3 ms·
The article here assumes all parties are arguing in good faith, and that both sides have a reasonable starting position, or at least something that approaches o
by KerrAvon 2y ago
The article here assumes all parties are arguing in good faith, and that both sides have a reasonable starting position, or at least something that approaches one. But it's not possible to engage in good faith with the extreme sides of the political horseshoe, because that looks like this:
The left: good governance would be nice
The right: you should die and we will kill you when we get into office
You can't engage on those terms. They're either insincere or very sincere, and either way it's not solvable through dialogue.
edit: formatting
- pfdietz 2y agoI don't think it assumes that. If one is arguing against a fundamentally bad position, the Steel Man of that position will still be bad -- and by addressing that, you will have cut off evasions at the pass. Steel Man can be used to preempt Motte-and-Bailey fallacies by better defining the point being attacked.
- unclebucknasty 2y agoAll of this is true, and it's the roadmap to tautological soundness. But, in these scenarios, it's rarely about tautology or perfecting the structure of your argument. Yes, you might win on a debate stage. But, you've not moved anyone.
- _blk 2y agoThe way your positining the left and right suggests that you're immune to the article's technique. I'd suggest a portion of good faith if I thought it was going to help but I'm at a loss here.
- jrflowers 2y agoThis is a good point because there is no example of violence around elections from the right in recent US history and even if there was it would be a failure of reasoning to acknowledge it.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoHaving trouble following the snark here. Why would it be a failure of reasoning to acknowledge violence, even in the mind of those on the far right? Are you suggesting they have a different definition of reason?
- jrflowers 2y agoI was simply restating in different words _blk’s casual implication that KerrAvon has a cognitive deficit because they mentioned the phenomenon of election-related violence from the right. If someone (for example) wants to look or feel smart in a discussion about logic, there’s a shortcut a person can take by casually calling others stupid for even mentioning anything upsetting regardless of whether or not the thing mentioned is real. It’s kind of funny when people invent a fallacy as if language that they find personally distasteful is categorically wrong (especially when the rebuttal is basically “Nuh-uh dummy!”)