5 ms·
> This assume all perspectives/arguments are valid Not at all. It only assumes that an understanding of an argument is necessary to engage with it properly.
by klank 7y ago
> This assume all perspectives/arguments are valid
Not at all. It only assumes that an understanding of an argument is necessary to engage with it properly.
- minikites 7y agoI disagree, by engaging a bad faith argument in good faith, you are playing their game and are going to lose by definition: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
- burfog 7y agoDismissing your opponents as "bad faith" and "completely unaware of the absurdity" and "frivolous" is a good indication that your own beliefs may be so. You are completely blocking out any consideration of your opponents. This suggests that you fear becoming convinced that they are right. You fear being forced to confront the fact that your own beliefs have not come about by a rational decision-making process.
- minikites 7y agoWhat rational decision making process results in believing that people with darker skin are sub-human?
- nostrademons 7y agoPeople don't make decisions rationally. If you want to change peoples' minds, you have to engage with the emotions underneath their rationalizations.
- ordu 7y ago> by engaging a bad faith argument in good faith, you are playing their game and are going to lose by definition What does it mean to lose in a communication? You said "by definition", but what is the definition of losing?
- HuShifang 7y agoI think the question is, does such an argument qualify as communication at all? There are many (sadly often rather abstruse) theorizations of communication in the cultural context out there, often bound up with the question of alterity (Levinas, Todorov, et al), but I think it's fair enough to say that many share the idea that true communication is dialogue aimed at advancing mutual understanding, or at persuading, or at increasing collective knowledge. But, if one participant actually has no interest in any of these ends, such "communication" has (potentially significant) opportunity cost -- there are many genuine communications that might occur but that do not because the good-faith participant is distracted from engaging with other good-faith actors by the bad-faith interrogator. (For example, rather than have serious conversations about how to manage and remedy climate change, scientists are distracted by conversations about whether or not it is a real phenomenon.) Bottom-line, time is a finite resource, as are the psychological energies of experts. Now obviously, deciding when someone engaged in an argument is acting in bad faith is difficult. But the naive position that it's always good to argue it out is not practically sustainable.
- jerf 7y agoI'm having a hard time thinking of a political-type group that I can't stick in there for "anti-Semite" and get a paragraph that a good chunk of people won't agree with. “Never believe that Republicans are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The Republicans have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” “Never believe that Democrats are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The Democrats have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” The "politically correct", "anti-abortionists", "pro-lifers", "Hacker News anklebiters"... it all fits just fine. It's just a way of giving yourself an excuse to not engage with opinions cloaked in the veneer of righteousness.
- HuShifang 7y agoI'm an expert in something, and I suspect that you are as well. I don't engage with every argument about my domain of expertise that I encounter, because it would be impractical to do so: I have a finite amount of time and energy, and when I make the contextual determination that the argument is especially ill-informed, or disingenuous, I choose not to engage with it, because I believe that my time and energy is better spent on other ends. I presume you do the same. Is that "just a way of giving yourself an excuse to not engage with opinions cloaked in the veneer of righteousness"? If I had infinite time and patience then yes, I would engage with all opinions. But I do not.