The Art of the Bad Faith Argument

[unfilteredJW]

This is getting way too meta for me.

[Firslaps]

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?

This gets really tiresome. Corbyn stated his opposition to anti-semitism a hundred different times. Somehow people kept on with this bullshit about how he was somehow sending out coded anti-semitic messages.

There's a limit to this sort of thing. I mean I'm sure if I looked at your random blink variations I could make a case for saying you were spelling out "I hate jews" in binary notation or something. But it would be bullshit.

[Felya]

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

Yeah, he is just everything the article criticizes, but you are placing no intent.

- - - Updated - - -

This is getting way too meta for me.

Was it the idea that calling out someone for representing article’s gripes shows no intent, but saying that Corbyn’s mispronouncing being antiSemtic is being argued as carrying intent? Bad faith arguments being used to hide bail faith arguments, in a thread about bad faith arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me present an alternative explanation. What if the intent doesn’t mater. What if this is all about hunting cringe. With added emphasis, not due to some ideological intent, but turning up the cringe to 11?



What if it’s apolitical and people just like to watch car crashes...

[Firslaps]

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?

This gets really tiresome. Corbyn stated his opposition to anti-semitism a hundred different times. Somehow people kept on with this bullshit about how he was somehow sending out coded anti-semitic messages.

There's a limit to this sort of thing. I mean I'm sure if I looked at your random blink variations I could make a case for saying you were spelling out "I hate jews" in binary notation or something. But it would be bullshit./

[Firslaps]

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?

This gets really tiresome. Corbyn stated his opposition to anti-semitism a hundred different times. Somehow people kept on with this bullshit about how he was somehow sending out coded anti-semitic messages.

There's a limit to this sort of thing. I mean I'm sure if I looked at your random blink variations I could make a case for saying you were spelling out "I hate jews" in binary notation or something. But it would be bullshit.//

[Felya]

This gets really tiresome. Corbyn stated his opposition to anti-semitism a hundred different times. Somehow people kept on with this bullshit about how he was somehow sending out coded anti-semitic messages.

Than why focus the discussion on him mispronouncing as bad faith by those who might not be aware, than simply showing the correction? At which point does it become bad faith to complain about indignation, as justification for making a mistake?

There's a limit to this sort of thing. I mean I'm sure if I looked at your random blink variations I could make a case for saying you were spelling out "I hate jews" in binary notation or something. But it would be bullshit.//

Considering I’m a Jewish refugee, specifically due to religious persecution. I really doubt it... but, than again... that’s a bad faith argument you are making. I’m not talking to parliament... I’m not mispronouncing words. You’d have to use extreme measures, like binary code notation or something... to make your case.

[Firslaps]

Than why focus the discussion on him mispronouncing as bad faith by those who might not be aware, than simply showing the correction? At which point does it become bad faith to complain about indignation, as justification for making a mistake?

There was a concerted misinformation campaign to smear Corbyn which I have never seen in any civilized country. I mean, someone like Trump lies through his teeth but doesn't do so with the approval of most of the establishment media. It was extremely sinister. That requires substantial analysis.

- - - Updated - - -

Than why focus the discussion on him mispronouncing as bad faith by those who might not be aware, than simply showing the correction? At which point does it become bad faith to complain about indignation, as justification for making a mistake?



Considering I’m a Jewish refugee, specifically due to religious persecution. I really doubt it... but, than again... that’s a bad faith argument you are making. I’m not talking to parliament... I’m not mispronouncing words. You’d have to use extreme measures, like binary code notation or something... to make your case.

Mispronouncing words sounds if anything more ridiculous than binary notation. I mean, Epstein is Jewish. The notion that he might sound more Jewish if you pronounced it in a certain way-I'm not even sure what the point is there. How is that telepathically communicating with anti-semites-none of whom vote Labour anyway.

[Felya]

There was a concerted misinformation campaign to smear Corbyn which I have never seen in any civilized country. I mean, someone like Trump lies through his teeth but doesn't do so with the approval of most of the establishment media. It was extremely sinister.

I know nothing about it and nothing in this thread is explaining it, beyond vague allusions to this controversy and complaining that his pronouncing was off. When does this reaction, not just the initial, become bad faith?

Mispronouncing words sounds if anything more ridiculous than binary notation. I mean, Epstein is Jewish. The notion that he might sound more Jewish if you pronounced it in a certain way-I'm not even sure what the point is there. How is that telepathically communicating with anti-semites-none of whom vote Labour anyway.

It’s called dog whistle. It’s why fascists use the okay symbol. The fact that it just sounds like a mispronouncing, is a form of a dog whistle. How does the OP reaction not simply excuse dog whistles, as any mention there of is treated like bad faith?

[jonnysensible]

Yo this guy is pretentious how did anyone not get bored reading that. I'm not sure there is much of a point to it. Don't google his blogsite its even worse, reeks of gatekeeping and he seems to be a dubious motherfucker.

[Thepersona]

Ok, what happened?

[Acidbaron]

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.

That is false, if the source of the information is know the produce untrustworthy information it is not the fault of the one doing the presuming, the bias was created for a reason and that reason can very well be legit. The creator of the content creates the stage, this is like saying you enter a funeral and start bad mouthing the deceased while at the same time acting like you're the victim because the family of the deceased is no longer treating you nicely.

Reflecting this back as some sort of personal issue is also false, this also does not stimulate or create party single mindedness and is rather odd that you bring this up.
If i read this now in addition to your previous statements, you are not only trying to remove accountability from antagonizer you are also claiming they should be treated not with respect but with pure ignorance every single time on the readers end so they may have some sort of safe space to function in.

You than continue taking this to some sort of extreme that if bad faith arguers are not allowed to function that this would lead to any and all criticism being removed society or within the realm of a political party, as if a single individual acting in bad faith being ignored is going to lead to that. Simply absurd.
It is actually the opposite the removal of bad faith actors will make a debate break open because if people in a discussion feel they can comment in safe, respectful environment they tend to drop their guard put their ego's aside and work on solving the problem. This is why debates happen behind closed doors.

Or to put it more plainly and comparing it to this format, you are essentially arguing that trolls on this forum are not to blame for when a topic goes sour and better yet you believe everyone but the troll in question is to blame, do you any idea how absurd that sounds?

Personal accountability is a thing, if people have a negative opinion about you or your source than this generalization was earned. You can always redeem yourself but that takes time and effort. As with all things in life, the climb is much harder than the drop.

[Firslaps]

It’s called dog whistle. It’s why fascists use the okay symbol. The fact that it just sounds like a mispronouncing, is a form of a dog whistle. How does the OP reaction not simply excuse dog whistles, as any mention there of is treated like bad faith?

There is a ton of evidence that the far right does that. It is very obvious. There is a very high correlation between pro-fascist sentiment and that symbol. Additionally there is primary evidence that fascists were doing this cynically as revealed by the contents of certain discussions online which the fascists thought were private.

That doesn't justify every other batshit insane theory that people are communicating in secret messages when they clearly are not.

- - - Updated - - -

Yo this guy is pretentious how did anyone not get bored reading that. I'm not sure there is much of a point to it. Don't google his blogsite its even worse, reeks of gatekeeping and he seems to be a dubious motherfucker.

Well thanks for that Jonny, it must have been very hard for you to type.

[Felya]

There is a ton of evidence that the far right does that. It is very obvious. There is a very high correlation between pro-fascist sentiment and that symbol. Additionally there is primary evidence that fascists were doing this cynically as revealed by the contents of certain discussions online which the fascists thought were private.

That doesn't justify every other batshit insane theory that people are communicating in secret messages when they clearly are not.

You literally explained that it’s justified, to then come to the conclusion that it isn’t.

[Firslaps]

You literally explained that it’s justified, to then come to the conclusion that it isn’t.

Evidence justifies things. It isn't a difficult concept to understand.

[Theodarzna]

There is a ton of evidence that the far right does that. It is very obvious. There is a very high correlation between pro-fascist sentiment and that symbol. Additionally there is primary evidence that fascists were doing this cynically as revealed by the contents of certain discussions online which the fascists thought were private.

That doesn't justify every other batshit insane theory that people are communicating in secret messages when they clearly are not.

All things in all communication are secret signals and messages; and as someone who shitposts on 4chan from time to time, I can say the purpose of the "OKAY Sign is Racist now" was outright said to make the people looking for "Secret Nazi Codes" look nuts by making ever more mundane things into Nazi codes.

Basically; the 4channers also read, and read how liberals are looking for dog whistles and became clever enough to simply invent very dumb, very absurd things to become dog whistles so normies would think Liberals were insane and paranoid. And to some extent it works.

So not only is the constant hunt for "What is your REAL MOTIVE" a paranoid style of discussion since everyone is merely engaged in fighting a preferred strawman under the guise of "Whats under the mask!" debate tactics, but ones own enemies can easily exploit this hyper paranoid tendency to make people look foolish.

[Felya]

Evidence justifies things. It isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Yes, and what is this evidance of:



- - - Updated - - -

All things in all communication are secret signals and messages; and as someone who shitposts on 4chan from time to time, I can say the purpose of the "OKAY Sign is Racist now" was outright said to make the people looking for "Secret Nazi Codes" look nuts by making ever more mundane things into Nazi codes.

Basically; the 4channers also read, and read how liberals are looking for dog whistles and became clever enough to simply invent very dumb, very absurd things to become dog whistles so normies would think Liberals were insane and paranoid. And to some extent it works.

So not only is the constant hunt for "What is your REAL MOTIVE" a paranoid style of discussion since everyone is merely engaged in fighting a preferred strawman under the guise of "Whats under the mask!" debate tactics, but ones own enemies can easily exploit this hyper paranoid tendency to make people look foolish.

No... but, most of all... guess how I could tell you frequented 4chan, 3 years ago. I’ll give you a hint... not all language is code.

[Dacien]

One thing that pops out at me in the article from what I've read so far, is not understanding a joke. Whenever someone on the right says about someone on the left (or vice versa) "They engaged in a bizarre rant," I guess that it was either a joke the person said that landed flat, or some other statement made in jest to make a point. More often than not I'm right (or in the ballpark).

It seems to be a thing where if someone is opposed, the idea of humor becomes strange and alien.

[Thekri]

One thing that pops out at me in the article from what I've read so far, is not understanding a joke. Whenever someone on the right says about someone on the left (or vice versa) "They engaged in a bizarre rant," I guess that it was either a joke the person said that landed flat, or some other statement made in jest to make a point. More often than not I'm right (or in the ballpark).

It seems to be a thing where if someone is opposed, the idea of humor becomes strange and alien.

The "It was a joke" argument rarely holds up in this kind of context. Because jokes are not nearly as arcane and hard to notice as you are portraying.

Here is an example of a President telling jokes. Literally no democrat accused any of this of being serious.

Because that is the key to telling jokes in Public Office, choose the right forum, make sure someone vets the jokes beforehand, and deliver them in a manner where everyone laughs. The idea that you can say nasty shit, and then pretend it is a joke, just isn't how humanity works.

[Dacien]

@Thekri

I do agree that it's not good at all when people say something to hurt others, or to push something awful, and when they get pushed back on, they say it was all joking. That is a thing. I could have sworn there was a Proverb about that but I'd have to double check.

But that's not what I'm referring to. In the cases I'm talking about, there was a valid point to be made, it was just very poorly executed.

[Endus]

One thing that pops out at me in the article from what I've read so far, is not understanding a joke. Whenever someone on the right says about someone on the left (or vice versa) "They engaged in a bizarre rant," I guess that it was either a joke the person said that landed flat, or some other statement made in jest to make a point. More often than not I'm right (or in the ballpark).

It seems to be a thing where if someone is opposed, the idea of humor becomes strange and alien.

Saying something extreme and disturbing is not a "joke". What you're referring to is that often, people will say something wildly racist/sexist/abusive/mean-spirited, and then say "hey, it's just a joke". Unless the butt of the joke is yourself, what you're doing is attacking people, and you're too chickenshit to take responsibility for your own actions, hence the "it's just a joke" attempt to deflect.

Jimmy Carr, for instance, is often WILDLY sexist and racist, but the "joke" is that his character is wildly sexist/racist, but only in a way that exposes how ludicrously stupid sexism and racism are, and how stupid anyone would have to be to actually believe it.

If you're targeting someone else for as the butt of the "joke"? You're just being racist or sexist. It wasn't a joke. You're just too chickenshit to own up to your intent.