The endgames of bad faith communication • Hacker News Board

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#191

Post by cracrecry » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 8:58 AM UTC

Propaganda and bad faith has always been normalized, it is not new, read Edward Bernays' Propaganda.

Human nature is that of a predator. Powerful get advantage of the weak, and always has been.

Take for example the USA, it was created by the "expansion" to the West, "expansion" meaning taking ownership of the land others inhabited, and killing them. That needed a propaganda machine to justify it, Manifest destiny.

There were two parties, one won, the other lost. We are not mentioning slavery.

When the US could take advantage of the remains of the Spanish Empire, they did, there was a man called Pulitzer that became rich and famous inventing lies like "remember the Maine"(probably a false flag attack) in order to take control of their colonies and colonize it themselves.

Germans and French tried to do the same. England, Russia, Turkey and Spain did that before, because it is human nature.

Pulitzer never wrote about the US extermination of Spanish teachers in Philippines for example, like modern Media did not inform about the abuses in US created wars like Libya, Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan.

Media owners today have lots of business to do, they need the masses to support them.

Most democrats were ok calling Trump Putin's puppy with no proof(because they hated the guy and benefited from removing a President using lies if necessary) and then Trump did the same thing with them(accusing them without proof of stealing the elections).

The first thing you have to do in order to be free is to read, and not see the world divided in good and bad guys, because if you do you always will consider yourself in the good guys, even when you are the bad side. Then there will be no difference between you and the rest.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#192

Post by DharmaPolice » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 9:03 AM UTC

booboofixer wrote: post #4

A well-written article, especially clearly listing out the differences in the forms of communication helped make the point. But sadly, the people most prone to bad-faith communication are also probably least likely to take this criticism and improve. I have also resorted to bad-faith communications in conversations where it seems like that is the only way to be heard. Consider this example: Person A, displaying some…

I think there's a degree of market segmentation (as it were) when it comes to arguing. The fastest way someone can discredit themselves in my eyes is to be too certain about something. In your example I'd be much more open to someone who admits that their side could be in the wrong than someone who says that it's impossible. Especially where there's not enough evidence for that kind of claim. But you're right that certainty does appeal in other contexts.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#193

Post by I_complete_me » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 9:08 AM UTC

sacrosancty wrote: post #49

booboofixer wrote: post #4

A well-written article, especially clearly listing out the differences in the forms of communication helped make the point. But sadly, the people most prone to bad-faith communication are also probably least likely to take this criticism and improve. I have also resorted to bad-faith communications in conversations where it seems like that is the only way to be heard. Consider this example: Person A, displaying some…

Isn't that more about drifting meaning of the language? "You might be right" is a common way of actually meaning to say "I reluctantly agree that you're definitely right".

Did you forget the addendum "and I was definitely wrong" because that's how I use it!

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#194

Post by a_square_peg » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 9:12 AM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #157

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…

That's just it, neither side goes to Twitter for a good faith argument, they're there to vent and lash out, but they've already dismissed the other party. I mean not always, but I do wonder if the posts that LOOK like they're in good faith are also misleading as such. Best thing to do is to not spend the energy. Don't engage with anyone if they don't have an open mind or are acting in bad faith. If it's more neutral,…

Another point about social media - it’s structurally easier to say things (done with a single ‘re-tweet’ click to thousands of people) but increasingly difficult to listen (you still have only one thing you can focus), and even harder to carry on a two-way conversation because of this disparity. Even if everyone is well intended, it would be difficult if everyone is talking at the same time now mix in bad-faith actors and the situation becomes dire.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#195

Post by ehnto » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 9:13 AM UTC

booboofixer wrote: post #4

A well-written article, especially clearly listing out the differences in the forms of communication helped make the point. But sadly, the people most prone to bad-faith communication are also probably least likely to take this criticism and improve. I have also resorted to bad-faith communications in conversations where it seems like that is the only way to be heard. Consider this example: Person A, displaying some…

> If I ever find myself in a conversation where I'm in the shoes of Person A, using good-faith communication means actually risking a complete failure of communication. Why even bother to communicate?

Unfortunately you can't always know ahead of time, even here on HN I have found that sometimes if I give an inch, others will take a mile. But if that happens I think you have two options: Out right correction, just outright say "Hey wait a minute, that's not what I meant." or, step back and accept that you are probably not changing this persons mind today.

The trouble with the internet, or really any public speaking, is that you might accidentally end up on the side of the conversation you are against in the eyes of the public, so just letting it go may not be a good idea.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#196

Post by aaron695 » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 9:25 AM UTC

No post body was provided.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#197

Post by tempestn » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 9:26 AM UTC

legalcorrection wrote: post #115

tempestn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I agree that 4-5 year old transgender kids are something that strike most people as absurd. That is, unless they know some transgender people and talk to them about their experiences. I have a couple of close friends who are trans, and know several others (including a good friend of my son's in elementary school). All of them describing knowing their true gender with just as much certainty as you or I know ours…

I really appreciate the substantive comment. I disagree, but I don't think it's worth arguing about here. My point really doesn't have anything to do with the merits or demerits of young childhood gender transitions. Fact is, it's a position held by a minority, but the majority is powerless to do anything about it because they are absolutely terrified of the left's political power. They're afraid to even say somethin…

And I appreciate that, especially in the broader context of the article we're commenting on! I agree with your broader point that there are topics in our society where one might be ostracized for expressing or even exploring a view outside a certain consensus, even if it might be one held by many people. And obviously that does make good faith communication difficult. Of course some might say that certain views are so vile they shouldn't be given any consideration. Something like expressing overt racial slurs for instance. And I can see the argument that it's beneficial for society to shun those who express such things. But it can certainly be taken too far, and often is. And the effect is even more pronounced I think within a political coalition than across the spectrum, because there's even more pressure to conform to the consensus view.

I realize the gender transition thing was beside your main point; you just seemed like a reasonable person with a differing view who might be open to my perspective there. I wouldn't expect you to change your mind based on an anecdote from a random stranger, but I hope you'll keep it in mind. FWIW I'm more sympathetic to your other example: trans athletes are a difficult issue IMO. In general I wouldn't want transgender people to be deprived of any of the rights anyone else of the same gender would have. I think bathroom bans are ridiculous and cruel for instance. But in the context of sport, there is also a legitimate concern regarding fairness for other athletes. I honestly don't know what the best outcome is there, but I do think it's something reasonable people should be able to discuss without being vilified.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#198

Post by watwut » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 9:30 AM UTC

thow-58d4e8b wrote: post #145

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…

Good faith communication is maladaptive on large scale Imagine the war scenario. The honest, good-faith communication would be like: If we capitulate outright, the worst thing that happens is paying taxes to somewhere else, and the set of faces on TV news will change to a different set of faces. Anyway, please go and die to prevent that from happening, while the people who have the most at stake hide in safety It's n…

> If we capitulate outright, the worst thing that happens is paying taxes to somewhere else, and the set of faces on TV news will change to a different set of faces. Anyway, please go and die to prevent that from happening, while the people who have the most at stake hide in safety

Is that actual truth? It seems to me that in quite a lot of wars, there is a lot more in stake then just where you pay taxes or who is on TV. This is not a good faith communication - this is flat out lie.

And also, civilian casualties in wars outnumber military ones. Soldiers do die a lot ... but causalities and suffering in wars are not limited to them.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#199

Post by watwut » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 9:32 AM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #174

m12k wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're seeing the opposite play out in real time in Ukraine though. One side tells its soldiers that they are fighting a desperate battle to repel an invading dictator. The other side tells its soldiers that they are going on a training exercise in Belarus, then shoves them across the border telling them they will be welcomed as liberators, then finally switches to some handwavy explanation about nazis. The latter has…

Ukraine was morally indefensible from the start, as was the Nazi invasion of Europe; with the latter though, they had captured the "hearts and minds" of their own people thanks to over a decade of increasing propaganda. Hitler pulled Germany from an economic downturn post-WW2, and the showy militaristic theming really got people excited. And it still does, but for a much smaller demographic - current-day nazis like t…

> Hitler pulled Germany from an economic downturn post-WW2 and the showy militaristic theming really got people excited

You probably meant WWI, but afaik, historians dispute that one. He was not that good in economy.

I t

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#200

Post by gkaly » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 9:32 AM UTC

watwut wrote: post #153

colordrops wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you cite a particular unfounded "conspiracy theory" that he is espousing? Most of the things he's written about the CIA, FBI, NSA etc that I've read are grounded in fact and sourced.. Are you suggesting that these three letter agencies aren't constantly involved in shady unethical often law-breaking activity? Have you not been reading hacker news at all? They make it to the front page regularly with their poor…

Bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine.

Greenwald (and Tulsi Gabbard) quoted Nuland directly, who admitted that there were biological research labs.

Greenwald had previously worked on the Anthrax story of 2001, where a couple of high profile people got sent a sophisticated Anthrax variant in the mail.

It was supposed to be foreign terrorism at first, later it was found that the strain came from a U.S. research facility.

Biological weapons aren't allowed by treaty. Research how to combat biological weapons however is allowed. So many countries produce strains in biological research facilities under the guise of defense.

That is precisely Greenwald's point, he has never claimed that bioweapons are manufactured in Ukraine. He has claimed that dangerous biological agents might be present, like they were in the U.S. in 2001.

It takes a lot of history and reading to understand Greenwald. The man is a walking encyclopedia, very careful in his statements and touches issues of great complexity. One can rarely refute him in a one liner.