Yes they were! And you’re right, we need to allow ourselves to be challenged, to consider ideas outside of our comfort zone, but we also need to able to reject ideas that are not being posited in good faith.
This is the joy of debate, to question statements and receive nuanced answers in reply.
I personally always assume good faith. I can’t read people’s minds. On the Internet, I can’t even see facial expressions or hear how they’re saying it. It’s like that Key and Peele text message sketch.
When one assumes bad faith, one is assuming guilt. That isn’t fair. I have found it better to assume innocence, to adopt Judge Blackstone’s ratio over Judge Dredd’s.
I think it’s fair to assume those when people openly support a movement that visibly takes away the rights of marginalized groups and kills innocent people.
In some discussions, faith, good or bad, doesn’t matter. If a politician says that ducks have three feet, whether they say that in good faith or not, it’s wrong. So it’s still best to assume good faith and logically explain how it is incorrect. To respond to such a statement with an accusation is a fallacy.
The analogy you’re providing is fallacious because unlike nonsensical singular statements about ducks (an ethically neutral statement), what we’re actually getting is people consistently defending various forms of hate that endangers minorities and marginalized people. They rarely, if ever - and it is my opinion that this almost never occurs - respond to reason. People being purposefully obtuse and heartless within discussions do not really deserve logical vigour or effort. You could try, but it’s a waste of time and energy, and it’ll just put one in a bad mood.
Yes they were! And you’re right, we need to allow ourselves to be challenged, to consider ideas outside of our comfort zone, but we also need to able to reject ideas that are not being posited in good faith.
This is the joy of debate, to question statements and receive nuanced answers in reply.
How do you determine what’s not in good faith?
I would imagine this would tie to values, but do those become the unquestionable object, then?
I personally always assume good faith. I can’t read people’s minds. On the Internet, I can’t even see facial expressions or hear how they’re saying it. It’s like that Key and Peele text message sketch.
Even with MAGAts and the wave of red that’s ever-present online?
When one assumes bad faith, one is assuming guilt. That isn’t fair. I have found it better to assume innocence, to adopt Judge Blackstone’s ratio over Judge Dredd’s.
I think it’s fair to assume those when people openly support a movement that visibly takes away the rights of marginalized groups and kills innocent people.
In some discussions, faith, good or bad, doesn’t matter. If a politician says that ducks have three feet, whether they say that in good faith or not, it’s wrong. So it’s still best to assume good faith and logically explain how it is incorrect. To respond to such a statement with an accusation is a fallacy.
The analogy you’re providing is fallacious because unlike nonsensical singular statements about ducks (an ethically neutral statement), what we’re actually getting is people consistently defending various forms of hate that endangers minorities and marginalized people. They rarely, if ever - and it is my opinion that this almost never occurs - respond to reason. People being purposefully obtuse and heartless within discussions do not really deserve logical vigour or effort. You could try, but it’s a waste of time and energy, and it’ll just put one in a bad mood.
Even with an ethical element tied to the statement, an accusation of bad faith is a bit of a non sequitur.
A: We should torture ducks and masturbate to their suffering because they have three feet.
B: You are acting in bad faith.