341–350 of 374 posts
Is "bad faith communication" always in bad faith (ie, socially undesirable)? Some people are just wrong because they are talking out of their arse, and need to be put in their place.
The bad faith is more about how the communication is done and the end goals
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you already asked that of the other person > I am a third party confirming that, yes, in this case, they are as they seem to that person And now I am asking you. Two people agreeing that something "seems" true does not render it true in actual/shared reality. > if you believe their position, as confirmed by a third party, contains genuine flaws, it might just be your biases showing through This is one possibility,…
>And now I am asking you. Actually, I am the one asking YOU! >I do not "have a dog" in this object level fight As the third party here, I am actually the unbiased one in your disagreement with the other person, and I am simply saying that your position is unconvincing compared to theirs. You, meanwhile, by attacking this person specifically, definitely seem to "have a dog" in this fight, despite your claims to the co…
I am happy to answer any questions you pose to me - unless I am overlooking something, I have not missed anything you have asked of me.
However, you have missed some questions I asked of you. I would also enjoy reading any answers you may have to questions I have asked of others upthread.
And of course, you have no obligation to answer my questions, but I would prefer if we are explicit and accurate about how each of us conducts ourselves in the conversation (ie: if one of us does not answer specific questions, acknowledge that simply and unequivocally).
And if you were implicitly posing "Are things always as they seem?" to me, my answer is: no, things are not always as they seem. In fact, I argue that they are almost always not what they seem, and that this is necessarily the case due to the physical architecture of the mind/reality, plus a whole bunch of other scientifically uncontroversial reasons.
> As the third party here, I am actually the unbiased one in your disagreement with the other person...
We are discussing an object level matter - it is possible that you do not have bias on this matter, but that you personally perceive yourself to be unbiased is not convincing, and is certainly subject to a variety of possible well known phenomenon in psychology/etc.
At the very least, I think the most epistemically sound stance is that it is not known whether you or I have some bias, or the degree to which each of us is biased. After all, science has a fair amount of depth in this realm and if you take their findings even partially seriously, that there is at least some uncertainty seems highly certain.
> ...and I am simply saying that your position is unconvincing compared to theirs.
I am less interested in being persuasive than I am in being correct. Actually, I have enough experience in this domain that I believe it may not be possible to convince certain people of certain things, at least on current communication platforms like this one, in cultures like this one. I think this could change with more sophisticated platforms and cultures, but such things are not the purpose or goal of HN (dang has been explicit about this).
> You, meanwhile, by attacking this person specifically, definitely seem to "have a dog" in this fight, despite your claims to the contrary.
As I already asked you (and you did not answer): "Are things always as they seem?"
I respectfully challenge you to answer this question.
> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself.
Ah, "solipsism", color me not shocked at all that this idea manifested in the mind of someone I am having this type of conversation with.
Do you believe that I am a solipsist, or that the ideas I have written here are fundamentally and necessarily solipsistic?
> Or, if you believe something that person said to be false, feel free to make a convincing case for it.
The first burden of proof lies with the one making an assertion - I challenged the assertion above, no response has appeared thus far.
As for making a case, consider this assertion:
>> He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded.
Is this not mind reading? Or at the very least, stating one's opinions/inferences in the form of facts?
And if this is ok, then should Mr. Greenwald not get a free pass on the very same basis?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant as much as we know ours now, not at age 4. I don't recall what or whether I thought about gender at all at that age. But I don't remember ever really thinking about my gender except in the context of conversations around gender topics like this one. Presumably for cisgender folks there's not normally any motivation to do so, any more than you'd spend time specifically thinking about other aspects of your pers…
Ah, so are you saying * "We" had a weak sense of our true gender at age 4 * "We" have a strong sense of our true gender now * Transgender people had a strong sense of their true gender at age 4 > From what I can tell, the vast majority of transgender people will tell you they became aware of it in early childhood. Why would they lie? I can't come up with a speculation that doesn't sound like an absurd straw man. I th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And now I am asking you. Actually, I am the one asking YOU! >I do not "have a dog" in this object level fight As the third party here, I am actually the unbiased one in your disagreement with the other person, and I am simply saying that your position is unconvincing compared to theirs. You, meanwhile, by attacking this person specifically, definitely seem to "have a dog" in this fight, despite your claims to the co…
> Actually, I am the one asking YOU! I am happy to answer any questions you pose to me - unless I am overlooking something, I have not missed anything you have asked of me. However, you have missed some questions I asked of you. I would also enjoy reading any answers you may have to questions I have asked of others upthread. And of course, you have no obligation to answer my questions, but I would prefer if we are ex…
You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, with which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any, though, we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post.
>>He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded.
>Is this not mind reading?
No, it's drawing conclusions based on the available data. I also independently drew the same conclusions, so that should make you introspect a little, and ask what it is you're doing which causes people to conclude that based on the available data of your behavior.
>Are things always as they seem?
Indeed, are they? Is it possible that you aren't actually asking this question at all, and you actually agree with the person to which you responded? And you just think something else happened? Do you think this is possible?
On a higher level, you believe you are engaged in meta-discussion, in response to the actual discussion started by the other person.
I am thus engaged in meta-meta-discussion: My new question to you is, can you make a convincing case that your meta-discussion increases understanding of the original topic, rather than deflecting from it? Thanks!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Actually, I am the one asking YOU! I am happy to answer any questions you pose to me - unless I am overlooking something, I have not missed anything you have asked of me. However, you have missed some questions I asked of you. I would also enjoy reading any answers you may have to questions I have asked of others upthread. And of course, you have no obligation to answer my questions, but I would prefer if we are ex…
>I am happy to answer any questions you pose to me - unless I am overlooking something, I have not missed anything you have asked of me. You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, with which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any, though, we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post. >>He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded l…
I replied addressing that. If you are unsatisfied with my reply, please quote the text of the specific question you asked that you believe I did not answer.
Note also: I may not hold a position on object level matters - me pushing back on a claim should not be interpreted as a belief in the opposite (as is usually the case, in my experience).
> ...we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post.
You can certainly conclude that, and even assert it, but this does not make it true.
> On a higher level, you believe you are engaged in meta-discussion, in response to the actual discussion started by the other person.
This is my intent and desire, but whether this is a group undertaking in fact I cannot say, I can only hope.
> I am thus engaged in meta-meta-discussion: My new question to you is, can you make a convincing case that your meta-discussion increases understanding of the original topic, rather than deflecting from it? Thanks!
I would hope that it would help: the goal is be to highlight that perception and reality are similar but different, and that this is extremely important, but whether I am successful in the slightest I do not know - if forced, I would predict that I am not successful, based on hundreds if not thousands of similar conversations. This seems to be a very difficult nut to crack, but then I don't think that should be very surprising.
If you don't mind: could you state explicitly whether you will answer the questions I stated above (physically answer them, in this thread)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cycomanic pointed it out thoroughly enough that I'd only be repeating what they said. One of your bigger tells however is how you never actually defend your positions. You only attack the others' opinions. You constantly require everyone else to be on the defense while never actually defending your positions yourself. You're not here to engage in debate, you're here to rant.
Are you not aware that you are doing everything you are accusing me of?
I notice you also didn't engage with Cycomanic after he deconstructed your post and called out all of your bad faith tactics. I also pointed out another.
You also like to sneak in hyperbole. You claim I said you were underhanded, when I did no such thing. It's an effort to get me to argue something I never said.
This isn't so much an accusation as just pointing out what you're doing here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think it's mostly the label of "bad faith" that frustrates me. You can re-label it if you don't like the label. To me, if a person is trying to manipulate you, the label "bad faith" is not unjustified. But if that label doesn't work for you, pick another one. > I still question how it could be "bad faith" if she doesn't believe she's acting in bad faith. Because people's intentions and beliefs are not the same as…
> You can re-label it if you don't like the label. To me, if a person is trying to manipulate you, the label "bad faith" is not unjustified. But if that label doesn't work for you, pick another one. Yes, I agree if the person is trying to manipulate you then it'd make sense to label their intentions as bad faith. I guess I choose to believe that people have good intentions even underneath their bad intentions because…
Possibly, but trying to convince other people by making reasoned arguments is good faith communication, not bad faith communication.
> If so, am I engaging in "bad faith" communication because I'm trying to convince you of my perspective and not fully understand your perspective?
Good faith communication doesn't require you to "fully understand" the other person's perspective. Nor does it preclude trying to convince the other person of your perspective. See above.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, so are you saying * "We" had a weak sense of our true gender at age 4 * "We" have a strong sense of our true gender now * Transgender people had a strong sense of their true gender at age 4 > From what I can tell, the vast majority of transgender people will tell you they became aware of it in early childhood. Why would they lie? I can't come up with a speculation that doesn't sound like an absurd straw man. I th…
Ah, is that the main point of disagreement? People are thinking back to their own experience of gender at that age, and then expecting it to be the same for trans kids. I think, as I mentioned, a logical explanation for that is that cis people don't have any reason to think about it. Or at least didn't when we were kids. I've asked my kids, and they're both confident in their gender at a young age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I am happy to answer any questions you pose to me - unless I am overlooking something, I have not missed anything you have asked of me. You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, with which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any, though, we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post. >>He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded l…
> You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, which which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any though.... I replied addressing that. If you are unsatisfied with my reply, please quote the text of the specific question you asked that you believe I did not answer. Note also: I may not hold a position on object level matters - me pushing back on a claim should not be int…
>I replied addressing that. If you are unsatisfied with my reply, please quote the text of the specific question you asked that you believe I did not answer.
and I replied to that reply, concluding from it that you had no substantive material disagreements. If you're unsatisfied with this conclusion, please reply with, for each disagreement, a quote of the claim, what you believe to be wrong about that claim, and your evidence for your assertion that the claim is wrong, and I'll evaluate your evidence to see whether it convincingly supports your doubts.
>perception and reality are similar but different, and that this is extremely important
Indeed, and, this is extremely important: isn't it possible that you only perceive yourself to be in disagreement with what the original poster said, but in reality, you are in total agreement, and have no complaints or criticisms whatsoever? Furthermore, isn't it possible that you only _perceived_ yourself asking the questions you think you asked, and in reality, you did not ask them? Is this a possibility?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you not aware that you are doing everything you are accusing me of?
I'm not and you know it. I notice you also didn't engage with Cycomanic after he deconstructed your post and called out all of your bad faith tactics. I also pointed out another. You also like to sneak in hyperbole. You claim I said you were underhanded, when I did no such thing. It's an effort to get me to argue something I never said. This isn't so much an accusation as just pointing out what you're doing here.