4 ms·
I think the gist is to avoid aggressively picking apart minor details, and instead discuss the main points. This is in line with another section of the guidelin
by divbzero 6y ago
I think the gist is to avoid aggressively picking apart minor details, and instead discuss the main points. This is in line with another section of the guidelines:
“Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”
- zepto 6y agoIt’s a good idea in principle, the problem is that the devil is often in the detail and people can say things that seem broadly like a decent argument while slipping in details (whether intentionally or not) that completely reverse the meaning or make the meaning quite different. This is why cross examination in needed in trials - of course everyone tries to make a plausible argument, so noticing the incongruities is important. Assuming good faith and cross examining are not mutually exclusive.
- dang 6y agoPointing out, or asking about, incongruities is fine. How one does it makes a difference, as does the intention with which one does it. If you want to call all of that cross-examination, that's fine, but in that case we're using the term differently. The main distinction the guidelines are trying to draw is the one between open exchange and destroying enemies.
- zepto 6y agoThat might actually be a better way of saying it then. I think it’s clearer and more direct and has less of an implication of being overly deferential to bad arguments.