231–240 of 374 posts
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…
Article doesn't move us forward even an inch. If the solution was providing people with a list of bad faith tactics we would have been done with it at least twice by now: first when Socrates was arguing with Sophists 2500 years ago and another time when Schopenhauer wrote Eristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right . And before you think 'maybe someone doesn't know yet': yes, you are correct. Someone…
> What, I'd argue, would be at least a tiny step forward would be thinking in terms of games people play, rewards they seek Definitely. One thing that I think is unappreciated is the extent to which we see "preference falsification". This is a game people play where they pretend to have different preferences to better fit in with their in-group. It's common for preference falsification to be manufactured intentionall…
Say a research article came out, claiming the health benefits of the electric shocks, or even some vague "think of the children" style "children become violent and dangerous when not shocked". It is parroted by all the news organisations you'd expect.
Even if any casual scrutiny debunks the article, I believe a worryingly high percentage of the population would believe it, because they _want_ to believe it, because it means they don't have to worry about the shocks. They've justified the shocks to themselves, so they become less painful. Accepting that they are useless or cruel after this would require them to accept that they were doing something harmful for no reason, and people are generally very resistant to being told they were wrong, especially if they have any stake in the status quo.
So now you have people who _genuinely_ believe in the shocks, even though they got there through being deceived. Then all it takes is a bit of villifying of those who even suggest that there might be another way (They want to hurt our children) and the system becomes self-sustaining.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's totally normal and expected for biological research labs to have biological samples with which to do research. What is being described is beyond that, with thinly veiled suggestions of covert maliciousness sprinkled in.
As we see in Wuhan, a virus can be devastating no matter if it escapes from a research facility, a wet market or a deliberate bioweapon. That was the primary concern of Tulsi Gabbard. In Ukraine, matters are exacerbated by the fact that these research facilities, according to the left wing newspaper The Guardian, were U.S. funded: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-biologi... Ukraine does operate bi…
This would require reading what Putin wrote and commenting on it. This would require listening to his speeches in Russia. This would require close listening to Russian ideology and mythology disseminated in Russia itself and commenting on it. This would required reading Russian and Easter European politics and history - at least recent one.
It would require watching which of his statements are shifting, which are ignored the moment they are not useful, which are staying and which are supported by his actions. I dont see them ever mentioning Putins historical theories, his theories about Ukraine statehood, about Stalin.
And somehow, that concern exists only when Russia is trying to excuse invasion by bioweapons labs. Somehow, magically, this concern did not existed before, nor in other countries and stopped existing as it turned out not many people are buying it as excuse for invasion. There was no "maybe the war did not started due to that" consideration either.
This was not concern about "provocation" or concern about Putin being good-faith afraid of new covid from Ukraine. This was muddying waters, trying to build up new WMD-like narrative, because libs are at Ukrainien side.
I believe this is the case, and core reason is that we are increasingly in the slow-growth world. Most people will not benefit greatly from overall progress of economy in their lifetime, just because it is now too slow. It's more and more about taking over something for "us" from "them" as opposed to "making the pie bigger".
Same is the reason for rise of dictatorship. In a slow-growth world, there is no way a democratic government or leader can achieve any tangible goals in one electoral cycle. So they have to resort to bullshit of one sort or the other - nothing which is not a deliberate lie, can be attractive enough to their voters. Only a lifelong dictatorship can hope to get things done.
One hope is that once the renewable energy takes over from the fossil fuels and we start seeing our worldwide energy base grow exponentially again the way it did through mid-1970s, quicker growth will return and things will gradually fix themselves.
1. Euphenisms: "Tactical military operation" invent all kinds of word games that hide the true nature of actions committed.
2. Mirroring: Blaming the victim for doing the same thing you are already guilty of.
3. Hate speech: Saying you are a Nazi (or otherwise a bad person, insert any emotionally effective, hard to defend against bad word here) and therefore deserve to be murdered/silenced.
Which also makes me question which comes first: authoritarianism and oppression, or the collapse of speech to these kinds of low levels.
Article doesn't move us forward even an inch. If the solution was providing people with a list of bad faith tactics we would have been done with it at least twice by now: first when Socrates was arguing with Sophists 2500 years ago and another time when Schopenhauer wrote Eristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right . And before you think 'maybe someone doesn't know yet': yes, you are correct. Someone…
> What, I'd argue, would be at least a tiny step forward would be thinking in terms of games people play, rewards they seek Definitely. One thing that I think is unappreciated is the extent to which we see "preference falsification". This is a game people play where they pretend to have different preferences to better fit in with their in-group. It's common for preference falsification to be manufactured intentionall…
> many still assert that it is actually unethical to engage "the other side" in good faith. Not everybody on "the other side" is communicating in bad faith, but some are . (Same with "your own side".) When someone is communicating in bad faith, I don't think it's "unethical" to engage them in good faith, I think it's foolhardy . Don't feed the trolls. For dog's sake don't assume you can change the trolls. One of the…
"Don't feed the trolls" was an important rule in old message boards that seems to have been lost in modern social media.
The assumption that trolls are only motivated by a desire for attention and that, if ignored, they will simply go away like frustrated children in massively naive. Trolls are networked and sponsored by states now. They're weaponized. They'll find your address and harass your family. They'll complain about you to your employer. They'll send SWAT teams to your door. And they know that the internet is designed in such a way that as long as they keep spreading their nonsense they'll win by default. A lie can travel around the world twice before the truth laces up its boots, as whomever said.
That rule was fine when the internet was nothing but nerds LARPing on USENET and there were no stakes to anything but personal ego, but it isn't enough anymore. The internet is real life now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only a tiny percentage of users take part in online discussions . It is important to communicate with bad faith actors so that the overwhelming majority of users who are simply lurkers are exposed to ideas from "the other side". Refusing to engage with bad faith actors is leaving their ideas unchallenged out in the open.
The issue being that you're operating in good faith, while they're putting on a show. You're immediately at a disadvantage because they can use any tool at their disposal, whereas you have to stick to truth and rationality. Unfortunately, the latter two don't typically scale all that well, especially as the bad actor hones their ability to put you in a rhetorical box.
> A steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the opposite of a straw man argument. The idea is to help one's opponent to construct the strongest form of their argument. This may involve removing flawed assumptions that could be easily refuted, for example, so that one produces the best argument for the "core" of one's opponent's position. It has been advocated as a more productive strategy in political dialog that promotes real understanding and compromise instead of fueling partisanship by discussing only the weakest arguments of the opposition.
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…