3 ms·
You're not wrong about the danger posed, but take a step back and consider who this attitude helps. The greatest beneficiaries of a culture in which good faith
by idle_zealot 6mo ago
You're not wrong about the danger posed, but take a step back and consider who this attitude helps. The greatest beneficiaries of a culture in which good faith and civility are unconditionally granted for fear of misguided righteous anger is a paradise for fraudsters and bad faith actors. I think we're seeing that world now.
- Pay08 6mo ago[flagged]
- hilariously 6mo agoThis is almost random its such an odd response. Unconditionally granting good faith should be given to people because... racism.
- Pay08 6mo ago[flagged]
- idle_zealot 6mo ago[flagged]
- Pay08 6mo ago[flagged]
- idle_zealot 6mo ago[flagged]
- tomhow 6mo agoPlease don't sermonize like you have in this thread. It's not cool to heap blame on one person for vast, complex global societal problems, and it's certainly not what HN is for. This site exists for curious conversation about interesting topics. It's specifically not for ideological battle, and the first rule of commenting on HN is "be kind".
- tomhow 6mo agoYou can't comment like this on HN, no matter who or what you're replying to. I understand it's a heated topic in which everyone was posting escalatory rhetoric, but it's everyone's responsibility to avoid pouring fuel on the flames. Please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- TheOtherHobbes 6mo agoTone policing is a time-honoured tactic for devaluing valid opposition.
- ABCLAW 6mo agoThis isn't the danger with assuming good faith. It's the danger with not updating your behavior when the balance of probabilities shows that the individual/group/organization you're dealing with is acting in bad faith. Our modern era has so many megaphones blaring into the void that it's become significantly more difficult to determine which ones are overtly lying. Accordingly, it's far more difficult to establish a consensus about who's operating in bad faith. Again, the failure point isn't with the assumption of good faith. It's with not recognizing bad faith when it's made manifest.
- idle_zealot 6mo agoI agree, that's why I'm talking about unconditional assumption of good faith. I strongly believe in assuming good faith by default, and also in the importance of updating your priors as new information becomes available.
- mattw2121 6mo agoSpot on. Leaders in my company love to tout the line "assume good faith". If you say anything that indicates someone else is not operating in good faith, you are deemed the bad actor. This allows bad actors to run absolutely rampant.
- bpt3 6mo agoYou can assume good faith initially without having to tolerate a bad actor who invalidates that assumption. It seems like your company leadership missed that part of the lesson.
- idle_zealot 6mo agoI would argue that there's an incentive to "miss" that part of the lesson.
- bpt3 6mo agoFor people who abuse the concept, sure. Again, that's just evidence that you're clear to drop the initial assumption.
- trinsic2 6mo agoThis is a good point. I tend to be careful not to fall into this trap myself, but it doesn't really do any good to call it out in public. it ends up empowering the bad actors. Thank you for this awareness.
- mmooss 6mo ago> consider who this attitude helps It helps the good people, who do good and influence their society to do the same, and live in a good society. The best societies give the accused the full protection of the law, and give them fair trials. The problematic ones have mob rule. Much of what you write assumes the OP author and you know what evil is, with certainty. That is the critical and most dangerous flaw.