The endgames of bad faith communication

That's the academic concept of discussion, which is a very fine and respectable (not to mention important) thing.

Sometimes you do have to persuade, because action is required.

For instance, it is important to persuade non-believers in human-caused global warming; it's not just about improving their intellectual position.

My initial grievance is here:

>> (someone) The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons.

> (me) Who is it that's actually doing the confusing here? It's certainly possible that Greenwald is dog-whistling "bioresearch lab" into "bioweapons", but is he actually doing that, and to a large degree (mostly, etc)?

Here one human is accusing another human (or several), whom he doesn't know, of speaking deliberately deceivingly, making ~invalid associations between things, etc - a not abnormal interpretation of this might be something like "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, he's trying to tell a tall tale, he might even be a conspiracy theorist".

At the very least, there's little acknowledgement I see about the complexities and uncertainty involved. This is but one of my overall complaints about culture war arguments, people play so fast and loose with the truth. If there's a post about computing on HN, attention to detail and emphasis on correctness is bountiful and uncontroversial. But in a culture war conversation, I proclaim that the inverse is true - and, I also think this abstract phenomenon is a big deal in the big scheme of things.

> 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?

Of course, why not.

But you brought up solipsism earlier:

>> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself.

Perhaps you cannot (or will not) think in these terms without falling into a state of solipsism (or impotency due to indecision, another common complaint), but it's certainly not necessary. It is possible to address these ideas as they are, and take them seriously (as opposed to representing that they are silly, woo woo, bad faith, whatever). Perhaps it is not possible in the mainstream, in 2022, but it is possible.

And one can presume you disagree with them.

The evidence supporting their position is convincing, you may now present your evidence to the contrary, and I'll determine whose position between the two of you is more tenable given the evidence.

You see, raising questions does not add to any position in particular -- if you have questions, feel free to find the answers, and hopefully they will be ones which make your case more convincing than the case you are arguing against.

>Perhaps you cannot...

I think it is a bit primitive to make assumptions about what I can or cannot do. Perhaps I address these ideas better than you can comprehend, and you just _PERCEIVE_ it to be biting satire that cuts any hypothetical similarly-structured dissembling to the bone

Feel free to ask them of yourself, if they help you arrive at a case more convincing than the one you are arguing against. As judge of your two's dispute, my own inputs shouldn't be necessary for you to make your case convincingly. If it is, your case is bad.

>>The evidence supporting their position is convincing, you may now present your evidence to the contrary, and I'll determine whose position between the two of you is more tenable given the evidence.

>Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)?

The points of contention you have with the original post are for you to clarify in some detail. If you have no point of contention with their post, IE you agree with it, then I guess there's no disagreement.

>"Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief

I don't recall arguing otherwise, so not sure what you're getting at here.

> I wonder what is true!

One heuristic is, whatever you think is true, even if multiple people speak to the contrary. It's not a great heuristic, but _some_people_ use it. Eye roll emoji.