3 ms·

> why are we re-litigating a discussion about mcdonald's coffee on a topic about workplace harassment The person who asked the question didn't even bring it up

> why are we re-litigating a discussion about mcdonald's coffee on a topic about workplace harassment The person who asked the question didn't even bring it up. There is no harm done by answering a bad faith question in good faith. But there is harm done in treating a good faith question as bad faith. Unless someone is repeatedly spamming a venue, this whole sealioning thing is just people caring too much about who "wins" on the internet.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> There is no harm done by answering a bad faith question in good faith. There absolutely can be.
paulmd 5y ago
> There is no harm done by answering a bad faith question in good faith. That is the primary misconception which is exploited by the sealion tactic. It allows a bad-faith individual to reverse the position of offender and victim - because what harm is there in just asking a good-faith question? Questions are still part of an argument, they are "leading" the reader. And addressing it carries the implication that it's a valid position worthy of respect and time to address it. And some questions can be very noxious indeed and do need to be stifled outright - "what good has [minority group] ever done for us" is quite a harmful question even if the answer is legitimately "lots"! And again, even merely by bringing it up, and by addressing it in response, you've given it legitimacy both as a question around that particular group, and to the idea that groups need to justify their existence/presence in society. Those are both very harmful things done merely by "answering a bad-faith question in good faith". Again, perhaps a more core value disagreement is that "good-faith discussion" can legitimately solve all woes, including malicious actors. That is really the basis of your "no harm can be done by answering a bad-faith question in good faith", is it not? That seems like magical thinking to me. Anyway, "no harm can ever be caused by answering a bad-faith question with a good-faith response" is quite a broad position, perhaps you can cite some evidence or studies on that one, because there's rather trivial examples like hate speech that definitely run against it.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> There is no harm done by answering a bad faith question in good faith. There absolutely can be.

paulmd 5y ago

> There is no harm done by answering a bad faith question in good faith. That is the primary misconception which is exploited by the sealion tactic. It allows a bad-faith individual to reverse the position of offender and victim - because what harm is there in just asking a good-faith question? Questions are still part of an argument, they are "leading" the reader. And addressing it carries the implication that it's a valid position worthy of respect and time to address it. And some questions can be very noxious indeed and do need to be stifled outright - "what good has [minority group] ever done for us" is quite a harmful question even if the answer is legitimately "lots"! And again, even merely by bringing it up, and by addressing it in response, you've given it legitimacy both as a question around that particular group, and to the idea that groups need to justify their existence/presence in society. Those are both very harmful things done merely by "answering a bad-faith question in good faith". Again, perhaps a more core value disagreement is that "good-faith discussion" can legitimately solve all woes, including malicious actors. That is really the basis of your "no harm can be done by answering a bad-faith question in good faith", is it not? That seems like magical thinking to me. Anyway, "no harm can ever be caused by answering a bad-faith question with a good-faith response" is quite a broad position, perhaps you can cite some evidence or studies on that one, because there's rather trivial examples like hate speech that definitely run against it.