Telling someone their premise is wrong is threadshitting now?

[DrDeth]

“Undoubtedly, the religious are delusional, almost by definition.”

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

“Undoubtedly, the religious are delusional, almost by definition.”

Context, please.

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

Context, please.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14044075

post 46.

[Trinopus]

Still falls short of the actual claim made.

Also a pointless highjack.

Also, Czarcasm, it isn’t just disagreeing with a premise and posting a rebuttal. It’s doing so dismissively.

Fine and dandy: “Well, there aren’t any fairies, but even if the old fables are true, it’s still unclear whether Rumpelstiltskin is a ‘fairy’ or some other being, and it’s also unclear whether he could turn straw to gold by methods other than spinning.”

Threadshitting: “There aren’t any fairies.”

[Crazyhorse]

@Czarcasm

Would you mind defining your version of “threadshitting” because, more and more, it sounds like “Not supporting the premise and posting contrary evidence and/or cites”.
There are an uncountable number of boards out there where conspiracists and woosters and religionists can post anything they want to their heart’s content with the understanding that the moderators will protect them from any opposing views.
I hope this board never becomes one of those.

I wouldn’t mind at all. That’s why I’ve given “my” definition of threadshitting about a dozen times in this thread including long examples, short definitions, broad examples and precise ones, and even a paint by the numbers hypothetical thread that shows the distinction between threadshit answers and answers that honestly challenge the premise.

There’s only one definition of threadshitting, although many ways to do it, and I have already covered it in more detail than should be necessary for even the most reading comprehension challenged among us to understand.

In none of those many descriptions have I indicated that anyone should ever humor an OP or avoid challenging their post.

If you read very carefully through the quotes below you may find some subtle, almost hidden, references about how one can differentiate between threadshitting and debating a premise that will answer your question.

@Crazyhorse

What is so elusive about it?

Threadshitting is when you go to the trouble to post in a thread just to say that what the participants are trying to discuss isn’t worth discussing because of [whatever reason].

That could be done by directly saying “this isn’t worth discussing” but it also could be done, as in this case, by answering complex or multiple questions and themes with simple, dismissive posts like “No, because they don’t exist.” without providing anything to support the statements or engaging the OP and other participants in the conversation they are trying to have.

@Crazyhorse

It’s not our job to set anyone straight. If we want to take the time to argue their premise or arguments with substantial and engaging discussion there’s no rule against that (although I’d argue that is a big waste of time) but it isn’t our job or right to declare people’s requested conversation topics to be invalid on their face and add nothing more than that to the discussion.

@Crazyhorse

I’m not saying that anyone should humor an OP and keep the thread exactly on the premise they desire, but that if they want to argue it they need to argue it, not just dismiss it.

@Crazyhorse

I’d have no complaint at all about anyone making significant arguments totally demolishing their premise, but I just see that as a big waste of time so don’t do much of it myself.

@Crazyhorse

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.

@Crazyhorse

“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.

@Crazyhorse

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.