Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The endgames of bad faith communication

consilienceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 374 posts

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#121

Post by watwut »

colordrops wrote: post #68
tux1968 wrote: post #15

It would be great for people who desire good faith communication to call out people who are resorting to bad faith techniques. Especially, and most importantly, when those bad actors are of the same political stripe. It's impossible for those bad actors to hear criticism from "the enemy". Only people who share a position of almost total fundamental agreement, can maybe be heard in any criticism of how to better deal…

This is consistently what Glenn Greenwald has done and the smear campaign against him by the DNC and liberal establishment has taken him from a world famous Oscar and Pulitzer prize winning journalist to a pariah and supposed Russian right wing shill, kicked out of the organization he founded, The Intercept. His beliefs and ideas are clearly left wing and he has remained consistent, but by doing what you suggest he h…

Nah, Glenn Greenwald is not arguing in good faith and was not for a long time. And I did not needed to "smear campaign" against him to figure that out. All I needed was was to read his twitter feed regularly - as I was. He is good at strong words and insults, but not at good faith discussion at all.

> His beliefs and ideas are clearly left wing and he has remained consistent,

Kinda yes and no, not really. He has some lefty opinions, but that is it.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#123

Post by watwut »

colordrops wrote: post #97
cycomanic wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's not quite so simple. I previously believed in some of the strong ad honimems against him (and I have revised that position). However, I am very critical of some of his behaviour, he himself has used bad faith communication (often adopted from right wing pundits) strategies to criticise "his side/the left" and had the same time goes onto shows like Tucker Carlsson and does not use it to engage in critical…

Attacking him for going on Tucker Carlson is a typical bad faith smear used against him and many others. CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. Why must people only go on shows that are on "their side"? That's propaganda, not journalism. Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior…

> CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview.

The majority of journalists and opinion writers wont ever be on CNN and MSNBC. Overwhelming majority of them, in fact.

> Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side".

Well, in that case, he is massive failure. Probably because he argues in bad faith and also because hate is dripping out of him.

> This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left.

The left is constantly engaged in in-fighting.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#124

Post by LambdaTrain »

dalbasal wrote: post #112
lucidbee wrote: post #85

I have realized when browsing some twitter culture war exchanges that people almost never respond to the opposing party's arguments. They imagine a set of arguments that uses some of the same words and then argue with that. This type of exchange never results in agreement -- or even the exchange of information! It's unhinged from any communicative act. It's merely inflammatory. I do think this is extremely problemati…

Addressing opposing arguments directly is not really a feature of arguing. That kind of good faith debate is more of a special case debate. It's just not what public debate is. You see rookie politicians do it, but it's generally a mistake. A huge part of what political debate is, is dominating the frame . The frame. The key facts, alternative or otherwise. The key question being debated. Once those are established,…

I am not familiar with public debate. Before two persons start a public debate, is it a common assumption that you are going to hold your ground till the end, whatever the information provided by the opponent?

There is no flow of information and I could not see this form of acts as "communication" - it seems to be more like a kind of art/show/performance.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#125

Post by inglor_cz »

tux1968 wrote: post #15

It would be great for people who desire good faith communication to call out people who are resorting to bad faith techniques. Especially, and most importantly, when those bad actors are of the same political stripe. It's impossible for those bad actors to hear criticism from "the enemy". Only people who share a position of almost total fundamental agreement, can maybe be heard in any criticism of how to better deal…

One of the things about call out culture is that it can be an extremely potent weapon for bad faith actors to silence everyone else. Thus stiffling vital dissent and making organizations stupid. In the recent Atlantic, there is an article by Jonathan Haidt that argues precisely that.

Looking at past results, I would not encourage call out culture further.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#126

Post by mr_toad »

lucidbee wrote: post #85

I have realized when browsing some twitter culture war exchanges that people almost never respond to the opposing party's arguments. They imagine a set of arguments that uses some of the same words and then argue with that. This type of exchange never results in agreement -- or even the exchange of information! It's unhinged from any communicative act. It's merely inflammatory. I do think this is extremely problemati…

> people almost never respond to the opposing party's arguments

What do you think ‘stay on message’ means? It’s as old as rhetoric itself.

Cathago delenda est!

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#127

Post by csharpminor »

q-base wrote: post #116
senguidev wrote: post #111

Here's an alternative ending: what if good faith communication was superior to bad faith in a systemic way ? Clues: - at a personal level: have you ever tried to put in practice "highly skilled, non-naive good faith communication" ? If you did, you've probably noted that more often than not, it doesn't make you weaker. It increases your value, your status, even your financial success. So maybe this could also be a co…

I hope your analysis is correct. On a personal level I have found it to work just as you describe, but on a more systemic higher level I am not yet convinced - I hope - but I am sadly not convinced.

For some systems it seems as though a prisoners dilemma develops where communicating in bad faith can give one actor an edge over another.

In company environments I think it’s a factor of size and what core leadership will tolerate. With a good CEO, it’s hard for a bad-faith leader to thrive at a 1000 person company. But at 3000 (anecdotally) it somehow becomes easier for this behavior to thrive.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#128

Post by Nowado »

senguidev wrote: post #111

Here's an alternative ending: what if good faith communication was superior to bad faith in a systemic way ? Clues: - at a personal level: have you ever tried to put in practice "highly skilled, non-naive good faith communication" ? If you did, you've probably noted that more often than not, it doesn't make you weaker. It increases your value, your status, even your financial success. So maybe this could also be a co…

> at a personal level: have you ever tried to put in practice "highly skilled, non-naive good faith communication" ? If you did, you've probably noted that more often than not, it doesn't make you weaker. It increases your value, your status, even your financial success.

Opposite experience. It leads to wasting time, especially compared to getting to the same conclusions using more effective, if less 'true', tactics. It just doesn't scale.

At some level good faith is superior on a very large scale, since the reality tends to provide a somewhat consistent feedback, but there remains a local niche of maxxing out persuasion skill tree. Not to beat dead horse, but large organizations with too much resources seem particularly prone - it is an obviously self correcting mechanism, but the tactic remains valid locally.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#129

Post by vintermann »

> Both ends of the political spectrum (the far left and the far right) express this view.

I'd strike this phrase, because it's far from clear what the "far left" is. Is it wealthy Silicon Valley liberals with radical ideas about gender? Or is it for instance the trotskyist World Socialist Web Site, which buy Russian false flag conspiracy claims but are free speech absolutists? And "far right", are we talking about Ayn Rand fans, neo-traditionalist catholic populists like JD Vance etc, or neonazi militias?

Last of all, is the political center necessarily more honest or devoted to good faith public debate? Not that I can see. Their strategies can be different, since they can get away with just never acknowledging disagreement, which makes little sense for small fringes, but there's nothing inherently honest or good-willed about centrism.

Post reply on HN