3 ms·

I never got what people mean with "bad faith" stuff. Like its some inherently bad kind of behaviors and ideas? Can you explain it to me like im 5? The worst th

I never got what people mean with "bad faith" stuff. Like its some inherently bad kind of behaviors and ideas? Can you explain it to me like im 5? The worst that i can think of is that people are hiding their true interests and thus lying to you.

arkh 6y ago
They want ammo on everyone so they can try and get them fired to replace them with friends and family.
throwaway894345 6y ago
The idea is that people are engaging with no interest in making society better. An example might be a person who advocates for policies that are almost certainly harmful to the communities he purports to care about because his rhetoric draws favor (i.e., social capital) from others of his well-to-do segment of the political spectrum. The chief idea is that someone is plainly not interested in addressing the problem they purport to care about, but that they want the benefits of virtue signaling or else the “politics as tribal sport” element or a fondness for malice and divisiveness. To be really clear, I’m not making a veiled political statement—I can think of a dozen ways this could fit a bad faith person on either side of the spectrum.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Tycho 6y ago
When their actions/interests are less noble than what their words imply. For instance, using statistics and evidence to make a judgment seem objective, but knowingly leaving out other evidence that contradicts their position, especially when political association can be used to attack anyone who does bring up that evidence. Or asking that people “simply be aware” of their own prejudices, but in practice they are only interested in deconstructing the prejudices of one particular group, and would react furiously if another group was targeted. Pretending that everything is just a level playing field of debate, when they know that it isn’t, and they like it that way.
SkyBelow 6y ago
In general bad faith means that someone is lying to you, either implicitly or explicitly, when engaging you. An example of this might be to act interested in a point, request sources to back it up, but with the intention to never look at the sources. Instead, the intent is to attack them for not providing sources making them look like their opinion is unsourced if they don't provide any, attack the sources if they provide anything that might be considered controversial, or to ignore them entirely and move onto the next person if they do provide good sources. The goal is to at worst waste their time and at best make them look like their position is unfounded. Other examples might be asking questions when discussing a slightly controversial topic to get even more controversial replies that you will then quote mine to attack the poster, even if the quotes weren't controversial in context. A less agreed upon example might be someone who is purposefully being misleading because they don't want to expose their true goal, but whose true goal is to educate the person. Asking leading questions to get someone to reach a conclusion when you would not be able to argue directly for that conclusion. This last example might even pass as an acceptable form of bad faith dialog because it is done with the intention of having a good faith conversation on a topic where good faith conversations aren't possible.
Flozzin 6y ago
To me bad faith is also just lying. You lie about your motives and intentions. You lie about the other's sides motives and intentions. Bad faith actors also prop up a lot of straw men in order to tear them down, but disengage or put words in the mouth of direct opponents. They make concrete statements, then back away and act like they never said if called out for it, or can't back up their assumption with evidence. Bad faith arguments are more about scoring points or making that person feel better. It's never about the actual policy. So it allows the bad faith actor freedom to say whatever they want, as long as they come out ahead.
- datavirtue 6y ago
  It can come from cognitive dissonance and ignorance, refusing to concede a point that has been logically refuted. Maintaining a position and then launching a personal attack if the position is threatened.
krageon 6y ago
Just as an example, there are many ways to speak in bad faith: They say something they know is wrong so you correct them, then they take offense. They then leverage this perceived (by everyone else) offense and use it to gain some sort of advantage (over you, or systemically). In contrast, talking in good faith is saying something they believe is true. Maybe you correct them or maybe you don't, but in the end they're just trying to talk to other people.
intergalplan 6y ago
Actual intent differs from presented intent. As in "not negotiating in good faith"—carrying on negotiations only to extract information, with no intention of making a deal, might be an example of this.

arkh 6y ago

They want ammo on everyone so they can try and get them fired to replace them with friends and family.

throwaway894345 6y ago

The idea is that people are engaging with no interest in making society better. An example might be a person who advocates for policies that are almost certainly harmful to the communities he purports to care about because his rhetoric draws favor (i.e., social capital) from others of his well-to-do segment of the political spectrum. The chief idea is that someone is plainly not interested in addressing the problem they purport to care about, but that they want the benefits of virtue signaling or else the “politics as tribal sport” element or a fondness for malice and divisiveness. To be really clear, I’m not making a veiled political statement—I can think of a dozen ways this could fit a bad faith person on either side of the spectrum.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Tycho 6y ago

When their actions/interests are less noble than what their words imply. For instance, using statistics and evidence to make a judgment seem objective, but knowingly leaving out other evidence that contradicts their position, especially when political association can be used to attack anyone who does bring up that evidence. Or asking that people “simply be aware” of their own prejudices, but in practice they are only interested in deconstructing the prejudices of one particular group, and would react furiously if another group was targeted. Pretending that everything is just a level playing field of debate, when they know that it isn’t, and they like it that way.

SkyBelow 6y ago

In general bad faith means that someone is lying to you, either implicitly or explicitly, when engaging you. An example of this might be to act interested in a point, request sources to back it up, but with the intention to never look at the sources. Instead, the intent is to attack them for not providing sources making them look like their opinion is unsourced if they don't provide any, attack the sources if they provide anything that might be considered controversial, or to ignore them entirely and move onto the next person if they do provide good sources. The goal is to at worst waste their time and at best make them look like their position is unfounded. Other examples might be asking questions when discussing a slightly controversial topic to get even more controversial replies that you will then quote mine to attack the poster, even if the quotes weren't controversial in context. A less agreed upon example might be someone who is purposefully being misleading because they don't want to expose their true goal, but whose true goal is to educate the person. Asking leading questions to get someone to reach a conclusion when you would not be able to argue directly for that conclusion. This last example might even pass as an acceptable form of bad faith dialog because it is done with the intention of having a good faith conversation on a topic where good faith conversations aren't possible.

Flozzin 6y ago

To me bad faith is also just lying. You lie about your motives and intentions. You lie about the other's sides motives and intentions. Bad faith actors also prop up a lot of straw men in order to tear them down, but disengage or put words in the mouth of direct opponents. They make concrete statements, then back away and act like they never said if called out for it, or can't back up their assumption with evidence. Bad faith arguments are more about scoring points or making that person feel better. It's never about the actual policy. So it allows the bad faith actor freedom to say whatever they want, as long as they come out ahead.

datavirtue 6y ago
It can come from cognitive dissonance and ignorance, refusing to concede a point that has been logically refuted. Maintaining a position and then launching a personal attack if the position is threatened.

krageon 6y ago

Just as an example, there are many ways to speak in bad faith: They say something they know is wrong so you correct them, then they take offense. They then leverage this perceived (by everyone else) offense and use it to gain some sort of advantage (over you, or systemically). In contrast, talking in good faith is saying something they believe is true. Maybe you correct them or maybe you don't, but in the end they're just trying to talk to other people.

intergalplan 6y ago

Actual intent differs from presented intent. As in "not negotiating in good faith"—carrying on negotiations only to extract information, with no intention of making a deal, might be an example of this.