4 ms·

From my perspective, discrediting the speaker to silence them IS an argument in bad faith. Whether its an ad hominem, tu quoque, or a pitchforking kangaroo cou

by basch 6y ago

From my perspective, discrediting the speaker to silence them IS an argument in bad faith. Whether its an ad hominem, tu quoque, or a pitchforking kangaroo court. If someone is making a good faith rational argument, and the response is "I find your conclusion potentially offensive, so I will suppress your expression"; that is the suppressor acting in bad faith. The energy around "doing what feels right despite evidence" and "the ends justify the means" have turned into the destruction of nuance. It's very hard to say "I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning" because how one arrived at a conclusion no longer matters, only that the conclusion fits the dogma. It is anti intellectualism.

taurath 6y ago
I agree with your reasoning, but not your conclusion. I think there is a level to which the reasoning stops applying in the presence of trolls, which are absolutely bad actors. The conclusions a troll presents are not even necessarily ones that they even believe, and toxic words and actions also stifles intellectual debate. Flamebait SHOULD be suppressed, and thats fairly universally agreed upon. That a downvoted comment turns more opaque on this platform is evidence enough of that. Often times there's no intellectual debate happening online, just social posturing on opposed sides. Once you start talking about real people - like say for instance a video is posted of some white woman harassing and calling the police on a black person. Those doing the "cancelling" by calling their office are actively trying to create a societal social boundary, where you can't do that without consequences because you'd lose the trust of people you work with. That people are shocked someone could be fired for such a thing means they don't agree with that social boundary. Re: "doing what feels right despite evidence" and "the ends justify the means" - those are not at all what I'm espousing and I certainly don't agree with them.
- basch 6y ago
  Directly suppressing flame is different than discrediting a speaker to silence them. I was mostly replying to the "it's overused" claim, that suppressing a bad faith actors may justify collaterally suppressing a good faith. I'm not sure that's what they were saying, but they didn't seem bothered by it.

by basch 6y ago

taurath 6y ago

I agree with your reasoning, but not your conclusion. I think there is a level to which the reasoning stops applying in the presence of trolls, which are absolutely bad actors. The conclusions a troll presents are not even necessarily ones that they even believe, and toxic words and actions also stifles intellectual debate. Flamebait SHOULD be suppressed, and thats fairly universally agreed upon. That a downvoted comment turns more opaque on this platform is evidence enough of that. Often times there's no intellectual debate happening online, just social posturing on opposed sides. Once you start talking about real people - like say for instance a video is posted of some white woman harassing and calling the police on a black person. Those doing the "cancelling" by calling their office are actively trying to create a societal social boundary, where you can't do that without consequences because you'd lose the trust of people you work with. That people are shocked someone could be fired for such a thing means they don't agree with that social boundary. Re: "doing what feels right despite evidence" and "the ends justify the means" - those are not at all what I'm espousing and I certainly don't agree with them.

basch 6y ago
Directly suppressing flame is different than discrediting a speaker to silence them. I was mostly replying to the "it's overused" claim, that suppressing a bad faith actors may justify collaterally suppressing a good faith. I'm not sure that's what they were saying, but they didn't seem bothered by it.