3 ms·
> We must hear people out, even if they're wrong. So, I'm going to pull out good old Harry Frankfurt here and his "On Bullshit". If the one you debate is deba
by Eupolemos 6y ago
> We must hear people out, even if they're wrong.
So, I'm going to pull out good old Harry Frankfurt here and his "On Bullshit".
If the one you debate is debating in good faith, you are right.
If the one you debate is bullshitting, you are wrong.
"Bullshitting" is not caring about true or false, but simply arguing for an effect.
If someone argues in good faith but is "wrong", hear them out. In particular, it is easy to dismiss someone who proposes horrible solutions to problems. Just realize, the problem may be very real, even if their proposed solution is horrifying.
On top of that, people will propose straight up mad solutions, if they feel nobody cares about their problems.
Just recognize that we are talking about two very different things here; bullshitting and being "wrong". And they need to be handled differently.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- thorough 6y agoSo this "good faith" requirement seems like a huge gaping loophole, just a wonderfully easy way to dismiss and even censor a ton of people you merely disagree with. Whether or not they are arguing in good faith is so subjective and therefore the question of who you should hear out becomes the usual popularity contest: if you are sufficiently unpopular, it will be easy to convince people to dismiss someone as arguing in bad faith if they already dislike that person. One example might convince you that this "good faith" rule is too restrictive if you agree with me on one premise, that ~90% of politicians regularly argue in bad faith. Yet most of us who agree with this do not as a rule claim that we will never hear them out.