3 ms·
Not if you apply the point-of-view that etiquette is what the unethical use to keep their unethical practices under-questioned.
by fixermark 8y ago
Not if you apply the point-of-view that etiquette is what the unethical use to keep their unethical practices under-questioned.
- SmirkingRevenge 8y agoThere's no real limit to what bad-faith actors will use to appear legitimate. They'll use philosophy, science, religion, etiquette, etc - in constrained, self-serving ways, of course. We can't just assume anyone doing those things is evil and acting in bad faith - otherwise we're just elevating the ad hominem as our supreme, central dogma.
- cbracken 8y agoThat seems to imply an assumption of lack of good faith, unless I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying. While there’s no doubt that one can find cases to which this applies, I’d think that applying that broadly to the vast majority of people who are arguing in good faith would stifle debate.
- fixermark 8y agoI think you're taking as assumption that the vast majority of people are arguing in good faith, and many are no longer willing to take on that assumption without evidence. Given what has been seen regarding both 4chan psychological operations and Russian intelligence operations on major message boards, I can see the vantage point where it's fair to not treat good faith as assumable.
- naasking 8y agoI have no objection to ignoring etiquette in general. The point I was trying to make is that treating etiquette as ethics is how people justify shutting down debate on controversial topics. They also use it to dehumanize their opponents on an issue, and that is unethical.