Telling someone their premise is wrong is threadshitting now?

No, tomndebb it isn’t..

This is the definition of threadshitting from, guess where… ?

Onomatopoeia arguably crossed the line in his long distance psych eval, but there is no way that “a simple denial that” a supernatural being doesn’t exist is threadshitting. What Onomatopoeia posted wasn’t within a million miles of “this is stupid” or “who cares”.

The OP in the thread in question was not merely asking about the nature of demons as stated by any particular religious tradition. Indeed, the OP stated they did not have any particular religion. They were not asking a theological question; and only in such context would your comment about what would have been legitimate have made sense. The OP quite clearly stated they believed in demons and were asking as to their nature, as a factual question, as one might ask about the behavioural characteristics of an elephant or tortoise.

Are you in all seriousness saying it is threadshitting to tell someone their premise is broken? What next; when someone asks why ducks quacks don’t echo we are forbidden from saying “they do” because that would be threadshitting?

The thread is in Great Debates. It started in General Questions.

I agree. The OP in that thread was asking for factual information about demons not factual information about demonology.

The factual information about demons is there is no objective evidence that they exist.

I agree. In a debate about demons, arguing that they do not in fact exist is intrinsically part of the debate.

Especially when the OP also claims to speak with the Archangel Michael and have (as yet unnamed0 psychic abilities. The default is such a case, when no evidence at all has been given, is a big fat “No!”, in my opinion. If the OP had started out with a “Supposing demons existed…” premise it might be different, but she/he didn’t.

Well said. This is an incorrect decision.

I had typed in something similar to what Onomatopoeia posted but I decided that these types of posts just get to close to “you’re nuts so shut up”. I re-wrote my post to eliminate such language mainly because the point I wanted make didn’t really need that kind of comment, and it did come across as threadshitting.

I think a number of posts pushed the limits and I see the comment by tomndebb as an attempt to get everyone to back off that line of discussion. Belief in demons is fairly common, and worthy of debate … not a symptom of mental illness.

tomndebb said that “A simple denial that such beings exist …[is] not appropriate to this discussion.” (bolding mine) I’m at least half-inclined to agree. A simple denial that something exists conveys no information, and thus isn’t useful in a forum like General Questions. [Monty Python]It’s just contradiction![/MP]

Agree with watchwolf49.

ISTM that we (both members and mods) also give the whole topic of religion (and quasi-religious non-mainstream beliefs) a bit of a pass. We expect an OP that assumes religion is fact-based to absorb a couple of “No it isn’t fact-based.” responses. Provided they’re A) not strident, and B) not among the first couple of responses. And provided that doesn’t launch a hijack into the usual “Is so! Is not!” territory.

The mod was late into this thread after several people had already explicitly or jokingly poked holes in the OPost’s assumptions and the OPoster’s worldview.

ISTM the mod identified the post that was most closely insulting and blew the whistle at that one. I can agree with Princhester’s OP here that the alleged offense doesn’t properly meet the rules definition of threadshitting. Instead it arguably falls foul of being a jerk or insulting the poster.

Either way, it seems no warning was issued and folks climbed off the dog-pile and got back to the topic at hand. Regardless of how much they believe the topic is real vs. imaginary. So the mod note accomplished a good thing. Albeit with less than ideal finesse.

[Monty Python]No, it’s not![/MP]

I get tired of this. It doesn’t matter what the result was. That’s illogical thinking. It’s arguing from the consequent. It’s saying “the ends justify the means.”

You admit he messed up. So he needs to fix his mistake. Not be told that it’s all okay and doesn’t matter. That just inspires more mistakes.

As it is right now, people who read his mod note will think that disagreeing with the premise is threadshitting. He’s created a problem because he didn’t take care to be accurate in his note.

Moderator notes are how we figure out what the actual rules are here–what we are actually permitted to do. They have effects larger than the thread they are posted in. They need to be accurate.

“A simple denial that such beings exist or an attempt to perform long-distance psych evals on the poster are not appropriate to this discussion.”

I don’t think that’s a mistake, at least it’s not allowed during a Christian witnessing. I believe it’s in a Sticky someplace. The mod note is clear and concise, no one is allowed to call the OP dirty name or direct a personal insult towards him concerning his mental health, that’s never allowed in Great Debates.

Perhaps you should re-read the thread with the intent to threadshit … [wolfish grin] … maybe then you’ll see why the mod jumped in when he did.

But no one did that.

as against:

See the difference? The latter is not just a contradiction. It is pointing out a flawed premise.

Don’t be disingenuous. You know damn well (or certainly should) that no one here is arguing that **Onomatopoeia ** should have made the psych comment. My OP and those arguing in support of it are talking purely about the first part of tomndebb’s statement. As has been made more than clear.

Definitely threadshitting and I agree with the moderation.

The post in question not only discounted the premise of the OP without offering any substantial argument against it, they went to the trouble to quote each question in the entire OP separately so they could reply point by point: “no because demons don’t exist”, a half a dozen times or more. They devoted a page long post to repeating “no because demons don’t exist.”

That isn’t debating or “fighting ignorance” it’s intended to make the OP look and feel foolish and sort of a self serving smug little way to make themselves feel oh so very smart.

If any of the arguments in this thread were valid arguments against it being a threadshit, then one simple “No, because they don’t exist” would have certainly done the job as well as repeating that 7 times.

Taking that much time and exerting that much effort into answering a post you disagree with the premise of with nothing but “nope, you’re wrong” is very similar to taking time to post in a thread just to say “this subject doesn’t interest me”, another classic threadshit technique.

What you are talking about (assuming you are correct) is being a jerk. Go back and read the definition of threadshitting and tell me how what you are talking about fits it.

It’s the “don’t be a jerk” rule that is the catchall. But you are talking as if it’s the “threadshitting” rule that’s the catchall. It isn’t. It’s a rule against a specific type of behaviour, and it didn’t happen here.

I don’t think the mods are actually bound to follow those definitions by the letter and they aren’t intended to cover every possible case. But be that as it may, “The implication of the threadshitter is that discussion of such a topic is beneath them, and should be beneath everybody else.” is exactly what I just described the poster in question doing, in so many words.

Actually the “don’t be a jerk” rule is precisely intended to cover every possible case. That’s why it’s so non-specific.

And no, what you described the poster doing was telling someone repeatedly that their premise was wrong. Now you could have a point that they didn’t need to do so repeatedly. But there was nothing about the post in question that suggested the topic was beneath them or anyone else; unless what you are really saying is that it is an inherent implication of telling someone their premise is wrong that the topic is unworthy (and let’s face it, that is what you are saying).

Which is not and never has been the rule or culture around here.

I don’t know. I saw the post last night before any moderation had taken place and no labels had been assigned to the behavior, and thought to myself what a colossal threadshit. (and mind you I don’t believe in demons. Had it been in the Pit I might have had some fun with it). I guess it’s just semantics. If a mod wants to call being a jerk threadshitting I don’t see any harm as long as the post got moderated. But I do maintain that it was a threadshit, by my definition. No reason to even join the discussion if all you have to say is “nope, you’re wrong” which is all he said, 7 times.

I have used the same logic to admonish posters who have tried to shut down other philosophical discussions by simply declaring an OP’s belief, (whether it is libertarianism, capitalism, communism, or pastafarianism, etc.), with a simple declaration that it is nonsense.

Such declarations are not debates, they are claims that the thread is pointless. That is threadshitting.

Challenging a philosophical position by either pointing out internal contradictions or by pointing to competing systems is fine. Simply declaring the thread to be “wrong” is not.

What outright dreck. This post is beneath you tomndebb. You know damn well it wasn’t a “philosophical discussion”.

It was a question, originally posted in GQ, about whether demons - which the OP believes exist and affect his/her life - had or could have certain actual characteristics. Not philosophically, not theologically, not as a debating point, not according to a religious tradition, but in actual fact.

Nobody said anything was nonsense. Nobody said the thread was “wrong”*. Why are you strawmanning? Do you feel a need to paper over your highly questionable moderation by making things up?

Lest we stray too far into an assumption about just how unkind **Onomatopoeia ** was being let me quote you a key part of his post:

Frankly, this was very well said, and deserving of plaudits, not mod intervention.

Why did you put “wrong” in quotes? Nobody said that.