4 ms·
>People who don't assume good faith are arguing in bad faith, that is the crux of the issue. Assuming -as I've already said; that they're arguing. There are ot
by rnd0 4y ago
>People who don't assume good faith are arguing in bad faith, that is the crux of the issue.
Assuming -as I've already said; that they're arguing. There are other reasons for interactions.
>So, how do people like you get a good conversation?
1)Cultivating a circle of people whom I trust have good intentions -usually IRL
2)Sticking to shared topics and guaging wether or not individuals I recurringly interact with are on the level or not (this requires pseudo-anonymity as found in traditional simple machine/phpbb style forums).
>People who don't assume good faith are arguing in bad faith, that is the crux of the issue.
Obviously I disagree -and that disagreement isn't something I've simply pulled out of my ass. It's based on 25 years of online interaction experience, as well as seeing how disinformation campaigns played out on social media such as twitter and facebook.
"people like you" is a very othering phrase and that's just funny as shit. You cannot "other" me without making a whole lump of assumptions about me. I'm not sure if that counts as a strawman argument in this case or not but anyway it doesn't matter.
You *can* have great conversations where you share and interact and learn *without engaging in naivete.* But you won't hear it from me.
Mind you, I am capable of learning from astroturfers (their salespitch), trolls (what's the party line?) and kooks. I simply have my eyes open and do not assume that they are something that they are not...it's amusing that several posters in this thread are unwilling (unable?) to grasp that not-terribly-subtle distinction.
All this passive aggression is making me reach for the pepto, I will say that!
- Jensson 4y agoI'm not sure why you care so much? It doesn't cost anything to assume good faith, its just a win win situation. As we see here you still waste time arguing with people even when you assume bad faith, so it doesn't even save you time, its just your loss. Anyway, very few people really argue in bad faith, I almost always can make people listen if I just get to talk to them long enough. Assume good faith long enough and you will find it in almost anyone. But conversely assume bad faith and you will find that in almost anyone as well. Edit: > All this passive aggression is making me reach for the pepto, I will say that! There is nothing passive about my aggressiveness here, I am very loudly and clearly stating that I think your approach leads to worse outcomes. There is nothing wrong about clearly stating when you think others are wrong about things.
- rnd0 4y agoI care because I feel that the attitude is destructive and that there are better approaches that can be taken. I've outlined them other places ITT already. >As we see here you still waste time arguing with people even when you assume bad faith >arguing If there's another way to get my point of view read, I'd love to hear it! >when you assume bad faith Logical fallacy. I do not necessarily assume bad faith ...I simply do not assume good faith. >Anyway, very few people really argue in bad faith, I would encourage you to try to have some sustained long-term on youtube comments or facebook if you haven't already. I'm being completely serious here -that will present you with numerous examples of people arguing in bad faith. I have the impression when you say "arguing" you could actually be meaning "discussing"; the difference being one aims to convince another person -the other simply seeks to share veiwpoints. One's adverserial, the other isn't. Am I reading you correctly?