Sexual Assault of Men Played for Laughs

It’s hard to overstate just how common jokes about men being sexually assaulted are in entertainment media. Most popular comedic actors engage in this type of humor. Jokes are typically designed to demean, humiliate, control, or emasculate a male character for being the victim, or potential victim, of sexual violence.
JiggaJonsonsays...

*quality

As someone who watches a LOT of kid's movies with my daughter, I notice an alarming regularity of torture in children's media.

You like Pixar movies, right? Pick a Pixar film, ALL of them have a torture scene. It's bizarre.

It's late, so I'll be succinct about these, but let's define torture as follows:
Torture - noun - the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological suffering on someone by another as a punishment or in order to fulfill some desire of the torturer or force some action from the victim

Fair?

This is a short list I can think of off the top of my head

Toy Story
Sid tortures Woody "Where are your rebel friends NOW?" as he burns his forehead

Toy Story 2
Stinky Pete tortures Woody "You can go to Japan together or in pieces. Now GET IN THE BOX!"

Toy Story 3
Buzz gets put in the "time-out chair" with a burlap bag put over his head and is forced to turn on his friends

Monster's Inc.
Mike is put in the "scream extractor" and is interrogated "Where's the kid?" as the extractor inches towards his face.

Wreck it Ralph
Ralph asks "What's going on in this candy coated Heart of Darkness?" Sour Bill tries to run away but Ralph picks him up and threatens to lick him. "I'll take it to my grave" "Fair enough" and Ralph pops Sour Bill in his mouth "Had enough?" "OKAY OKAY I'LL TALK!"

Cars 2
The green-gasoline in his tank, the spy car is put in front of the radiation shooting camera and is interrogated about who the other spy is and who has the information about the green gas he recovered that could unravel their plan to get revenge for being discriminated against for being "lemons." His engine explodes (he's killed?) in spite of giving up the information.

The Incredibles
Mr. Incredible is restrained via some black goop and asked about his family's whereabouts on the island.

Finding Nemo
Near the end of the film when Dory finds Nemo but Marlin has wandered off thinking Nemo was dead, they need to know which way Marlin went and come across the little crabs sitting on the pipe "heyyyyyyyyheyyyyyyyyyyheyyyyyyyy" "Yeah I saw where he went, but I'm not telling you, and there's no way you're gonna make me." Dory lifts him up and threatens to feed him to the seagulls sitting on a small rock until he starts screaming "OKAY ILL TALK ILL TALK HE WENT TO THE FISHING GROUNDS!!!"

I could go on, but I hope to make this simple point:
These films do NOT have to include a torture scene. It's simply odd to me that it appears so often, instilling the idea early on that torture works for getting information or cooperation out of people.

Finally, I point to one of many pieces of research on the matter https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325643/

bcglorfsays...

I kind of swing the other way on this. We live in a cruel, violent, unjust world. Talking about that is not automatically an endorsement of it. Making jokes about it is part of talking about it and an important coping mechanism. Yes, talking and joking about it CAN be done in a way that encourages it, but it's NOT automatic.

As per your Toy Story examples, the ultimate take away for the young audience exposed to it is that the violence/torture was a clear cut bad thing. When someone in your office pulls a prank on someone and the other party responds by jokingly threatening to kill them for it they aren't normalizing murder. Nobody comes away from that interaction with the idea that murder is somehow more acceptable or less bad.

We need to relax a little bit about looking for micro-aggressions and 'bad' culture in every little thing that people say or joke about,

JiggaJonsonsaid:

*quality

As someone who watches a LOT of kid's movies with my daughter, I notice an alarming regularity of torture in children's media.

You like Pixar movies, right? Pick a Pixar film, ALL of them have a torture scene. It's bizarre.

It's late, so I'll be succinct about these, but let's define torture as follows:
Torture - noun - the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological suffering on someone by another as a punishment or in order to fulfill some desire of the torturer or force some action from the victim

Fair?

This is a short list I can think of off the top of my head

Toy Story
Sid tortures Woody "Where are your rebel friends NOW?" as he burns his forehead

Toy Story 2
Stinky Pete tortures Woody "You can go to Japan together or in pieces. Now GET IN THE BOX!"

Toy Story 3
Buzz gets put in the "time-out chair" with a burlap bag put over his head and is forced to turn on his friends

Monster's Inc.
Mike is put in the "scream extractor" and is interrogated "Where's the kid?" as the extractor inches towards his face.

Wreck it Ralph
Ralph asks "What's going on in this candy coated Heart of Darkness?" Sour Bill tries to run away but Ralph picks him up and threatens to lick him. "I'll take it to my grave" "Fair enough" and Ralph pops Sour Bill in his mouth "Had enough?" "OKAY OKAY I'LL TALK!"

Cars 2
The green-gasoline in his tank, the spy car is put in front of the radiation shooting camera and is interrogated about who the other spy is and who has the information about the green gas he recovered that could unravel their plan to get revenge for being discriminated against for being "lemons." His engine explodes (he's killed?) in spite of giving up the information.

The Incredibles
Mr. Incredible is restrained via some black goop and asked about his family's whereabouts on the island.

Finding Nemo
Near the end of the film when Dory finds Nemo but Marlin has wandered off thinking Nemo was dead, they need to know which way Marlin went and come across the little crabs sitting on the pipe "heyyyyyyyyheyyyyyyyyyyheyyyyyyyy" "Yeah I saw where he went, but I'm not telling you, and there's no way you're gonna make me." Dory lifts him up and threatens to feed him to the seagulls sitting on a small rock until he starts screaming "OKAY ILL TALK ILL TALK HE WENT TO THE FISHING GROUNDS!!!"

I could go on, but I hope to make this simple point:
These films do NOT have to include a torture scene. It's simply odd to me that it appears so often, instilling the idea early on that torture works for getting information or cooperation out of people.

Finally, I point to one of many pieces of research on the matter https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325643/

newtboysays...

Edit: replying about the wrong video, my mistake.

I'm curious...in what way do they imply objectification is bad?
This is normalizing objectification.
It's not like someone saying jokingly "I'll kill you" and the office laughing, it's someone saying "I'll kill you" while sticking a knife into your liver and smiling, and the office laughing.
This isn't a joke about objectification, it's simply objectification, just like if they were all huge breasted sexy women in tight thin tank tops and little else.
If you want to excuse or allow objectification, do it. Someone will debate you on that. Don't just pretend it's not happening please. There's no discussion if one party denies reality.

bcglorfsaid:

I kind of swing the other way on this. We live in a cruel, violent, unjust world. Talking about that is not automatically an endorsement of it. Making jokes about it is part of talking about it and an important coping mechanism. Yes, talking and joking about it CAN be done in a way that encourages it, but it's NOT automatic.

As per your Toy Story examples, the ultimate take away for the young audience exposed to it is that the violence/torture was a clear cut bad thing. When someone in your office pulls a prank on someone and the other party responds by jokingly threatening to kill them for it they aren't normalizing murder. Nobody comes away from that interaction with the idea that murder is somehow more acceptable or less bad.

We need to relax a little bit about looking for micro-aggressions and 'bad' culture in every little thing that people say or joke about,

bcglorfsays...

Are we talking about the same video?

I'm very simply meaning that making jokes about horrible things like rape and murder isn't automatically endorsing them, and that depending on context the jokes can make the problem better, worse or somewhere in between. Not sure where objectification came in atop that?

At the very least a lot of war vets with PTSD have been helped by humor as a coping mechanism or as an opening to harder topics of conversation...

newtboysaid:

I'm curious...in what way do they imply objectification is bad?
This is normalizing objectification.
It's not like someone saying jokingly "I'll kill you" and the office laughing, it's someone saying "I'll kill you" while sticking a knife into your liver and smiling, and the office laughing.
This isn't a joke about objectification, it's simply objectification, just like if they were all huge breasted sexy women in tight thin tank tops and little else.
If you want to excuse or allow objectification, do it. Someone will debate you on that. Don't just pretend it's not happening please. There's no discussion if one party denies reality.

newtboysays...

Oops....no, we aren't.
I mistakenly thought this comment was about the Ellen Hunk Tac Toe video posted at the same time.
My mistake, sorry.

bcglorfsaid:

Are we talking about the same video?

I'm very simply meaning that making jokes about horrible things like rape and murder isn't automatically endorsing them, and that depending on context the jokes can make the problem better, worse or somewhere in between. Not sure where objectification came in atop that?

At the very least a lot of war vets with PTSD have been helped by humor as a coping mechanism or as an opening to harder topics of conversation...

BSRsays...

Level up.

GAMING
(especially in a role-playing game) progress to the next level.
"you can collect runes and use them as you level up to increase the power of your weapons"
(in a role-playing game) advance one's character to the next level of development.
"build your army, level up your hero, purchase equipment, and challenge your friends to massive battles"

bcglorfsaid:

I'm very simply meaning that making jokes about horrible things like rape and murder isn't automatically endorsing them, and that depending on context the jokes can make the problem better, worse or somewhere in between.

BSRsays...


bcglorfsaid:

I kind of swing the other way on this. We live in a cruel, violent, unjust world. Talking about that is not automatically an endorsement of it. Making jokes about it is part of talking about it and an important coping mechanism. Yes, talking and joking about it CAN be done in a way that encourages it, but it's NOT automatic.

As per your Toy Story examples, the ultimate take away for the young audience exposed to it is that the violence/torture was a clear cut bad thing. When someone in your office pulls a prank on someone and the other party responds by jokingly threatening to kill them for it they aren't normalizing murder. Nobody comes away from that interaction with the idea that murder is somehow more acceptable or less bad.

We need to relax a little bit about looking for micro-aggressions and 'bad' culture in every little thing that people say or joke about,

JiggaJonsonsays...

I understand. I'll grant that it seems a little "helicopter-parent" like to worry about this sort of thing. However, I do not agree that the transgressions are as harmful OR harmless as you suggest.

The Toy Story Examples again.
The one from Sid is itself an allusion to Star Wars where Darth Vader is torturing a soldier for information about the rebel base locations. If I'm not mistaken, that person is force-choked to death after his mind betrays him and gives Vader the info he needs.

Buzz approaches Woody after Sid steps out and commends him after the fact. "A lesser man would have talked under such torture."

Here is the encouragement. It doesn't matter if Sid is a good or a bad guy. Although, arguably, Sid isn't really a villain - just a kid who likes to play rough with his toys. But that's a different argument. I believe the encouragement is in the promotion of the idea that, put bluntly, torture is effective.

It's this idea, whatever the character motivation is at the time, nomatter who the character is, that encourages the use of torture as an acceptable means of extracting some kind of cooperation from the person being tortured- which is simply NOT true.

Why the pattern? why can't he be just ripping apart his toys like he did with the doll earlier?

I'm not fishing for 'micro agressions' - I'm against promoting the idea that torture works.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/08/world/does-torture-work-the-cias-claims-and-what-the-committee-found.html

"Time and time again, people with actual experience with interrogating terror suspects and actual experience and knowledge about the effectiveness of torture techniques have come out to explain that they are ineffective and that their use threatens national security more than it helps."
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_effectiveness_of_torture/

I argue that presenting torture as something that DOES work encourages policy decisions that allow for torture as a means to an end. When in reality it's simply just some kind of revenge driven harm propaganda.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-rsquo-ve-known-for-400-years-that-torture-doesn-rsquo-t-work/

bcglorfsaid:

I kind of swing the other way on this. We live in a cruel, violent, unjust world. Talking about that is not automatically an endorsement of it. Making jokes about it is part of talking about it and an important coping mechanism. Yes, talking and joking about it CAN be done in a way that encourages it, but it's NOT automatic.

As per your Toy Story examples, the ultimate take away for the young audience exposed to it is that the violence/torture was a clear cut bad thing. ...
... We need to relax a little bit about looking for micro-aggressions and 'bad' culture in every little thing that people say or joke about,

BSRsays...

Being a victim is a choice. Choosing not to be a victim is a super power.

Paybacksaid:

If you can't make jokes of male sexual assault victims, then which sexual assault victims CAN you make fun of?

Sniper007says...

This kind of intellectual empowerment can become indistinguishable from victim-blaming in certain situations, if not presented with care.

BSRsaid:

Being a victim is a choice. Choosing not to be a victim is a super power.

bcglorfsays...

@JiggaJonson,

When you say:
...I'm against promoting the idea that torture works...

I can see where you are coming from on this. In the sense that it might then encourage people to accept using it, because it works.

My problem with that line of reasoning though is that torture actually is effective. The simplest proof being that we wouldn't have every single national intelligence agency using it(directly or indirectly by a less squeamish ally as we 'civilized' nations prefer to do it).

Your links to the ineffectiveness of torture only look at the narrowest possible goals from it. Somebody like Saddam Hussein usually didn't care about Jack Bauer style, minutes count specific intel. Getting the names of everyone you knew or 'conspired' with mattered, and torture IS effective at getting people to talk. The trouble your links note is that torture victims will say literally anything to get you to stop. When looking for information though, victims can't name real people unless they know them. Better still for guys like Saddam, if you get yourself 3 victims in the same movement, you can cross reference things and build a list of suspects. To more ethical nations like us that's unactionable intelligence, but if you don't care if you sweep up 5 innocents along with the 5 people that really were a threat to you, it still 'worked'.

Torture also is widely used simply as a tool to instill fear. When your citizens have seen the broken shells of people who's loyalty was deemed questionable, fear keeps them in step. It worked for Saddam until external forces stopped him, and it's helped keep 3 generations in power in North Korea.

Getting back closer to the video, things we don't like don't go away just because we refuse to talk about them. Rape, torture, and violence aren't like the boogeyman that will go away if we just stop talking and thinking about them so much. We need to accept that there are terrible things in our world that people do and benefit from doing them. These are things that people use to gain a feeling of power, or to truly gain real tangible power over other people.

Of course we have to discuss them responsibly, and the danger of shaming victims is an equally real thing to be aware of. At the same time though, humor is one of the ways of bridging the gap to people dealing with trauma, so jokes about things that cause trauma like rape, violence and torture have an honest place in making things better as well.

JiggaJonsonsays...

@bcglorf

Use is not evidence of efficacy. Ask the homeopathic medicine industry about that.


I'd like to see some solid evidence of torture producing the results you'd want to see. A closely guarded secret revealed only after X amount of hours on the rack or under the water board.

From what I've read, universally, people who are tortured see their torturers in a rapidly increasing negative light. What could your worst enemy do to get you to betray a good friend? What if you began to harbor feelings that were even more I tense hatred for your worst enemy and they wanted you to betray your best friend? Would you be more likely to work with them then ?

I think the premise itself is flawed when it comes to torture, and more importantly the evidence is on my side.

BSRsays...

So you admit you are in fact demonizing. How does that make you any different than the thing you fear? Do you even know what you fear?

And yes, that was worth mentioning.

JiggaJonsonsaid:

It's also worth mentioning I don't want to just demonize Pixar, there exists an abundance of examples outside of the Pixar studio. The most obvious among them is in Shrek

bcglorfsays...

Would you do me the courtesy of reading what I say before rejecting it? I specifically said: "Somebody like Saddam Hussein usually didn't care about Jack Bauer style, minutes count specific intel."

Jack Bauer style meaning like your revelation of a closely guarded secret after waterboarding...

Saddam would do things like sending his police to a disloyal man's home, and them simply handing over a video of them torturing his son or raping his wife/daughter whom they still had in custody. We don't have to like it, but it absolutely was effective in crushing dissent from not only that guy, but as word spreads a lot of other start wondering if resistance is worth the cost.

Our world is absolutely filled with examples of violence, rape and torture being used as powerfully effective weapons and ignoring it doesn't wish it away. The fact it these things are so powerful makes them all the more awful and more important we discuss it.

JiggaJonsonsaid:

@bcglorf

Use is not evidence of efficacy. Ask the homeopathic medicine industry about that.


I'd like to see some solid evidence of torture producing the results you'd want to see. A closely guarded secret revealed only after X amount of hours on the rack or under the water board.

From what I've read, universally, people who are tortured see their torturers in a rapidly increasing negative light. What could your worst enemy do to get you to betray a good friend? What if you began to harbor feelings that were even more I tense hatred for your worst enemy and they wanted you to betray your best friend? Would you be more likely to work with them then ?

I think the premise itself is flawed when it comes to torture, and more importantly the evidence is on my side.

JiggaJonsonsays...

I suppose that depends on the definition of demonizing and on my intent. As I said, it's not just an indictment of Pixar but children's film's more broadly. Its limited in scope because of the forum.

I'm not sure how to respond to your second comment about what I fear. That seems like some sort of red herring and I haven't attacked any sifters. I don't feel like the commentary on Pixar film's is an attack either, I doubt they realize what they're doing beyond adding what they think will be a salacious plot point to a movie.


I suppose I fear being surrounded by dumb internet trolls, but hey, all I can do is be straightforward, honest, and as factual as I can be.

BSRsaid:

So you admit you are in fact demonizing. How does that make you any different than the thing you fear? Do you even know what you fear?

And yes, that was worth mentioning.

JiggaJonsonsays...

I'm sorry, you have misunderstood me.

What I mean to say is that your post that included the example does not contain an actual example, only a generalization devoid of any reference.

I don't trust that you are a reliable source of information on the history of Saddam Heussane's use of torture and whether or not his results could deem an interrogation effective.

You are speaking generally enough that I'd like evidince I can inspect for myself before I take your word on this or that point being factual or definite.

In other words, I did read your comment and found it unconvincing in terms of substance.

Or in other words, I don't believe you know what you're talking about.

bcglorfsaid:

Would you do me the courtesy of reading what I say before rejecting it?

BSRsays...

It sounds to me as though you're on a mission to point out the evil taking place in children's movies that encourage bad things, such as torture as a tool. It also sounds as though you are ready to set aside some of your valuable time to bring attention to this "problem."

I'm not aware that you have ever attacked any sifters and it never crossed my mind.

What would you say if I told you Pixar knows EXACTLY what they are doing, why they are doing it and how they are succeeding, with or without your help? Your doubt about what they are doing is sending you down an unending, fruitless road costing you valuable time that you should be spending with your children. Not to mention the cost at the ticket window.

All the answers to your fears are already built into the same movie(s) you point out. If you look for evil you will create it and find it. Drop your cynicism and look for the good.

When you find the good you will be able teach your children how to get along in this world just by your example. Make your valuable time worth it.

I truly believe you are straightforward, honest, and as factual as you can be. Find the good and you will have unlimited power on your side. Yes, even the Tin Man, Scarecrow and Cowardly Lion.
-----------------------------------------
All alone, or in two's
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall
Some hand in hand
And some gathered together in bands
The bleeding hearts and the artists
Make their stand
And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall -Pink Floyd

JiggaJonsonsaid:

I suppose that depends on the definition of demonizing and on my intent. As I said, it's not just an indictment of Pixar but children's film's more broadly. Its limited in scope because of the forum.

I'm not sure how to respond to your second comment about what I fear. That seems like some sort of red herring and I haven't attacked any sifters. I don't feel like the commentary on Pixar film's is an attack either, I doubt they realize what they're doing beyond adding what they think will be a salacious plot point to a movie.


I suppose I fear being surrounded by dumb internet trolls, but hey, all I can do is be straightforward, honest, and as factual as I can be.

bcglorfsays...

No, I understand just fine you only want to discuss torture as a means of interrogation and even then with more caveats on what counts as meaningful results. What I am pointing out is that torture, violence and rape ARE used for other purposes and do so successfully. You insist on entirely ignoring that, you might as well stuff your fingers in your ears and yell 'i'm not listening'.

JiggaJonsonsaid:

I'm sorry, you have misunderstood me.

What I mean to say is that your post that included the example does not contain an actual example, only a generalization devoid of any reference.

I don't trust that you are a reliable source of information on the history of Saddam Heussane's use of torture and whether or not his results could deem an interrogation effective.

You are speaking generally enough that I'd like evidince I can inspect for myself before I take your word on this or that point being factual or definite.

In other words, I did read your comment and found it unconvincing in terms of substance.

Or in other words, I don't believe you know what you're talking about.

newtboysays...

Torture is good for getting someone to name any person they know. It is not good for getting useful information....so it's only barely useful if you torture someone weak who knows the name of others you are looking for, and gives them up. That's useless information, even to a monster like Saddam. He would never know if the important names were withheld and only acquaintances named, so would be forced to murder the entire country eventually. Only unknown hermits would be "safe".

Your example assumes dissidents with families would be allowed to have sensitive information.
Clearly it didn't work, too. There was a strong opposition to Saddam he utterly failed to destroy even though he tortured without pause. You create more enemies than you could ever catch by torture. Smart leaders start to wonder if torture for information is worth the cost. (Hint, it's not)

Torture for coercion, a different topic, that often works, but only until the tortured decide death is preferable and try to revolt, which requires you to keep them in N Korea conditions to keep any revolt from winning. Hardly a net gain for even third world nations.

bcglorfsaid:

Would you do me the courtesy of reading what I say before rejecting it? I specifically said: "Somebody like Saddam Hussein usually didn't care about Jack Bauer style, minutes count specific intel."

Jack Bauer style meaning like your revelation of a closely guarded secret after waterboarding...

Saddam would do things like sending his police to a disloyal man's home, and them simply handing over a video of them torturing his son or raping his wife/daughter whom they still had in custody. We don't have to like it, but it absolutely was effective in crushing dissent from not only that guy, but as word spreads a lot of other start wondering if resistance is worth the cost.

Our world is absolutely filled with examples of violence, rape and torture being used as powerfully effective weapons and ignoring it doesn't wish it away. The fact it these things are so powerful makes them all the more awful and more important we discuss it.

bcglorfsays...

Saddam took control of an oil rich nation of 30+ million people using violence and torture. He had them record his clinching moment on video, where you can still watch him drag out a visibly broken man(well agreed to have been broken through torture, Saddam deliberately flaunted this), and has the man read out a list of names of co-conspirators. Sure, Saddam undoubtedly wrote the list himself, but he was already powerful and feared enough it didn't matter and this evidence was enough. The co-conspirators were hauled out for execution, and the others in the room were fearful/relieved enough that when they were ordered to perform the executions themselves they did.

Saddam then ruled Iraq for another 24 years before he was forcibly removed by foreign powers, not any manner of domestic uprising.

Don't tell me that nobody else in Iraq wanted the job for that quarter century, instead Saddam's brutal methods were successful in keeping his hold on power throughout that time. None of that makes his methods 'right', but to declare that the methods are ineffective is just silly. Doubly so if you observe his hold on power wasn't removed by crowds of peaceful protesters rising up removing him in a bloodless coup, but rather through the use of more force and violence than Saddam could muster in return.

newtboysaid:

Torture is good for getting someone to name any person they know. It is not good for getting useful information....so it's only barely useful if you torture someone weak who knows the name of others you are looking for, and gives them up. That's useless information, even to a monster like Saddam. He would never know if the important names were withheld and only acquaintances named, so would be forced to murder the entire country eventually. Only unknown hermits would be "safe".

Your example assumes dissidents with families would be allowed to have sensitive information.
Clearly it didn't work, too. There was a strong opposition to Saddam he utterly failed to destroy even though he tortured without pause. You create more enemies than you could ever catch by torture. Smart leaders start to wonder if torture for information is worth the cost. (Hint, it's not)

Torture for coercion, a different topic, that often works, but only until the tortured decide death is preferable and try to revolt, which requires you to keep them in N Korea conditions to keep any revolt from winning. Hardly a net gain for even third world nations.

newtboysays...

Using violence, torture, and the backing of the Russian military, and after numerous failed coup and assassination attempts he took and held tenuous control. Torture hardly played a huge roll or he would have been successful the first time, or the second. He retained and increased that power in the 70-80's by spending his huge amounts of oil money on the people, mostly not by torturing them (except for Kurds).

The "others in the room" we're his forces, not random people who murdered for him out of relief. He didn't hand weapons to an adversarial group he was convincing to follow his lead by having them kill those who wouldn't. I mean...WHAT?

You use fear mongering as proof torture works? Um... ok.

Since what I've been discussing is torture working to get sensitive, useful information, not the long term terrorism and brutal oppression of a population, I'll just move on.
Yes, despots can ride nations into the ground by making the populations powerless and fearful until those populations revolt. Yes, an iron hand and willingness to make your population stone aged can allow you to hold on a long time. Yes, torture can be part of that, but only one small unnecessary part, a strong military willing to murder unarmed civilians is what it takes, torture or not.

Wow, now you think the U.S. military taking out Saddam proves torture works because ...force and violence?

Strength vs weakness is what worked, not torture or terrorism, that's why he failed, brought down by a coalition of locals and Americans with his military deserting him in droves when he needed them most.

Torture is not a functional interrogation technique nor a means to foster loyalty, only fear. Fear only works until someone adds hope to the equation.

bcglorfsaid:

Saddam took control of an oil rich nation of 30+ million people using violence and torture.


He had them record his clinching moment on video, where you can still watch him drag out a visibly broken man(well agreed to have been broken through torture, Saddam deliberately flaunted this), and has the man read out a list of names of co-conspirators. Sure, Saddam undoubtedly wrote the list himself, but he was already powerful and feared enough it didn't matter and this evidence was enough. The co-conspirators were hauled out for execution, and the others in the room were fearful/relieved enough that when they were ordered to perform the executions themselves they did.

Saddam then ruled Iraq for another 24 years before he was forcibly removed by foreign powers, not any manner of domestic uprising.

Don't tell me that nobody else in Iraq wanted the job for that quarter century, instead Saddam's brutal methods were successful in keeping his hold on power throughout that time. None of that makes his methods 'right', but to declare that the methods are ineffective is just silly. Doubly so if you observe his hold on power wasn't removed by crowds of peaceful protesters rising up removing him in a bloodless coup, but rather through the use of more force and violence than Saddam could muster in return.

BSRsays...

Can you elaborate a bit? Just a paragraph or so. I already have to scroll for five minutes just to get to the bottom on my phone.

newtboysaid:

Fear only works until someone adds hope to the equation.

newtboysays...

Sure. Imo, fear only works to control a population until they are given hope for the possibility of something better....usually hope of a successful coup or escape. Power held by terror must constantly defend against revolt by the terrorised. The torturousness of the treatment is inversely proportional to the amount of hope required to start a revolt because when your life is nothing but torture, risking your life to change that is far more appealing. Truly hopeless people are easy to control.

BSRsaid:

Can you elaborate a bit? Just a paragraph or so. I already have to scroll for five minutes just to get to the bottom on my phone.

bcglorfsays...

You kind of noted it yourself, but Saddam DID use hope as well. He spent lots of money on the people that were loyal, obedient or just kept their heads down. You just can't ignore that his approach of giving the people the choice of a decent life if obedient or the risk of a horrific suffering one for disobedience secured him great power for multiple decades.

newtboysaid:

Using violence, torture, and the backing of the Russian military, and after numerous failed coup and assassination attempts he took and held tenuous control. Torture hardly played a huge roll or he would have been successful the first time, or the second. He retained and increased that power in the 70-80's by spending his huge amounts of oil money on the people, mostly not by torturing them (except for Kurds).

The "others in the room" we're his forces, not random people who murdered for him out of relief. He didn't hand weapons to an adversarial group he was convincing to follow his lead by having them kill those who wouldn't. I mean...WHAT?

You use fear mongering as proof torture works? Um... ok.

Since what I've been discussing is torture working to get sensitive, useful information, not the long term terrorism and brutal oppression of a population, I'll just move on.
Yes, despots can ride nations into the ground by making the populations powerless and fearful until those populations revolt. Yes, an iron hand and willingness to make your population stone aged can allow you to hold on a long time. Yes, torture can be part of that, but only one small unnecessary part, a strong military willing to murder unarmed civilians is what it takes, torture or not.

Wow, now you think the U.S. military taking out Saddam proves torture works because ...force and violence?

Strength vs weakness is what worked, not torture or terrorism, that's why he failed, brought down by a coalition of locals and Americans with his military deserting him in droves when he needed them most.

Torture is not a functional interrogation technique nor a means to foster loyalty, only fear. Fear only works until someone adds hope to the equation.

newtboysays...

Not by itself. Imo, Russia's backing had far more to do with him retaining power than his torturing.

Also, no one ignored that his changing methods (including aligning with a super power) were successful at retaining power for decades, please stop saying that. It's annoying and goes to show you aren't reading, you're apparently just looking for something to contradict and jumping on it.

None of your walls of text address the point being made, that torture is not an interrogation technique that works. Why do you continue to ignore the topic?

I'm bored with this merry go round....bye bye now.

bcglorfsaid:

You kind of noted it yourself, but Saddam DID use hope as well. He spent lots of money on the people that were loyal, obedient or just kept their heads down. You just can't ignore that his approach of giving the people the choice of a decent life if obedient or the risk of a horrific suffering one for disobedience secured him great power for multiple decades.

BSRsays...

Thanks. In other words, "A distant ship, smoke on the horizon"

newtboysaid:

Sure. Imo, fear only works to control a population until they are given hope for the possibility of something better....usually hope of a successful coup or escape. Power held by terror must constantly defend against revolt by the terrorised. The torturousness of the treatment is inversely proportional to the amount of hope required to start a revolt because when your life is nothing but torture, risking your life to change that is far more appealing. Truly hopeless people are easy to control.

BSRsays...

So Grasshopper, when are you going to start writing song lyrics?

Your dog is itching to run West. Oh, right. You're already there.

newtboysaid:

Truly hopeless people are easy to control.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More