The Art of the Bad Faith Argument

[Masark]

some website called "inews" as "British Newspapers."

iNews does appear to be a British newspaper, though a rather new one.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/inews/

[unfilteredJW]

This is the funniest fucking thing I’ve see all day.

[Firslaps]

No, that is you projecting your own biases.

I've been very clear in rejecting Zizek and Corbyn's brand of socialism, for the very case that they traffic too closely to chauvinism and anti-semitism.

As I recall you were posting anti-semitic stuff to troll a particular individual and then deleted it shortly afterwards. I noticed you do this a lot-you do it with misogynistic slurs (eg on Reade) and racist stuff and then backtrack later. I assume you think this is clever or something.

I'd add, Corbyn has never said anything remotely anti-semitic ever. That was just tabloid bullshit, which I suspect you know. You will be able to produce any anti-semitic quote from Corbyn and will try and ignore the question, and/or use tangential deflection/misdirection to try and get away from the fact you are making shit up.

I doubt Zizek ever did either actually but I know less about him.

[Belize]

You just cited, unironically, The Sun, The Daily Mail, and some website called "inews" as "British Newspapers."

Theo linking anything about "bad faith arguments" would instill a fatal dose of irony to an elephant, let alone a human being.

[Felya]

This article is the reason why fascists use things like the Okay symbol to demonstrate loyalty to each other. People who know the code words and symbols then call them out, which is undercut by the fact that those same symbols represent popular other things. You can than cry that someone is being disengenous, even though the whole point is to confuse the normies.

- - - Updated - - -

Theo linking anything about "bad faith arguments" would instill a fatal dose of irony to an elephant, let alone a human being.

It’s consistent... the person who started a ‘white nationalist only killed 170’ would than start a thread, where normies misinterpretation of fascist coding, are justifying bad faith arguments.

[Acidbaron]

That's the thing... the imagined or presumed intent doesn't matter. Even if it's correct. Talk about and argue the content of what's said.

True but that's a bit too easy to say the presumed intent does not matter, generally we have a bias towards a source for a reason. For example if you read something outlandish on Fox news your first response would be to call it into question and at best search for other sources to confirm if not otherwise to flat out deny it by presuming it being fake and you often wouldn't be wrong by taking that action.

[Firslaps]

iNews does appear to be a British newspaper, though a rather new one.

It is the truncated version of the Independent which has been around for over 30 years.

- - - Updated - - -

This article is the reason why fascists use things like the Okay symbol to demonstrate loyalty to each other. People who know the code words and symbols then call them out, which is undercut by the fact that those same symbols represent popular other things. You can than cry that someone is being disengenous, even though the whole point is to confuse the normies.
.

Yes white nationalists do that. It is pretty obvious. Left-wingers don't. Ever. You want to be careful of seeing imaginary patterns everywhere.

[Grimbold21]

I'm not sure what's the matter.

What's so outlandish about the proposition that a lot of people, for a variety of reasons, choose to misinterpret what someone else says?

[Howel]

I'm not sure what's the matter.

What's so outlandish about the proposition that a lot of people, for a variety of reasons, choose to misinterpret what someone else says?

It is more the last 1/3 of the article, that tries to somehow justify and glorify such a notion.

[GreenJesus]

I liked the first 2/3 of the article, but then it all basically died when the writer basically said "I know I said all of the above is bad, but I enjoy doing it anyway lol. How else would I be able to earn my paycheck doing "journalism"?"

I feel like the whole article was a super long clickbait. "That makes sense.. that makes sense I agree with that. yeh that makes sense... wait what?"

[Jonnusthegreat]

Holy shit, English majors must be bored out of their minds during this quarantine. This entire article is chock full of big words for the sake of using big words and sounding smart.

GASP, WHEN WE WRITE THINGS THEY DON'T ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT WE SAID! WHO KNEW?

[Kumorii]

True but that's a bit too easy to say the presumed intent does not matter, generally we have a bias towards a source for a reason. For example if you read something outlandish on Fox news your first response would be to call it into question and at best search for other sources to confirm if not otherwise to flat out deny it by presuming it being fake and you often wouldn't be wrong by taking that action.

But you do research... that's the difference. Doing research and pointing out something is wrong is not a problem and is in fact encouraged. That actually is in line of my point. By doing so you actually argue the point and not the intent. If you do the first thing though to flat out deny it and jump into discussion and talking it about being a lie and for what intent they are doing it, then well, you are not looking for discussion to begin with.

It's a bigger problem if you don't do that to things you agree with though. Which I would say is a bigger issue in todays age. Combing the opposition for any small hint of falsehood yet assuming ones team always speak the truth when in fact everyone bends it at times. This starts to lean towards truthfulness rather than intent though which was the original point.

[Firslaps]

This interpretation is, of course, deranged. Still, it was treated seriously. The writer David Baddiel, for instance, announced that “every Jew watching noticed” (although, as a Jew who was indeed watching—Dave, mate, I didn’t notice a thing) – and with celebrities joining the chorus, the incident was written up in a host of major British newspapers.

Worth adding David Baddiel is a nasty piece of work, He used to be a "comedian". I remember his "comedy" included publicy mocking a mentally disabled boy he went to school with - this on a show watched by millions of people. The boys sister wrote a letter of complaint to Baddiel who laughed about it in interviews afterwards. I don't think he ever apologized.

[Felya]

What's so outlandish about the proposition that a lot of people, for a variety of reasons, choose to misinterpret what someone else says?

When the intent is for the misinterpretation to justify indignation.

Here is an example... what if we are having a discussion on race, to finish the argument by saying... ‘it’s all white that we disagree’. Now, did I just hint at you being a white supremisist or was this just a autocorrect going nuts? What if it’s neither and hinging you’re bets that someone will focus on the ‘white’, where the original argument becomes irrelevant, to instead focus on indignation over the use of ‘white’?

[Theodarzna]

Unfamiliar with inews, but Daily Mail and The Sun? You're treating those tabloid rages seriously?



I mean, I remember most of those criticisms coming from elsewhere as this barely registered as a blip for me. And I remember a lot of them being garbage, but there potentially being legs to some of the lesser accusations. I don't follow British politics as closely, but wasn't it the "leftists" that were arguing that point? Or am I misremembering?

I mean, if we take Milchshake at face value,

No, that is you projecting your own biases.

I've been very clear in rejecting Zizek and Corbyn's brand of socialism, for the very case that they traffic too closely to chauvinism and anti-semitism.

Clearly this sort of media narrative and projecting intent and motive where one might not actually exist does indeed work for some people.

The people that argued Corbyn was Anti-Semitic primarily centered on his position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That being that he was firmly on the Palestinian side of that conflict and always had been.

- - - Updated - - -

True but that's a bit too easy to say the presumed intent does not matter, generally we have a bias towards a source for a reason. For example if you read something outlandish on Fox news your first response would be to call it into question and at best search for other sources to confirm if not otherwise to flat out deny it by presuming it being fake and you often wouldn't be wrong by taking that action.

Presumed Intent though lay firmly in the mind of the one doing the presuming. I mean, a lot of this is essentially people presuming that anything negative or critical is essentially a trick or deception to deceive someone into self doubt and losing faith in the political convictions. Taken to its logical absolute, we thus can't have meaningful conversation since we have to assume anyone and everyone not aggressively reciting a party line or approved opinion is secretly trying to cause disharmony in the ranks of the faithful so to speak. It basically is a way of treating anything negative or critical as some spy game psyop. It is also wildly paranoid.

[Felya]

Clearly this sort of media narrative and projecting intent and motive where one might not actually exist does indeed work for some people.

Clearly for whom? The entire point of coded language is to obfuscate. It’s why generalizing, instead of addressing the actual issue, is the whole point in tricking normies with coded language. When called out, they don’t admit it, but claim it’s an over reaction and then justify their behavior with the OP.

The people that argued Corbyn was Anti-Semitic primarily centered on his position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That being that he was firmly on the Palestinian side of that conflict and always had been.

So, it wasn’t that he mispronounced, but his history coupled with the mispronouncing? Than, shouldn’t we be discussing the history of why he was misinterpreted, instead of using it as a facade for bad faith arguments?

- - - Updated - - -

Presumed Intent though lay firmly in the mind of the one doing the presuming.

Nope, you know how recently you mentioned receipts? How does that jive with this argument, when people use history to confirm that the misinterpretation, is actually intent?

Edit:

There is a difference between... ‘My bad, I didn’t know’... and ...’calling me out on making a mistake is arguing in bad faith’... it’s why so many people are replying about irony.

[Edge-]

I mean, if we take Milchshake at face value,

Why are we looking to another poster? I asked who took it "seriously" and commented at the lack of sourcing on the "celebrity outrage", and you came back with...fucking tabloids. So again, the author of the article you shared pretty much seems to have made shit up to support his thesis, and you're here trying to give his made up shit credibility.

Clearly this sort of media narrative and projecting intent and motive where one might not actually exist does indeed work for some people.

The people that argued Corbyn was Anti-Semitic primarily centered on his position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That being that he was firmly on the Palestinian side of that conflict and always had been.

Take that up with them if you disagree. Do you know why they hold those beliefs?

[Theodarzna]

Why are we looking to another poster? I asked who took it "seriously" and commented at the lack of sourcing on the "celebrity outrage", and you came back with...fucking tabloids. So again, the author of the article you shared pretty much seems to have made shit up to support his thesis, and you're here trying to give his made up shit credibility.

Take that up with them if you disagree. Do you know why they hold those beliefs?

No, I'm not anyone's therapist so I'm not about to proclaim a motive.

And because it was a handy a rather startling perfect crystalization/example of what I was describing. I'm almost surprised nobody has suggested Milchshake is my alt-account yet given the replies have been an almost too perfect example of what the article criticizes or talks about.

[Edge-]

No, I'm not anyone's therapist so I'm not about to proclaim a motive.

It appears you literally just did.

Clearly this sort of media narrative and projecting intent and motive where one might not actually exist does indeed work for some people.

The people that argued Corbyn was Anti-Semitic primarily centered on his position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That being that he was firmly on the Palestinian side of that conflict and always had been.

His motive was that he was mislead by a media narrative, unless I'm misreading your post.

[Theodarzna]

It appears you literally just did.



His motive was that he was mislead by a media narrative, unless I'm misreading your post.

That wouldn't be a motive, motive implies intent. I'm not arguing that Milchshake is lying or being deceptive.

- - - Updated - - -

You just cited, unironically, The Sun, The Daily Mail, and some website called "inews" as "British Newspapers."

Yes I cited examples of something, Is there a problem with this? I mean, it is examples of that specific event, though if you want me to cite examples of the more broad narrative of "Corbyn is Anti-Semitic".

So I am unsure what your point here is.