Yeah, it's def. occupying a similar cultural space that certain types of Clint Eastwood derived vigilante narratives have occupied, insofar s being associated with a specific kind of right wing politics of a specific era.
-
-
Replying to @dreamingnoctis @BootlegGirl and
Are we talking about torture-to-get-information or torture-to-hurt-people
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mssilverstein @dreamingnoctis and
Tag urself Ellie’s (1) and I’m (2) (This is a shitpost about our respective taste in horror/apocalypse narrative that is not useful as an answer progressing the discussion.)
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @chrysopoetics @dreamingnoctis and
I think that's the thing, though - when it's (1), whether or not we're talking about a state actor, we're talking about something a state COULD do, and if it works, 'should' do if the threat is big enough. (2) is a different thing.
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @mssilverstein @chrysopoetics and
Ugh I guess I just don't think that the idea that beating someone up to get them to give you information is somehow linked in a way that gives some kind of authorial culpability to state use of torture
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @mssilverstein and
There’s “beating someone up to [try to] get them to give you information” and then there’s “someone gives you accurate information because you beat them up” and I’m informed the difference is potentially crucial, fwiw
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @chrysopoetics @mssilverstein and
I'm not entirely convinced that people NEVER give out accurate information when placed under duress, I get that politically we have to assert that for like, prisoners of war But especially in a story where torture notably DOESN'T work when done by a military, it seems different
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @chrysopoetics and
I mean, never? Sure. But generally people just say whatever will get the torture to stop. And given that their torturer doesn't *know* the information, what gets it to stop is whatever they find satisfactory.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @mssilverstein @BootlegGirl and
Part of the problem is that there really isn't ANY interrogation protocol where "Tell the interrogator what you think they want to hear and not the truth" isn't a valid strategy sometimes
2 replies 2 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
This obviously works the same way with positive rather than negative reinforcement (bribing informants etc) and people try to mitigate it in similar ways (you don't get paid until the info is confirmed, "If I find out you lied to me I'll break your other leg")
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
The most coldly pragmatic argument for why torture is a bad technique for getting info is it disrupts the ability of both interrogator and interrogatee to think clearly, it gets emotions involved, and that's bad for clarity
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
Like even if there's no torture involved from you at all, that's why people are pushing to get authorities to stop accepting confessions coming from someone in an obvious state of emotional distress - even if they're trying to tell the truth they'll garble a lot of it
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
Let's be real here, though. Interrogation - and resolving armed conflict - is always going to be an ugly, manipulative thing, and a significant number of people who get very worked up about it are just Upset and want to end the entire situation.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.