3 ms·

I think that closed-mindedness is the issue. I think bad-faith weaponization of discourse is closed-mindedness that wears a disguise. "No, really, I'm a reaso

I think that closed-mindedness is the issue. I think bad-faith weaponization of discourse is closed-mindedness that wears a disguise. "No, really, I'm a reasonable person!" The unapologetically closed-minded at least is honest. So I see the axis between the two as one of honesty, not one of closed-mindedness. The actual problem is to move both of them to a more open-minded position, not to balance honest vs. dishonest.

ameliaquining 1y ago
The thing I'm getting at here is not really about what's inside people's hearts. You can never know for sure whether your interlocutor is a saboteur. This is about what kinds of discourse norms society adopts, and what kinds of behavior participants are allowed to get away with. The problem with having an oversensitive trolling detector is that then people can spew arbitrary nonsense and dismiss counterarguments as trolling, and observers don't get a chance to find out that what's being said doesn't withstand scrutiny. The problem with an undersensitive trolling detector is that discourse becomes an endurance contest rather than a test of who's actually right. Hence the need for a well-calibrated trolling detector, or rather, for norms that weight speech according to some reasonable proxy of whether it's the kind of contribution that stands or falls on its merits. This is the challenge.
TrnsltLife 1y ago
I don't think it's helpful to be open minded, if you've already become truly convinced of something. I think it is good to stand firm in one's moral convictions. It is also good to try to persuade others through debate of the truth if those convictions. If other people are not as clear or as firm in their own convictions, they might be interested in listening and being persuaded. It's part of America's constitution and freedom of speech and belief. Unlike France, for example, where religious speech in public (proselytizing) is an arrestable crime.

ameliaquining 1y ago

The thing I'm getting at here is not really about what's inside people's hearts. You can never know for sure whether your interlocutor is a saboteur. This is about what kinds of discourse norms society adopts, and what kinds of behavior participants are allowed to get away with. The problem with having an oversensitive trolling detector is that then people can spew arbitrary nonsense and dismiss counterarguments as trolling, and observers don't get a chance to find out that what's being said doesn't withstand scrutiny. The problem with an undersensitive trolling detector is that discourse becomes an endurance contest rather than a test of who's actually right. Hence the need for a well-calibrated trolling detector, or rather, for norms that weight speech according to some reasonable proxy of whether it's the kind of contribution that stands or falls on its merits. This is the challenge.

TrnsltLife 1y ago

I don't think it's helpful to be open minded, if you've already become truly convinced of something. I think it is good to stand firm in one's moral convictions. It is also good to try to persuade others through debate of the truth if those convictions. If other people are not as clear or as firm in their own convictions, they might be interested in listening and being persuaded. It's part of America's constitution and freedom of speech and belief. Unlike France, for example, where religious speech in public (proselytizing) is an arrestable crime.