Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion Main / TortureForFunAndInformation

Go To

You will be notified by PM when someone responds to your discussion
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
ccoa MOD Ravenous Sophovore Since: Jan, 2001
Ravenous Sophovore
Jun 22nd 2012 at 8:04:42 AM •••

Trope renamed from Gene Hunt Interrogation Technique by this TRS thread. Original YKTTW archive here.

Edited by ccoa Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
Kersey475 My Namesakes Since: Nov, 2009
My Namesakes
Jun 17th 2010 at 5:41:23 PM •••

Kersey475: Laconically, is a Gene Hunt Interrogation Technique merely a Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique played for laughs.

"Think like a man of action, act like a man of thinking, and don't be a dumbass." Hide / Show Replies
voodoochild Since: Jan, 2001
Jun 19th 2010 at 8:12:32 PM •••

Yes, but the laughs are usually less amused and more horrified. Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique meets Crosses the Line Twice.

Kersey475 Since: Nov, 2009
Jul 21st 2010 at 10:07:34 AM •••

In that case, it seems like this would be the interrogation method of choice for the Heroic Sociopath (both tropes deal with Crosses the Line Twice, although Heroic Sociopath is undergoing massive Trope Decay).

BTW can a Gene Hunt Interrogation Technique also occur if a otherwise serious Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique runs into Narm?

Edited by Kersey475 "Think like a man of action, act like a man of thinking, and don't be a dumbass."
voodoochild Since: Jan, 2001
Aug 19th 2010 at 9:06:50 PM •••

A Heroic Sociopath absolutely would use this trope.

IMO, if an otherwise serious JBIT ran into Narm, it wouldn't be funny, it would mainly be sad or annoying. What makes a GHIT stand out is how Refuge in Audacity funny it is, and how, if it weren't so terrible, you'd be applauding said torturer.

vexle Since: Dec, 1969
Jun 13th 2010 at 11:54:00 PM •••

At the time of this writing, the following words appear in the trope's description:

"...this type of extracting information isn't quite torture, as such, but it comes fairly close."

My issue with this statement is that it is one hundred percent false. The description goes on to state:

"When using the Gene Hunt Interrogation Technique, the interrogator isn't simply causing pain to a victim to get information, they're doing it creatively, and probably having far too much fun in the process. Most of the time, they already have the information, they just want to let off some steam while verifying it."

Further:

"Simply put, it's the difference between beating a man senseless and beating him senseless with a pool cue and stripping his clothes off, having your friends hold him down on the table, and striking the eight-ball right into his sensitive regions."

Though what exactly constitutes torture is a matter of some debate, the example above in which a man is beaten senseless (whether a pool cue and some friends were involved or not) to obtain information is inarguably torture. From Wikipedia:

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession..."

That is from the Wikipedia's "Torture" page. The quote is from the United Nation's Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Really, the question is a simple one: If causing physical harm is not torture, what is torture?

I brought this up in the YKTTW entry, but the trope was launched without the issue being addressed. The change would frankly be a simple one, and the trope is based more around the creativity and originality of the torture used rather than its... for lack of a better word, "torture-ness," meaning the trope would not lose integrity if it was recognized as a form of torture. However, to continue to suggest that striking a man with an eight-ball is not torture is factually incorrect, and does not belong anywhere on the page.

edit: If no further response is offered, I plan on going ahead and fixing the passage myself. It would of course be best if the troper who wrote the description (this appears to be voodoochild) had addressed the issue as expected, but since that looks unlikely, and the issue is too egregious to let stand, I will step in unless a better option presents itself.

Edited by vexle Hide / Show Replies
voodoochild Since: Jan, 2001
Jun 19th 2010 at 8:11:16 PM •••

Sorry I didn't get to this before, @vexle. I agree completely with you, but was unsure of how to word that correctly. It seems Matthew's already got it covered.

64.196.201.2 Since: Dec, 1969
Jun 21st 2010 at 10:58:51 AM •••

Hey, this is vexle. I just read the new description, it reads great. The first sentence is just about perfect, and the pot holes are a nice touch. Good job. voodoochild, don't sweat it, in retrospect I should have just changed it myself. It sounds like we're all happy, so I think we're done here.

Edited by 64.196.201.2
Top