Why does everybody keep misspelling Dodgers?
To clarify the point: Our *main *job isn’t *just *fighting ignorance. If so most threads could be closed after the first couple of replies. And many could be summarily dismissed with just one post with a flat denial of the premise.
This is a discussion board where people come to discuss things. If someone’s premise is ridiculous that provides room for ample discussion about why. Simply declaring the thread invalid because the premise is wrong is not only pretty boring, it’s also threadshitting which is against the rules.
I’m not sure what it is you think I appear to be advocating for, but I’m advocating for the correct mod instruction to stop threadshitting in a thread where someone was threadshitting.
This would force anyone who wants to explore a contra-factual hypothetical to frame it inside a disclaimer.
“If demons existed, then…” Do we really have to make that effort? Can’t the context speak for itself?
Do you agree that, if the OP had made the effort to put up such a disclaimer, that then if someone said, “That doesn’t wash; demons still don’t exist” (“calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg”) that that would be threadshitting?
To my way of thinking, the hypothetical is implicit in the question. And in any case, a polite engagement would consist of saying, “There aren’t any demons. However, if they did exist…” and then actually answering the doggone question.
“They don’t exist,” period, full stop, end of dialogue is dismissive. It’s a blunt refusal to engage in debate. It’s like the chairman in the Senate conference room who turned the lights out when an ad-hoc committee was trying to hold hearings.
And, yeah, the Dodgers are pretty hot stuff! (“We hates them forever!”)
Another illustration. Let’s pretend this was a GQ, factual question:
Threadshit answer:
Semi threadshit answer:
Non threadshit answer:
Good answer:
All of these posts answer the question factually. Two of them are threadshitting.
I’m fine with that.
But since the OP was originally placed in GQ, it strikes me as perfectly appropriate to refuse to engage in debate. And it’s why I was in vehement disagreement with post #4 to the thread, submitted while it was still IN GQ:
Because the questions actually DID have a factual answer, that answer being “No” (whether to volunteer the underlying reason(s) for that being the factual answer is a different matter, on which I can be persuaded to vote against).
Dick move, but I disagree that it’s like that.
You’re on the list. 
I’m not sure I want to impute an advocacy position to you, but I’m pretty sure that it’s not the position which I am advocating for, which is, that in GQ, if the factual answer is identical to the dismissive answer, the answerer should be held harmless, and the questioner should suck it up.
I said earlier in the thread that in GQ there is an argument to be made that since the premise defies all known limits of reality it’s not possible to provide a factual answer. That’s a way different answer than “No”
“No” might be the factual answer but answering a detailed post with it is dismissing everything else the OP wrote (e.g. what they wanted to talk about when they decided to post a thread) with a perhaps factual but totally unhelpful and uninteresting answer.
The only reason one would take the time to reply at all, but only reply “no” is to threadshit. If that was all you wanted to contribute to a discussion it would be better to just not reply. It’s declaring the post or premise so unworthy of consideration in all its details that a simple one word answer is enough to end the discussion. That’s threadshitting. Even without literally saying “this thread is dumb” or other more obvious examples of it quoted in the OP of this thread.
In all of your responses so far, you have either tried to change what OP actually said or put forth suppositions that didn’t happen(“What if the OP had said…”), and you have either exaggerated or truncated the response that got modded(it wasn’t a wild attack or just the word “No.”). Would you mind just once responding to what the OP actually posted?
What thread are you even talking about?
Here are the responses that earned a mod note for threadshitting.
“No, because as much as you would like them to, demons don’t exist.”
“No.”
“No, no, and no because demons don’t exist.”
“No.”
“Knowing a demon’s name doesn’t give you power over anything because demons don’t exist.”
Then they added two condescending comments in paragraph form at the end, again not addressing the subject of the post but explaining why the OP’s kind isn’t liked around here and how maybe they have a mental problem.
This thread is dumb.
Here is the whole post, where people can see exactly what questions are being answered. As far as the comments at the end, which possibly come closest to what might be considered “threadshitting”, I still maintain that if the OP hadn’t been wrapped up in religion, with mentions of demons and Archangels, and had just mentioned that evil beings took control of his body, people might not be so offended by suggestions that he seek help.
Maintain whatever you like. It was still threadshitting. The fact that they answered “no” individually to each point in the OP makes it a particularly annoying form of threadshitting.
Again nobody here is under any obligation to fight someone’s ignorance. If all you think about the premise of a thread is that it’s ridiculous what you’re supposed to do is not reply at all. If you choose to reply, even, or especially, if it’s just to counter the premise of the OP, you need to discuss the things the OP and participants are trying to discuss while you do it or it’s threadshitting.
You may not feel “obligated” to fight ignorance, but that certainly doesn’t prohibit anyone else here from doing so, so I think I’ll ignore your opinion. As far as what I’m "supposed to do, I believe a mod has already weighed in on that just a few posts ago:
Colibri misunderstood my post and I have since clarified what I meant.
What a mod did weigh in on though is that it was threadshitting, so you’re sort of swimming upstream on this stupid line of argument but I’ll play as long as you want to.
The rule against threadshitting prohibits anyone else from doing what the poster in this thread did.
Practice what you preach and see how it goes with the mods. If you’re not willing to do that, you already know it’s threadshitting but just can’t resist “but… but… but he was wrong! and we can’t allow any discussion of something that’s wrong without shitting in it”
When I pointed out a factual inaccuracy in a post, I was warned for “being a jerk”. So, no, you dont have a unlimited license to fight ignorance.
I never claimed that extreme a position.
You weren’t fighting ignorance, because everyone in that thread was completely aware of the fact you pointed out (that Captain Kirk wasn’t a real person). You were warned for your habit of making such thread-disrupting and pointless interjections about fictional characters.
And, no one in the GD thread is unaware that there are atheists that dont believe in G-d?
The hardcore atheists on this board are constantly making * thread-disrupting and pointless interjections* about what they consider to be fictional characters.
I dont see the difference.
“Captain Kirk is a fictional character” vs “G-d is a fictional character”. If anything, the second is far more *thread-disrupting and pointless. *
Just for the record, what was it the OP claimed, again, that was being denied?
For one thing, the thread you disrupted was in Cafe Society, not Great Debates.
Except that no sane person believes that Captain Kirk is real.
Your example really doesn’t apply here.
Ah, so it’s OK to disrupt threads in GD? huh? If anything the discourse in GD is supposed to be* more* civilized.
Next, the atheists here think that no sane person believes that G-d is real.