4 ms·

Calling an argument "bad faith" means that argument's proponent doesn't believe it's true. I highly doubt that was the case with various people -- some of them

by slibhb 4y ago

Calling an argument "bad faith" means that argument's proponent doesn't believe it's true. I highly doubt that was the case with various people -- some of them doctors -- questioning the party line on the pandemic. Being wrong is not the same as arguing in bad faith. Your attitude is sadly very common. Everyone who disagrees with you is a bad faith actor, engaged in knowing lies to further some shadowy agenda. I think you underestimate how little consensus there actually is, even among the educated.

_djo_ 4y ago
- darawk 4y ago
  > I meant it in that sense, that those pushing it knew full well that it wasn’t true but had ulterior motives. Who is an example of that in this context?
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  What, exactly, is “not true” about the great barrington declaration? What is “not true” about the fact that lockdowns were not in any pandemic playbook prior to 2020? What is “not true” about the fact the median age of Covid death is like 5 years higher than the average human lifespan? What is “not true” about the fact you still cannot reliably differentiate between “died of” and “died with” Covid? In your case, I suspect “not true” simply means “I don’t agree”. You should really question why you believe the “facts” you do and examine why somebody else might think different. Who knows, maybe they have very valid points?
  - anon84873628 4y ago
    See the "died with" thing is where you lost me. It was obvious that there was an illness killing lots of people. But then you had people who didn't want to admit it, blamed co-morbidities, said doctors were deliberately inflating the numbers to make money, etc. Those people poisoned the well of discourse. "Died with" was not a meaningful distinction at the time and falls under the "bad faith" category for me.
    - SamPatt 4y ago
      >poisoned the well of discourse Please find me a single topic which impacts more than a roomful of people where someone isn't engaging in this type of discourse. This sounds like you justifying your former false beliefs (or at least lack of willingness to investigate alternative beliefs) by blaming it on other people who were also wrong.
    - spookthesunset 4y ago
      It’s a huge distinction. There is a massive difference between dying because of Covid vs. dying from something else and happening to test positive. By combining them together, Covid looks worse than it is. Then politicians use that faulty data to make bad decisions and the media publishes that bad data and freaks the shit out of people. One cannot claim to be on team “science and data” when their data is a garbage heap. Being able to tell between “hospitalized because of Covid” and “died because of Covid” vs “hospitalized and tested positive” and “died and tested positive” is an incredibly important thing. I have no idea why people continue to dismiss this other than fears of people “not taking Covid serious” because… well it might not be as serious as the trash data suggests. It’s completely manipulative, a common theme from “the experts” You cannot in good faith claim to be “following the data” and accept commingling “from” and “with”.
    - nradov 4y ago
      The reported death numbers absolutely were inflated in many areas, at least early in the pandemic. This is a proven fact not open to dispute. For example, Santa Clara County had to revise their death toll down by 22% because they were using invalid criteria. https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-revises-total-covid-deaths-by-over-20/ https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-revises-tota... Whether such classification errors were deliberate is a separate issue. In most cases I suspect it was more due to lack of resources and/or incompetence rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. Medicare did pay hospitals more to care for COVID-19 patients. That is also a fact not open to dispute. Whether doctors or hospitals deliberately inflated numbers to make money is unknown. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fact-check-medicare-hospitals-paid-more-covid-19-patients-coronavirus/3000638001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fac... About half of the COVID-19 positive hospital patients were admitted for unrelated reasons, and only tested positive as part of admission screening. https://gothamist.com/news/new-preliminary-state-data-shows-half-people-nyc-hospitals-covid-19-were-admitted-other-reasons https://gothamist.com/news/new-preliminary-state-data-shows-...
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    It's not true because it dissents from government approved science. That's the only definition of "not true" which matters for culture warriors.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    That would surprise me if lockdowns didn't appear in any pandemic playbook since they've been practiced since antiquity and until the 20th century where the only way to prevent spread of contagious disease.
    - spookthesunset 4y ago
      The only way lock downs were even remotely possible was zoom. Without zoom, none of this would have been possible. One has to be incredibly privileged to think lockdowns can work in any place but very advanced "first world" societies. Getting villagers living in the 12th century to lockdown would mean they'd all starve to death. Same with getting some favella in Brazil to lock down. It just doesn't work. It requires an immense, huge amount of privilege to support virtually any of our response to covid. Anybody but a select group of wealth upper class people get absolutely fucked over by lockdowns. Fucked over far worse than covid ever would have.
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        I don't think the people stocking shelves in grocery stores, making deliveries, picking up garbage, driving busses, and tending the sick were able to work over zoom even today.
      - crote 4y ago
        12th century farmers were practicing subsistence agriculture. Locking the entire village off from the outer world was absolutely possible. The cities are the big problem. During the Black Death, people coming to cities were quarantined before they were allowed to enter. Even then, many cities saw half their population die. A very significant number of settlements was wiped out altogether. Ironically, it was actually quite beneficial to the regular villager - provided you survived. The Black Death has been directly linked to the collapse of feudalism in Europe, among with many other sociological developments.
- colpabar 4y ago
  I think it's pretty naive to think that everyone who didn't agree with "the science" that the government (and pfizer) decided was the "real science" were flat out wrong. Science is about proving hypothesis with experiments, publicly, so that others can independently verify the results. That's not what happened with anything related to covid though. The government said one thing, and declared everything else to be misinformation that wasn't even worthy of a rebuttal. I get that it'd be a fool's errand to respond to every single disagreement, because yeah of course some of then will be ridiculous. But writing off credentialed and respected doctors and scientists because they don't 100% agree with anthony fauci (aka Science itself) seems And why does no one question motives of pfizer? Didn't they just make an insane amount of money selling vaccines? Didn't they also just (in 2009) get charged with the largest case of medical fraud in history? Remember when people had a healthy distrust of massive pharmaceutical companies that profit off sickness? What happened? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
- nradov 4y ago
  The problem is that during the pandemic, many scientists used their positions to advocate for particular policies rather than sticking to the science. There's nothing wrong in principle with a person being both a scientist and an advocate, but ethically they should make it clear which role they are playing at any given time. The actual science was mostly very weak, and couldn't reasonably be used as justification for any particular public policy.
- autokad 4y ago
  No, the problem is people who use to ruin religion have now joined politics and science (which are now also one in the same). Science is not supposed to have society 'relying off it'. science is just a tool to help you prove if a hypothesis is backed by evidence, or is not. NOTHING ELSE. it does not tell you if you should go outside, it does not even tell you if something is true or false. In fact, our universe may not even be one that is built on a 'fundamental truth'. > It was not designed to handle deliberate attacks designed to sow doubt for ulterior motives. Then you dont understand science, not even a little because that's exactly what it was designed for. attacks makes science stronger, not weaker. an argument hat has been given no attack is a weak argument. the strange notion that science has a fundamental truth that people are supposed to just believe because a subset of individuals says so is troubling.
musicale 4y ago
> Everyone who disagrees with you is a bad faith actor, engaged in knowing lies to further some shadowy agenda This crystallizes the current discourse of unrelenting demonization. It isn't appropriate in most cases.
- viridian 4y ago
  I personally tell anyone who agree me of arguing in bad faith that they shouldn't have started talking with me in the first place if they thought I was a bad faith actor, and then I stop talking to them. Nothing productive can be said once the accusation is made.
autokad 4y ago
> Everyone who disagrees with you is a bad faith actor, engaged in knowing lies to further some shadowy agenda And what's funny is they call people who disagree with them conspiracy theory people, which is weird because their statements show no evidence of conspiracy nor does the fact they are alluding to a conspiracy have any impact on the truth of their argument.

by slibhb 4y ago

_djo_ 4y ago

darawk 4y ago
> I meant it in that sense, that those pushing it knew full well that it wasn’t true but had ulterior motives. Who is an example of that in this context?
spookthesunset 4y ago
What, exactly, is “not true” about the great barrington declaration? What is “not true” about the fact that lockdowns were not in any pandemic playbook prior to 2020? What is “not true” about the fact the median age of Covid death is like 5 years higher than the average human lifespan? What is “not true” about the fact you still cannot reliably differentiate between “died of” and “died with” Covid? In your case, I suspect “not true” simply means “I don’t agree”. You should really question why you believe the “facts” you do and examine why somebody else might think different. Who knows, maybe they have very valid points?
- anon84873628 4y ago
  See the "died with" thing is where you lost me. It was obvious that there was an illness killing lots of people. But then you had people who didn't want to admit it, blamed co-morbidities, said doctors were deliberately inflating the numbers to make money, etc. Those people poisoned the well of discourse. "Died with" was not a meaningful distinction at the time and falls under the "bad faith" category for me.
  - SamPatt 4y ago
    >poisoned the well of discourse Please find me a single topic which impacts more than a roomful of people where someone isn't engaging in this type of discourse. This sounds like you justifying your former false beliefs (or at least lack of willingness to investigate alternative beliefs) by blaming it on other people who were also wrong.
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    It’s a huge distinction. There is a massive difference between dying because of Covid vs. dying from something else and happening to test positive. By combining them together, Covid looks worse than it is. Then politicians use that faulty data to make bad decisions and the media publishes that bad data and freaks the shit out of people. One cannot claim to be on team “science and data” when their data is a garbage heap. Being able to tell between “hospitalized because of Covid” and “died because of Covid” vs “hospitalized and tested positive” and “died and tested positive” is an incredibly important thing. I have no idea why people continue to dismiss this other than fears of people “not taking Covid serious” because… well it might not be as serious as the trash data suggests. It’s completely manipulative, a common theme from “the experts” You cannot in good faith claim to be “following the data” and accept commingling “from” and “with”.
  - nradov 4y ago
    The reported death numbers absolutely were inflated in many areas, at least early in the pandemic. This is a proven fact not open to dispute. For example, Santa Clara County had to revise their death toll down by 22% because they were using invalid criteria. https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-revises-total-covid-deaths-by-over-20/ https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-revises-tota... Whether such classification errors were deliberate is a separate issue. In most cases I suspect it was more due to lack of resources and/or incompetence rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. Medicare did pay hospitals more to care for COVID-19 patients. That is also a fact not open to dispute. Whether doctors or hospitals deliberately inflated numbers to make money is unknown. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fact-check-medicare-hospitals-paid-more-covid-19-patients-coronavirus/3000638001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fac... About half of the COVID-19 positive hospital patients were admitted for unrelated reasons, and only tested positive as part of admission screening. https://gothamist.com/news/new-preliminary-state-data-shows-half-people-nyc-hospitals-covid-19-were-admitted-other-reasons https://gothamist.com/news/new-preliminary-state-data-shows-...
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  It's not true because it dissents from government approved science. That's the only definition of "not true" which matters for culture warriors.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  That would surprise me if lockdowns didn't appear in any pandemic playbook since they've been practiced since antiquity and until the 20th century where the only way to prevent spread of contagious disease.
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    The only way lock downs were even remotely possible was zoom. Without zoom, none of this would have been possible. One has to be incredibly privileged to think lockdowns can work in any place but very advanced "first world" societies. Getting villagers living in the 12th century to lockdown would mean they'd all starve to death. Same with getting some favella in Brazil to lock down. It just doesn't work. It requires an immense, huge amount of privilege to support virtually any of our response to covid. Anybody but a select group of wealth upper class people get absolutely fucked over by lockdowns. Fucked over far worse than covid ever would have.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      I don't think the people stocking shelves in grocery stores, making deliveries, picking up garbage, driving busses, and tending the sick were able to work over zoom even today.
    - crote 4y ago
      12th century farmers were practicing subsistence agriculture. Locking the entire village off from the outer world was absolutely possible. The cities are the big problem. During the Black Death, people coming to cities were quarantined before they were allowed to enter. Even then, many cities saw half their population die. A very significant number of settlements was wiped out altogether. Ironically, it was actually quite beneficial to the regular villager - provided you survived. The Black Death has been directly linked to the collapse of feudalism in Europe, among with many other sociological developments.
colpabar 4y ago
I think it's pretty naive to think that everyone who didn't agree with "the science" that the government (and pfizer) decided was the "real science" were flat out wrong. Science is about proving hypothesis with experiments, publicly, so that others can independently verify the results. That's not what happened with anything related to covid though. The government said one thing, and declared everything else to be misinformation that wasn't even worthy of a rebuttal. I get that it'd be a fool's errand to respond to every single disagreement, because yeah of course some of then will be ridiculous. But writing off credentialed and respected doctors and scientists because they don't 100% agree with anthony fauci (aka Science itself) seems And why does no one question motives of pfizer? Didn't they just make an insane amount of money selling vaccines? Didn't they also just (in 2009) get charged with the largest case of medical fraud in history? Remember when people had a healthy distrust of massive pharmaceutical companies that profit off sickness? What happened? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
nradov 4y ago
The problem is that during the pandemic, many scientists used their positions to advocate for particular policies rather than sticking to the science. There's nothing wrong in principle with a person being both a scientist and an advocate, but ethically they should make it clear which role they are playing at any given time. The actual science was mostly very weak, and couldn't reasonably be used as justification for any particular public policy.
autokad 4y ago
No, the problem is people who use to ruin religion have now joined politics and science (which are now also one in the same). Science is not supposed to have society 'relying off it'. science is just a tool to help you prove if a hypothesis is backed by evidence, or is not. NOTHING ELSE. it does not tell you if you should go outside, it does not even tell you if something is true or false. In fact, our universe may not even be one that is built on a 'fundamental truth'. > It was not designed to handle deliberate attacks designed to sow doubt for ulterior motives. Then you dont understand science, not even a little because that's exactly what it was designed for. attacks makes science stronger, not weaker. an argument hat has been given no attack is a weak argument. the strange notion that science has a fundamental truth that people are supposed to just believe because a subset of individuals says so is troubling.

musicale 4y ago

> Everyone who disagrees with you is a bad faith actor, engaged in knowing lies to further some shadowy agenda This crystallizes the current discourse of unrelenting demonization. It isn't appropriate in most cases.

viridian 4y ago
I personally tell anyone who agree me of arguing in bad faith that they shouldn't have started talking with me in the first place if they thought I was a bad faith actor, and then I stop talking to them. Nothing productive can be said once the accusation is made.

autokad 4y ago

> Everyone who disagrees with you is a bad faith actor, engaged in knowing lies to further some shadowy agenda And what's funny is they call people who disagree with them conspiracy theory people, which is weird because their statements show no evidence of conspiracy nor does the fact they are alluding to a conspiracy have any impact on the truth of their argument.