|
Oh boy we get to do another conservative "I have to respond to so many people I have to put it all in the same post". For those liberals who don't understand the experience what I do at least is to open one quote reply tab and then copy paste in all the others into lines. then I press preview on all the extra tabs to make sure I have the posts easy to reference before previewing the final post to make sure I didn't wreck any quote code.
On September 29 2018 03:41 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On September 29 2018 03:10 farvacola wrote:
Nebuchad is one of the only posters who consistently and obviously posts in good faith, so I dunno what you're on about. On September 29 2018 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 29 2018 03:28 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2018 02:29 Nebuchad wrote:
When two sides think something contradictory about a factual claim, the correct response is to find out who's right, not to complain that there is disagreement.
This type of posting is perhaps the classical example of Danglars being dishonest, it comes back a lot. He bemoans the polarization of politics, and encourages both sides to not be so radical in their opposition to the other. But that's not really what he's concerned with, as we can see from his own behavior: he's never reaching across the aisle, he's never considering the input from people on his left, he's never reconsidering his positions. It is easy to conclude from this that his talking point about polarization is strategical rather than a firmly held belief, and that what he's trying to accomplish is that his opposition stops opposing him so much and starts agreeing with him more, while he doesn't budge an inch. And of course, he’s unwilling to admit how little his own views have changed (or how little he’s admitted to them), because his thesis is that people unlike him are deficient in reaching across the aisle. My politics are to the left of where they were when we started. I absolutely don't think we should compromise with you guys and I never made any claim to that effect in 8000 posts. Like you, I understand that politics is about fighting and winning. Unlike you, I don't dishonestly pretend to favor compromise. I mean I could have responded with examples taken from the thread but neb was a cool guy and decided to give me one in the very same page. Did I post this in bad faith? I wasn't aware I also wasn't aware that my views on the republican party were such a mystery up until now, lol
You didn't post that in bad faith. Your posting int he thread is inherently bad faith beacuse you belive that you are factualy correct and the people you are argueing with are factualy wrong. There isn't any space for legitimate debate when you're literaly so entrenched that the argument is black and white for you.
On September 29 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:
I think you guys are misconstruing Neb's honesty for a lack of good faith. He very clearly pointing out his views. I'm confused to why anyone would think he proved Sems or Danglers point. He has skipped your whole process and simply stated what his politics are.
It is completely reasonable for you to disagree with his politics. It is completely unreasonable for you to state that he posts in bad faith or that he somehow made your point. If he did "make your point" you might want to restate in 20 words or less so someone other than you can understand it!
The classic Post of "I won, now you figure out how" is really annoying and about as disingenuous as can be.
You are misconstruing nebs honesty for authenticity. Hes very clearly pointing out his views. Its that his views are so rigid that hes clearly going into any argument without any shadow of a doubt on whos right and whos wrong. Thats bad faith for people who are legitimately trying to understand the argument better and possibly change their views on it.
On September 29 2018 04:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On September 29 2018 03:10 farvacola wrote:
Nebuchad is one of the only posters who consistently and obviously posts in good faith, so I dunno what you're on about. On September 29 2018 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 29 2018 03:28 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2018 02:29 Nebuchad wrote:
When two sides think something contradictory about a factual claim, the correct response is to find out who's right, not to complain that there is disagreement.
This type of posting is perhaps the classical example of Danglars being dishonest, it comes back a lot. He bemoans the polarization of politics, and encourages both sides to not be so radical in their opposition to the other. But that's not really what he's concerned with, as we can see from his own behavior: he's never reaching across the aisle, he's never considering the input from people on his left, he's never reconsidering his positions. It is easy to conclude from this that his talking point about polarization is strategical rather than a firmly held belief, and that what he's trying to accomplish is that his opposition stops opposing him so much and starts agreeing with him more, while he doesn't budge an inch. And of course, he’s unwilling to admit how little his own views have changed (or how little he’s admitted to them), because his thesis is that people unlike him are deficient in reaching across the aisle. My politics are to the left of where they were when we started. I absolutely don't think we should compromise with you guys and I never made any claim to that effect in 8000 posts. Like you, I understand that politics is about fighting and winning. Unlike you, I don't dishonestly pretend to favor compromise. I mean I could have responded with examples taken from the thread but neb was a cool guy and decided to give me one in the very same page. The example appears to be one of nebuchad in good faith. No deflection, no "I already wrote this before", no "go reread my posts", no whataboutClinton. He simply answered the question. The same cannot be said of either of those who are attacking Nebuchad.
Again we see cat mouse gaslighting people on what bad faith arguing is for his own narrative. For those who live in an objective reality he's trying to argue that one person is arguing in good faith on the merits of his own statement, with his own definition of the word, adding it kitchy references to bias the reader, before finally arguing that the people who disagree with him (or are going to disagree with him) are in fact the ones arguing in bad faith.
Simply looking at this post you'll notice he doesn't provide actual arguments or actual examples. He is arguing by assumption and reference to create doubt and to direct that doubt toward the side he disagrees with. Trust me I'm a conservative I see a ton of this shit.
On September 29 2018 05:04 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 03:09 Sermokala wrote:
I would like to remind the poster Newsunshine that this is the website feedback thread and your question should be in the main thread. My post, like Danglars's, is perfectly pertinent as feedback Re: discussion in the thread, and what constitutes acceptable discourse. If he posts here because he feels people should be able to post Alex Jones-style conspiracy theories in the main thread, then there's no reason I can't discuss that here. Please stop policing my posts, we have moderators for that. If they say the same thing, then fine.
Your post was a political question about an issue that people discuss. It has nothing to do with discourse its simply to peddle a conspiracy theory about what you want Danglers to admit to in order to make him look bad. Its really low level debate shit that no one whos argued for an hour would fall for. The least you could do is keep that shit in the main thread.
And my post was to remind you that your post should be in the main thread. I didn't advocate for your post to be actioned so what I did wasn't backseat moderation.
|
|
|
On September 29 2018 05:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 05:04 NewSunshine wrote:On September 29 2018 03:09 Sermokala wrote:
I would like to remind the poster Newsunshine that this is the website feedback thread and your question should be in the main thread. My post, like Danglars's, is perfectly pertinent as feedback Re: discussion in the thread, and what constitutes acceptable discourse. If he posts here because he feels people should be able to post Alex Jones-style conspiracy theories in the main thread, then there's no reason I can't discuss that here. Please stop policing my posts, we have moderators for that. If they say the same thing, then fine. Your post was a political question about an issue that people discuss. It has nothing to do with discourse its simply to peddle a conspiracy theory about what you want Danglers to admit to in order to make him look bad. Its really low level debate shit that no one whos argued for an hour would fall for. The least you could do is keep that shit in the main thread. And my post was to remind you that your post should be in the main thread. I didn't advocate for your post to be actioned so what I did wasn't backseat moderation.
Now we're quibbling over what the mods do wrt the two threads? How about just don't tell me how to post. It's not your job.
I'm not trying to get Danglars to admit anything that he hasn't implied. He posted here offended that posters in the main thread get dismissed as conspiracy theorists, obviously going off the recent example of nettles's inflammatory post, and comments (including mine) about what went down. Me asking him to specify and defend whatever his position is, and going into detail, is not some kind of trap. I don't know where you get this in your head. Me following the train of logic and asking a number of questions to reach a logical conclusion is only a trap if your argument is bad or disingenuous. And if you don't want to look that way, then don't argue that way.
|
On September 29 2018 05:33 Sermokala wrote:
Your posting int he thread is inherently bad faith beacuse you belive that you are factualy correct and the people you are argueing with are factualy wrong. There isn't any space for legitimate debate when you're literaly so entrenched that the argument is black and white for you.
Literally every single person who argues in good faith believes that they are factually correct and the people who are arguing with them are factually wrong. In that very comment that you made - presumably in good faith -, you believe that it's factually correct that the way I post means I'm posting in bad faith, do you not?
Believing that you're factually correct is the starting point of having an honest argument. Now if I was to make a dishonest argument, for example if I was to pretend that I value compromise in an effort to influence rightwingers to compromise with me while I don't change my position, I wouldn't believe that I'm factually correct. That would be the problem! I would be attempting to deceive you, which is the start of a bad faith argument.
|
I remember my more innocent days when I once claimed that Danglars was potentially redeemable, at times coherent and usually merely confused. I thought he wasn’t as bad as xDaunt, especially given the latter’s support for genocide in Yemen. But lately I’ve become nostalgic for xDaunt’s more transparent evil because at least he’s not constantly obfuscating and writing these unintelligible and dishonest screeds. It’s amazing how you can come to dislike someone over a forum, nowadays his writing has become unbearably unpleasant to read.
I think the nomenclature of good faith posting can be misleading. Politics is such a divisibe issue, and everyone comes with their own biases and political baggage. It can be tricky to demonstrate intent. e.g. if I post only objective statements and news articles, then I might still be trying to advance a point of view by my editorial choices. But I wouldn’t say that it’s a problematic style of posting, even if to some extent I would be cloaking my intentions. Would that be an example of bad faith? On the other hand, Danglars is an example of someone with an extremely obvious bias who is nevertheless always obfuscating and lying in everything he says. He’s slippery and dishonest and it makes it impossible to have a constructive conversation with him, but I don’t know if this style of posting can be entirely captured by the term ‘bad faith posting’. Maybe I’m nitpicking though.
|
I’ve always been fond of the Sherlock Holmes line where he talks about how correcting Watson’s mistakes is for him an invaluable opportunity to articulate his views and develop proper understandings of events.
I think that’s a good mindset to have in discussions: to seek to correct the other’s wrong beliefs by setting out your reasoning. You start out with a belief in your side’s correctness, but by expressing yourself you inevitably ground your belief and you can see if it can withstand scrutiny.
That’s why I think that e.g. Introvert’s posts aren’t that bad. Yeah, I really disagree with his points, but at least he’s coherent and it’s possible for this dynamic to apply. However, I don’t know if he posts in good faith, because he doesn’t actually change his views even after someone seems to refute his arguments. But his posts are still useful. I think the same holds for many of the (non-Danglars) conservative posters, they force the liberal/left-lesning posters to sharpen their rhetorical skills.
But it’s still politics, I don’t think that many people can be convinced to “change sides”.
|
So to be clear your idea of good faith is when two people with no interest with changing their views engages in an unending war of attrition until one side loses intrest and leaves? Or that this is acceptable when both parties agree that the argument has no point but are honest about it?
Also sunshine you're the one that started quibbling about backseat modding. If you don't know how to respond to an argument you can apparently just ignore it because you weren't interested in anything happening in the first place.
|
On September 29 2018 06:51 Sermokala wrote:
So to be clear your idea of good faith is when two people with no interest with changing their views engages in an unending war of attrition until one side loses intrest and leaves? Or that this is acceptable when both parties agree that the argument has no point but are honest about it?
Also sunshine you're the one that started quibbling about backseat modding. If you don't know how to respond to an argument you can apparently just ignore it because you weren't interested in anything happening in the first place.
My personal view is that since the conservative PoV is flawed, not based on empirical data, generally reactionary and even evil etc. that it’s really impossible for a conservative poster to post in “good faith”. Especially if after a while he still holds the same opinion. But that’s very subjective, of course. But this is why I don’t really feel like the term good faith is that useful in these discussions, outside of edge cases like Danglars (sorry for constantly using him as example) who just write gibberish in order to avoid having an actual discussion.
Like I said, I think your posts in the main thread are generally wrong, but at least you seem to hold to an actual opinion which can be argued. Even if, say, theoretically you could be inflexible and incapable of changing your opinion based on evidence, that could still make your posts potentially worthwhile. That’s because politics actually is about an endless war of attrition between two sides, not just some quaint fact finding mission.
|
On September 29 2018 06:51 Sermokala wrote:
Also sunshine you're the one that started quibbling about backseat modding. If you don't know how to respond to an argument you can apparently just ignore it because you weren't interested in anything happening in the first place.
My post was germane, and the conversation in the original thread has well moved on. If you don't want me bringing up backseat moderation, maybe don't do it?
|
On September 29 2018 06:51 Sermokala wrote:
So to be clear your idea of good faith is when two people with no interest with changing their views engages in an unending war of attrition until one side loses intrest and leaves? Or that this is acceptable when both parties agree that the argument has no point but are honest about it?
See what you added there? You added "with no interest in changing their views". Before we were at "believe I'm factually correct".
You can certainly change my views if you demonstrate to me that I'm factually wrong. I don't know everything. I used to believe that neoliberalism only reduced poverty because the World Bank changed the threshold of what is considered poverty several times, and Nyxisto showed me that even without that change there was a (smaller) reduction in poverty based on the first threshold, so I don't believe that anymore.
|
On September 29 2018 07:00 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 06:51 Sermokala wrote:
Also sunshine you're the one that started quibbling about backseat modding. If you don't know how to respond to an argument you can apparently just ignore it because you weren't interested in anything happening in the first place. My post was germane, and the conversation in the original thread has well moved on. If you don't want me bringing up backseat moderation, maybe don't do it?
Again you're the one who brought it up first.
On September 29 2018 07:01 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 06:51 Sermokala wrote:
So to be clear your idea of good faith is when two people with no interest with changing their views engages in an unending war of attrition until one side loses intrest and leaves? Or that this is acceptable when both parties agree that the argument has no point but are honest about it?
See what you added there? You added "with no interest in changing their views". Before we were at "believe I'm factually correct". You can certainly change my views if you demonstrate to me that I'm factually wrong. I don't know everything. I used to believe that neoliberalism only reduced poverty because the World Bank changed the threshold of what is considered poverty several times, and Nyxisto showed me that even without that change there was a (smaller) reduction in poverty based on the first threshold, so I don't believe that anymore.
I think we (and by this I include Grumbels in this) don't agree on what you mean by "I am factually correct". I think I'm understanding it in you meaning "I believe I am factually correct" and I'm seeing it as a "I know I am factually correct". argument.
A Somali guy at my work just had a moment where he was able to hug it out with a guy he hated because they didn't understand what a hmong guy ment along these things so I'm just wondering if we're translating things differnently.
|
On September 29 2018 07:23 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 07:00 NewSunshine wrote:On September 29 2018 06:51 Sermokala wrote:
Also sunshine you're the one that started quibbling about backseat modding. If you don't know how to respond to an argument you can apparently just ignore it because you weren't interested in anything happening in the first place. My post was germane, and the conversation in the original thread has well moved on. If you don't want me bringing up backseat moderation, maybe don't do it? Again you're the one who brought it up first. Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 07:01 Nebuchad wrote:On September 29 2018 06:51 Sermokala wrote:
So to be clear your idea of good faith is when two people with no interest with changing their views engages in an unending war of attrition until one side loses intrest and leaves? Or that this is acceptable when both parties agree that the argument has no point but are honest about it?
See what you added there? You added "with no interest in changing their views". Before we were at "believe I'm factually correct". You can certainly change my views if you demonstrate to me that I'm factually wrong. I don't know everything. I used to believe that neoliberalism only reduced poverty because the World Bank changed the threshold of what is considered poverty several times, and Nyxisto showed me that even without that change there was a (smaller) reduction in poverty based on the first threshold, so I don't believe that anymore. I think we (and by this I include Grumbels in this) don't agree on what you mean by "I am factually correct". I think I'm understanding it in you meaning "I believe I am factually correct" and I'm seeing it as a "I know I am factually correct". argument. A Somali guy at my work just had a moment where he was able to hug it out with a guy he hated because they didn't understand what a hmong guy ment along these things so I'm just wondering if we're translating things differnently.
Please note that at first all I said was that we should find out who's right when two sets of facts are contradictory, and that's what set us out on this bad faith discussion.
|
On September 29 2018 05:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 04:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 29 2018 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On September 29 2018 03:10 farvacola wrote:
Nebuchad is one of the only posters who consistently and obviously posts in good faith, so I dunno what you're on about. On September 29 2018 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 29 2018 03:28 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2018 02:29 Nebuchad wrote:
When two sides think something contradictory about a factual claim, the correct response is to find out who's right, not to complain that there is disagreement.
This type of posting is perhaps the classical example of Danglars being dishonest, it comes back a lot. He bemoans the polarization of politics, and encourages both sides to not be so radical in their opposition to the other. But that's not really what he's concerned with, as we can see from his own behavior: he's never reaching across the aisle, he's never considering the input from people on his left, he's never reconsidering his positions. It is easy to conclude from this that his talking point about polarization is strategical rather than a firmly held belief, and that what he's trying to accomplish is that his opposition stops opposing him so much and starts agreeing with him more, while he doesn't budge an inch. And of course, he’s unwilling to admit how little his own views have changed (or how little he’s admitted to them), because his thesis is that people unlike him are deficient in reaching across the aisle. My politics are to the left of where they were when we started. I absolutely don't think we should compromise with you guys and I never made any claim to that effect in 8000 posts. Like you, I understand that politics is about fighting and winning. Unlike you, I don't dishonestly pretend to favor compromise. I mean I could have responded with examples taken from the thread but neb was a cool guy and decided to give me one in the very same page. The example appears to be one of nebuchad in good faith. No deflection, no "I already wrote this before", no "go reread my posts", no whataboutClinton. He simply answered the question. The same cannot be said of either of those who are attacking Nebuchad. Again we see cat mouse gaslighting people on what bad faith arguing is for his own narrative. For those who live in an objective reality he's trying to argue that one person is arguing in good faith on the merits of his own statement, with his own definition of the word, adding it kitchy references to bias the reader, before finally arguing that the people who disagree with him (or are going to disagree with him) are in fact the ones arguing in bad faith. Simply looking at this post you'll notice he doesn't provide actual arguments or actual examples. He is arguing by assumption and reference to create doubt and to direct that doubt toward the side he disagrees with. Trust me I'm a conservative I see a ton of this shit. What? I don't even understand. I don't even know what "gaslighting" is until I looked it up, and in this particular case, I am unsure what exactly I am being accused of. Please clarify. But if it is a case of not providing "provide actual arguments or actual examples", what exactly are you looking for? Nebuchad's post is right there to look at plain as day, answering the question straight.
|
On September 29 2018 07:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 05:33 Sermokala wrote:On September 29 2018 04:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 29 2018 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On September 29 2018 03:10 farvacola wrote:
Nebuchad is one of the only posters who consistently and obviously posts in good faith, so I dunno what you're on about. On September 29 2018 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:On September 29 2018 03:28 Danglars wrote:On September 29 2018 02:29 Nebuchad wrote:
When two sides think something contradictory about a factual claim, the correct response is to find out who's right, not to complain that there is disagreement.
This type of posting is perhaps the classical example of Danglars being dishonest, it comes back a lot. He bemoans the polarization of politics, and encourages both sides to not be so radical in their opposition to the other. But that's not really what he's concerned with, as we can see from his own behavior: he's never reaching across the aisle, he's never considering the input from people on his left, he's never reconsidering his positions. It is easy to conclude from this that his talking point about polarization is strategical rather than a firmly held belief, and that what he's trying to accomplish is that his opposition stops opposing him so much and starts agreeing with him more, while he doesn't budge an inch. And of course, he’s unwilling to admit how little his own views have changed (or how little he’s admitted to them), because his thesis is that people unlike him are deficient in reaching across the aisle. My politics are to the left of where they were when we started. I absolutely don't think we should compromise with you guys and I never made any claim to that effect in 8000 posts. Like you, I understand that politics is about fighting and winning. Unlike you, I don't dishonestly pretend to favor compromise. I mean I could have responded with examples taken from the thread but neb was a cool guy and decided to give me one in the very same page. The example appears to be one of nebuchad in good faith. No deflection, no "I already wrote this before", no "go reread my posts", no whataboutClinton. He simply answered the question. The same cannot be said of either of those who are attacking Nebuchad. Again we see cat mouse gaslighting people on what bad faith arguing is for his own narrative. For those who live in an objective reality he's trying to argue that one person is arguing in good faith on the merits of his own statement, with his own definition of the word, adding it kitchy references to bias the reader, before finally arguing that the people who disagree with him (or are going to disagree with him) are in fact the ones arguing in bad faith. Simply looking at this post you'll notice he doesn't provide actual arguments or actual examples. He is arguing by assumption and reference to create doubt and to direct that doubt toward the side he disagrees with. Trust me I'm a conservative I see a ton of this shit. What? I don't even understand. I don't even know what "gaslighting" is until I looked it up, and in this particular case, I am unsure what exactly I am being accused of. Please clarify. But if it is a case of not providing "provide actual arguments or actual examples", what exactly are you looking for? Nebuchad's post is right there to look at plain as day, answering the question straight.
You're trying to argue that one person is arguing in good faith on the merits of his own statement, with your own definition of the word, adding it kitchy references to bias the reader, before finally arguing that the people who disagree with you (or are going to disagree with you) are in fact the ones arguing in bad faith.
Simply looking at the post you'll notice you don't provide actual arguments or actual examples. You are arguing by assumption and reference to create doubt and to direct that doubt toward the side you disagree with. Trust me I'm a conservative I see a ton of this shit.
|
On September 29 2018 06:58 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2018 06:51 Sermokala wrote:
So to be clear your idea of good faith is when two people with no interest with changing their views engages in an unending war of attrition until one side loses intrest and leaves? Or that this is acceptable when both parties agree that the argument has no point but are honest about it?
Also sunshine you're the one that started quibbling about backseat modding. If you don't know how to respond to an argument you can apparently just ignore it because you weren't interested in anything happening in the first place. My personal view is that since the conservative PoV is flawed, not based on empirical data, generally reactionary and even evil etc. that it’s really impossible for a conservative poster to post in “good faith”. Especially if after a while he still holds the same opinion. But that’s very subjective, of course. But this is why I don’t really feel like the term good faith is that useful in these discussions, outside of edge cases like Danglars (sorry for constantly using him as example) who just write gibberish in order to avoid having an actual discussion. Like I said, I think your posts in the main thread are generally wrong, but at least you seem to hold to an actual opinion which can be argued. Even if, say, theoretically you could be inflexible and incapable of changing your opinion based on evidence, that could still make your posts potentially worthwhile. That’s because politics actually is about an endless war of attrition between two sides, not just some quaint fact finding mission.
Well, I can't really expect to argue you out of your belief if (1) conservative thought is already basically flawed, not data-based, reactionary, and evil and (2) it's especially all those baddie bad descriptors if after a while he still holds the same opinion.
It's just a short hop skip and a jump of allowing yourself to get frustrated with the debate, and letting that frustration boil over into accusations that it's this other guy that's too much of a shifty character to engage with. Apparently, this is more of a widespread problem here, since people just can't grapple with people arguing as forcefully as they are on topics they originally thought weren't open to debate (the "everybody knows" bit).
One note about my more liberal brethren. You might not like the word echo chamber. From Nebuchad, JimmiC, Grumbels, Dangermousecatdog, and NewSunshine's comments, maybe I can be more helpful. It can be thought of as more of this consensus between you and your likeminded friends that some people are too icky to debate, and their opinions obviously not held and advanced in good faith, and their fundamental flaw their inability to compromise or change their mind. That's enough of an echo chamber to take on the groupthink mentality and rejection of the "other." LegalLord's "any substantial deviation from the center-left, “Trump is evil and every form of mainstream opposition currently in play is good” orthodoxy draws immediate, severe ire" is very appropos here. It hinders exposure to the other side, and fails in its interpretation of events, since it only has the "acceptable" explanations offered.
You don't need to assume I'm a good person, or deep down want what's best for this country. Just read what I write and don't go off on left-field ramblings about how you've reverse-engineered all my positions and reasons why I'm not swayed on this or that topic. "He who knows only his argument knows little of that" does not come with the asterisk "but nevermind all that if you can characterize others' arguments as being made in bad faith." I'd be much poorer in my understanding of the other side if they didn't appear extremely set in their ways and offering the most biting retorts possible. I only wish that was shared.
|
Good faith has little to do with how “factual” an argument is. It’s is about honesty making that argument to the other party and honestly engaging with views of that argument. It is about respecting the other party and putting in the same amount of effort as they do. It’s about respect and honest about your positions.
|
On September 29 2018 08:01 Sermokala wrote:
You're trying to argue that one person is arguing in good faith on the merits of his own statement, with your own definition of the word, adding it kitchy references to bias the reader, before finally arguing that the people who disagree with you (or are going to disagree with you) are in fact the ones arguing in bad faith.
Simply looking at the post you'll notice you don't provide actual arguments or actual examples. You are arguing by assumption and reference to create doubt and to direct that doubt toward the side you disagree with. Trust me I'm a conservative I see a ton of this shit.
If this is "not arguing in good faith" you need to take a good hard look at your own posts... as well as 90%+ of any posts made on any topic by anyone.
Start with this post! You're arguing with your own definition of good faith, using vague terms like "kitchy" to bias the reader, arguing by assumption to create doubt... Trust me I'm a human being I see a ton of this shit.
(And no, I don't claim my post is "in good faith" by your definition either.)
|
In regards to the echo chamber, I blame Trump. I think it is hard for a lot of more moderate right leaning posters just don’t want to partake in the bull shit, but they don’t agree with the left leaning posters. And it was more fun to rail against Obama than cheer for Trump.
|
I mean, we've literally got a second politics thread where the most inflammatory posters do most of their posting. Partitioning groups that strongly disagree with each other into separate discussion spaces is basically the definition of an echo chamber.
Just to be clear, by "inflammatory" I don't necessarily mean they post badly, just that their posts tend to literally inflame the thread. Also for the record, I'm not overall opposed to the second thread existing - I think it's allowed some interesting discussion that probably wouldn't take place otherwise - but if you're wondering why things have felt more like echo chamber lately, I think the answer's pretty clear.
|
On September 29 2018 11:46 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, we've literally got a second politics thread where the most inflammatory posters do most of their posting. Partitioning groups that strongly disagree with each other into separate discussion spaces is basically the definition of an echo chamber.
Just to be clear, by "inflammatory" I don't necessarily mean they post badly, just that their posts tend to literally inflame the thread. Also for the record, I'm not overall opposed to the second thread existing - I think it's allowed some interesting discussion that probably wouldn't take place otherwise - but if you're wondering why things have felt more like echo chamber lately, I think the answer's pretty clear.
It's kinda hard to call the second one an echo chamber when the primary posters have almost entirely different political perspectives (from each other). Besides the posters that the main thread would prefer didn't post, that simply isn't the case there (or won't be once introvert loses interest in entertaining the arguments he gets).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
