’t believe I was trolling under any other definition. What’s your definition of trolling?
I think that’s ridiculous. My position doesn’t imply one way or another whether EITs are effective. I think you (and lots of people in that thread) are simply displaying the “you’re either with me or against me” attitude, where they think anyone who doesn’t make the exact right noises must believe the exact opposite of them. But, as I explained in that thread, life is more complex than that. It’s possible to have positions on issues that are more complex than “torture bad” or “torture good.”
To me it just seemed like you were saying ‘there must be evidence we dont know about, because otherwise they wouldnt do it’, ie invoking an unfalsifiable position.
I dont find that particularly complex, or sincere for a long time poster. But I did view it as more being unwilling to lose an argument than outright trolling.
Because its obvious you’re implying that it might be effective and we just dont have access to the information why they believe it so. Either that or your’re saying there is possibly further secret information further supporting your opponents position which is inherently silly.
well, now you’ve shifted the claim I’m supposedly making from “torture is effective” to “torture might be effective.”. Anything might be anything, so vimplying that I am claiming torture might be effective seems weird to me. And how does one provide a cite for that?
Rand - I don’t understand what a troll is on this board. It seems to range from stating an unpopular opinion, to acting like an asshole. Since I’m prone to falling into that range, I wish they’d clarify it a little so I knew what I was being ostracized for. So I don’t think you were being a troll, just unreasonably obtuse.
The definition requires us to make an inference about the poster’s intentions. In the past we’ve considered, among other factors, whether the poster is willing to defend the claims he has made as evidence that the poster was posting just to be confrontational or raise hackles.
Regarding ii, I didn’t see the fight, and therefore don’t have an opinion.
My comment: if you were truly interested in debating the point, you wouldn’t have continued to insist that you’d only read cites from one person, Rand. Your point was accurate: he made a claim, and he didn’t post a cite to defend that claim. But the underlying question is: is the “debate” about the issue of the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation, or is about one specific poster and his failure to substantiate his claim?
I don’t have anything to add to Gfactor’s definition. The arguments you made in the thread could have been valid. (I’m interpreting the main points to be that torture was a loaded word that distracted from the debate about particular techniques, and that detractors of those techniques have not adequately supported the claim that most professionals reject the techniques because they don’t work.) Instead of supporting your case, you demanded cites, refused to read most of them, and didn’t offer any substantive response to the others. My view is that you were trying to annoy people because you didn’t like what they were saying, and didn’t actually want to try to discuss the issue with them. That’s trolling.
First, how many times must I state my position (which even includes the words “my position is”) before people will really think that that is my position? I’ll try again:
What claims have I made in there that need cites on my part? Absolutely none.
Second, I didn’t refuse to read cites. I read all the cites from the guy that made a claim that cut against my position. My position is that the professional interrogators should decide, and one poster said they’ve already decided. So I asked for cites, and he couldn’t produce any. No other poster made a claim that clashed with my position. (Bricker, this responds to your point as well.)
Third, I wasn’t trying to annoy people, I was trying to educate people. So many people on this board read a news article about something and think they are experts on what happened. I would like people to explore the possibility that perhaps they aren’t qualified to render an opinion on something, such as whether particular techniques are effective against particular detainees in particular situations.
All I was doing was bare-bones ignorance fighting. Except now it’s called trolling, apparently.
First, I agree that an inference must be made about a poster’s intentions to determine if a poster is trolling. The trouble is that many mods around here automatically infer that a person of a more conservative bent has bad intentions.
Second, before determining whether a poster is willing to defend the claims they’ve made, you have to determine whether they’ve made any claims. I didn’t.
I didn’t say you needed to cite anything. I said you didn’t support your argument. The only point you elaborated on at any particular length is that everyone who says waterboarding is torture is being led by their emotions and can’t form a coherent argument.
You failed at the second while succeeding at the first - to the point that we’re having this conversation now.
Here’s how you actually expressed that opinion in the thread:
Your post in this thread is somewhat nuanced; this is just obnoxious. I don’t think you could have expected a reasonable discussion to result from this kind of post. It’s confrontational and rude, and so was much of the rest of what you said in your other posts.
Several of your posts in that thread consisted of, essentially, “Y’all haven’t supported your position.” And when people offer additional support, you say, essentially, “Nope, that’s not really support.”
Such posts just so much inflammatory nonsense. If you want to offer the trivial position that “first the politicians decide whether enhanced interrogation techniques can be used or not, and then the interrogators get to decide which techniques to use in a specific situation with a specific detainee,” then sure, offer that. That’s like saying, in a thread about Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity drive, that “first the customer at McDonald’s orders a meal, and then the employees heat it up and serve it to them.” It’s factually correct and tangentially related to the discussion, but it doesn’t offer any perspective on the issue at hand.
Of COURSE politicians decide whether torture (or heavy petting or whatever idiot euphemism you want to use for it) is used, and then of COURSE interrogators decide what to do in a particular situation. We’re not talking about the order of events here. We’re talking about the moral and practical implications of those events, and you’ve declared yourself incompetent for discussing the former and demonstrated yourself uninterested in discussing the latter.
If you mean to offer that quoted position as what should happen, then you need to support why that’s what should happen. But you’ve done nothing of the sort.
The problem here is that no one in that thread except for Lobohan argued against my position. Instead, they just argued that EITs are ineffective. My position is that it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else who’s not a professional interrogator believes about the effectiveness of EITs (except insofar as they can use that as an argument to make politicians not allow EITs). So saying they aren’t effective isn’t an argument against my position, but saying that professional interrogators have decided they aren’t effective is. (Turns out Lobohan was unable to support his argument though.)
If anyone actually argued against my position, I would have been very happy to support it. Tomndeb seems to be dinging me for trolling based on the inability of other posters to argue against my position.
Also, re: this:
That also gets at the political aspect here. The reason the other posters were annoyed with me is that I wasn’t following the party line on here. You’ve come very close to saying that espousing an unpopular viewpoint is per se trolling because of the tendency for that viewpoint alone to annoy other posters.