Jump to content
Troy

A Field Guide to "Bad Faith" Arguments

Recommended Posts

Stickyflames

Haha yeah, pretty much.

The amount of times I have heard about tone, civility, proof of unpurity etc.

It is completely sane to discuss the shortcomings of both points of view but it often always ends in wheel spinning and a civil shake of hands while the world burns. 

I notice we more progressive types can definitely lean towards strawman arguments. 

Where we declare who the other person is  based on one perspective they might share. This often leaves the other person more defensive because they feel misinterpreted. I definitely can be a learner in that area. Other than that, the rest ( including strawman) is pretty much every conservative person I ever encounter.

  • LIKE/LOVE 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wendy

I'm keeping this in my email for handy access.  Thank you @Troy

  • LIKE/LOVE 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy
14 hours ago, Stickyflames said:

I notice we more progressive types can definitely lean towards strawman arguments.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here, so after reading the examples below, maybe you will have some examples from the progressive side that I may have missed. I think the author of the article I posted didn't give a very good explanation of strawmanning.

 

“A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.”

 

Here’s a very simple example: 

 

Person A: I think we should stop eating animals because we don’t need to eat animals and eating animals causes so much suffering and environmental destruction.

Person B: Not everyone who eats meat is evil, you know. 

Person A: I never said that.

Person B: But I eat meat and you are saying it causes so much suffering, so I must be evil for eating meat. 

Person A: No one said anything about being evil; I’m just trying to bring awareness to the consequences of our diet so we can make better choices.

Person B: Well, you won’t win anyone over by calling them evil. 

 

Person B created a Straw Man (you called me evil) so now we are talking about that, instead of the original and legitimate issue. 

 

Another example:

 

White Person A: We have to check our White Privilege for blind spots that keep us from understanding the struggles that people of color face.

White Person B: So, you are calling me a racist?

 

You see where it’s going? Now the conversation would be all about Person B not wanting to be called a racist when no one called him one.

 

Or here’s a recent one:

 

Female A, B, C, D, etc: Joe Biden needs to know that his affectionate caresses, sniffing of hair, holding from behind, and slow kisses are not always appropriate or welcomed.

Population: Oh, for God’s sake, he’s not a rapist!!

Population: Oh, he didn't mean it like THAT!

Population: Oh, that's just how he is!

Population: Oh, he is so creepy!!

 

Now the conversation is about whether Joe Biden is a rapist, or about his intentions, or about his innocence, or about his creepiness... rather than about the original issue of asking people to be more conscious of other people’s personal space and not to assume over-familiarity with strangers. 

 

Strawmanning isn’t when we call out bad behavior or problematic issues that are valid and legitimate. For instance, if we say that supporting Trump means supporting White Supremacist ideology, therefore a Trump follower supports White Supremacy, that’s not Strawmanning. That’s a legitimate equation. 

 

 

64FD2A8E-4627-4B32-8711-59CF9DF4AD42.jpeg

  • LIKE/LOVE 7
  • LOL 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CurvyWords

Thanks so much for posting this, I'm def going to just share it the next time someone tries to tell me to listen to Candace Owens. I was sooo frustrated watching coverage of the hearing because of her bad faith arguments and NONSENSE.

  • LIKE/LOVE 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ihynz

Oh gawd! just had this exchange with a FB group called "Chicagoland Native Plants" who posted a photo of flowers that are not native to this region, they  are native to Turkey. I pointed out they were not native, with link to my source (cuz I'm a scholar lol). Someone said that yes, they are not native, that's why they were labeled "non-native." I said oh, I just thought ... the name of the group...kinda mattered. And someone told me to "calm down." I wasn't NOT calm!!!

  • LIKE/LOVE 1
  • LOL 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew

Thanks for this breakdown, Troy!  I've totally given up on trying to breathe any rationality into online discussions. As such I have deleted social media accounts of mine and don't watch much news media anymore either.  That shits depressing!  Honestly it's done me a world of good.  I certainly understand the need to address and combat the lunatic fringe that seems to have amplified its voice and influence to be much larger than it should be.  But personally, I've engaged in enough discussions, both online and in person, that quickly devolve into bad faith arguments that I'm pretty much entirely turned off from trying to share my perspectives with people that are totally uninterested in anything that could shake their beliefs. People hate being wrong, or being told that everything they believe is wrong or harmful.  I hate being wrong too, and it's something I struggle with.  But I'm open to being proven wrong, and I'm okay accepting it. But as is seen in contemporary discourse, people will go to great lengths to avoid having their opinions invalidated. A little anecdote: I spent nearly 6 hours, not even debating, with my partners cousin over why he shouldn't use racial epithets. I can't believe i wasted that much time as nothing changed on his end. I presented every bit of logic and reason i could and got absolutely nowhere.  I had casually debated him previously on different topics. We're very different people. But his go-to when he didnt have a reasonable counter was to cite a logical fallacy he believed i had committed.  I tried to tell him that he must not know what 'appeal to nature' was, because he was using that argument wrong too.  Anyhow.

 

A little off topic and maybe something for a thread of its own, unless it's already been discussed elsewhere.  Do you think a lot of the strife and toxic discourse going on, not just in politics, but the general animosity it feels like people have towards each other, is part of America slowly inching into a mature soul phase?  Maybe I just never noticed it before, but damn are people grumpy! A friendly "good morning" and a smile are met with a scowl and slight look of fear maybe 4/5 times I say it!

  • LIKE/LOVE 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy
9 hours ago, Troubadour said:

Trigger warning. IDW. 

Ricky Gervais and Sam Harris in conversation. 

 

Yeah, promoting and normalizing a racist bigot will be triggering. I love the oxymoron of "intellectual" dark web. And I love that this is a conversation between two straight white males who have been inconvenienced by the horrors of considering other people. Ugh. So typical and insular and toxic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stickyflames
12 hours ago, Troubadour said:

These are just babies though?

adults don’t whine about considering other people/beings.

I am confused why this conversation is important enough to share?

You can talk about extreme politically correct policing and STILL empathize, care, listen and consider others.

These men are literally grown babies who are anti policing of words but also anti listening/ evolving/ considering.

Edited by Stickyflames
  • LIKE/LOVE 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CurvyWords

ANYWAYZZ I'm gonna take this opportunity to plug my alternate timeline husband's new book. Michael Brooks of the Michael Brooks Show and Minority Report is coming out with a new book this fall, tentatively titled: Against The Web: A Cosmopolitian Socialist Answer to the IDW & the New Right You can read about Michael and the book here and watch Michael make fun of Sam Harris in this video:

 

 

Edited by Troy
typo, fixed start time of video
  • LIKE/LOVE 4
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troubadour

http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/dr-cornel-west

Trigger warning. IDW.

Joe Rogan and Dr. Cornel West in conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy
16 hours ago, Troubadour said:

http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/dr-cornel-west

Trigger warning. IDW.

Joe Rogan and Dr. Cornel West in conversation.

 

@Troubadour, would you share with us the point of what you are trying to do by just dropping unrelated links that require trigger warnings in this thread? I really don't get what you are trying to do, but I know it's mostly in bad faith. I plan to delete these to help preserve the focus of our conversation in response to the original post. If you want to start your own conversation, please start a new thread in a proper forum category.

  • LIKE/LOVE 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troubadour
4 minutes ago, Troy said:

would you share with us the point of what you are trying to do by just dropping unrelated links that require trigger warnings in this thread? I really don't get what you are trying to do, but I know it's mostly in bad faith. I plan to delete these to help preserve the focus of our conversation in response to the original post. If you want to start your own conversation, please start a new thread in a proper forum category.

It's not done in bad faith, Troy. The trigger warning is to alert those who are triggered. The conversations above are related to the 'bad faith' argument and  contain differing perspectives on many issues that may be of interest to old souls attempting to cultivate a balanced view of the world today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy
19 minutes ago, Troubadour said:

The conversations above are related to the 'bad faith' argument and  contain differing perspectives on many issues that may be of interest to old souls attempting to cultivate a balanced view of the world today

 

Claiming you are posting these as "a balanced view" is a great example of contributing bad faith to a discussion. You aren't offering a balanced view at all. A balanced view does not push racist, sexism bigotry as a valid subject worth debating. Sure, the Cornel West interview is an anomaly in the "intellectual" dark web circle of butt hurt straight men and the comments in response to the podcast in various locations where it is posted proves that those who praise this "intellectual" dark web are just lovers of the dog whistle that spreads a spectrum of racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, xenophobic bigotry. 

 

If you want a balance view, try to stop listening to those giving credibility to such toxic ideologies.

  • LIKE/LOVE 4
  • THANK YOU! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troubadour
16 minutes ago, Troy said:

butt hurt straight men

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy
6 minutes ago, Troubadour said:

?

Yeah... "Butt hurt straight men" .... as in... men who fear losing their positions of power, fear sharing a platform of equality, are terrified that people are not taking their presumptuous masculine dominance seriously and then use "intellect" and "rational" fronts to hide behind while promoting their toxic ideologies. "Butt hurt" is slang that refers to the behavior of toddlers who fall back and slam themselves on their butts and then throw tantrums. It's come to mean "overly or unjustifiably resentful." This "intellectual dark web" attracts mostly men who are seriously and dangerously resentful of progress toward inclusion, equality, sharing of power, and fluidity of gender and sexuality.

  • LIKE/LOVE 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Janet

@Troubadour -- Why do you think any of us would want to listen to a 2-hour podcast in order to try to determine what you think it contributes to this conversation? If there are points in that podcast that you believe are actually relevant, then either summarize the points here or identify the specific time markers that are relevant to whatever point you're trying to make. 

  • LIKE/LOVE 3
  • THANK YOU! 3
  • LOL 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stickyflames

I was listening to Dave Rubbins podcast last week. He had a podcast with Eckhart Tolle and Marianne Williamson. 

The Marianne Williamson one showcased a good example of what balanced perspective and an unbalanced perspective looks like.

She was very honest in perspectives. She commended on the left burning their own , she gave an eye roll to the performance of politicians switching between English and Spanish on the debate stage. 

Dave Rubbins on the other hand would throw comments out like " Marianne, you hosted a townhouse meeting where you asked all the white people to turn towards a person of colour to apologize and take responsibility for their role in healing....Why should I feel GUILTY about something other white people did in the past?"

 

She responded back with something along the lines of " Responsibility is not guilt. Whether we like it or not we have a debt handed down to us and a responsible for helping heal the racial divide in the country"

 

He refused to see it as anything other than guilt.

 

One moment he mentioned " You can't compare the holocaust to slavery...slavery was not nearly as bad, they did not all die! So America should not repent like Germany did. It just was not as bad"

 

She was very taken back by that, as any sane person would be..." How can you possibly say that about abject slavery, Dave?"

 

This was a great example. A real balanced approach sees the nonsense, sees shit as it is but takes responsibility for moving towards inclusivity and healing.

These other people who claim to be the other side of the story....that is not balance, that is self defence. Defence from evolution.

Edited by Stickyflames
  • LIKE/LOVE 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troubadour
16 minutes ago, Stickyflames said:

 

I was listening to Dave Rubbins podcast last week. He had a podcast with Eckhart Tolle and Marianne Williamson. 

The Marianne Williamson one showcased a good example of what balanced perspective and an unbalanced perspective looks like.

She was very honest in perspectives. She commended on the left burning their own , she gave an eye roll to the performance of politicians switching between English and Spanish on the debate stage. 

Dave Rubbins on the other hand would throw comments out like " Marianne, you hosted a townhouse meeting where you asked all the white people to turn towards a person of colour to apologize and take responsibility for their role in healing....Why should I feel GUILTY about something other white people did in the past?"

 

She responded back with something along the lines of " Responsibility is not guilt. Whether we like it or not we have a debt handed down to us and our responsible for helping heal the racial divide in the country"

 

He refused to see it as anothing other than guilt.

 

One moment he mentioned " You can't compare the holocaust to slavery...slavery was not nearly as bad, they did not all die! So America should not repent like Germany did. It just was not as bad"

 

She was very taken back by that, as any sane person would be..." How can you possibly say that about abject slavery, Dave?"

 

This was a great example. A real balanced approach sees the nonsense, sees shit as it is but takes responsibility for moving towards inclusivity and healing.

These other people who claim to be the other side of the story....that is not balance, that is self defence. Defence from evolution.

 

It's great that you are listening to Dave Rubin and have a contrary opinion to his. My understanding of the issue is enhanced by listening to the conversation and hearing your opinion on the matter. BTW. I think Marianne Williamson got it right and Dave Rubins outlook was shown to be flawed in this matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CurvyWords

This actually kinda sucks. TLE is one of the few places I can come and not have to deal with trolling (even subtle, intellectualized, bad faith "i just want to hear both sides" shitty centrist trolling that @Troubadour engages in). Is there a way to block people on here? 

  • LIKE/LOVE 4
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stickyflames
23 minutes ago, Troubadour said:

It's great that you are listening to Dave Rubin and have a contrary opinion to his. My understanding of the issue is enhanced by listening to the conversation and hearing your opinion on the matter. BTW. I think Marianne Williamson got it right and Dave Rubins outlook was shown to be flawed in this matter. 

Share your perspectives with us here.  

Nobody here knows your point of views on these links you share because you never share them.

Because you never share them, we can only assume you are in support of the links you provide to us.

 

I deeply respect balanced perspectives.

I also understand we can have a very skewed idea of balance.

As far as I am concerned, it if does not nurture the creative human spirit, is not inclusive, is not aiming for evolution, is not aiming for more responsibility towards collectively healing each other from the injustices of the world....it has no place in the conversation of balance.

  • LIKE/LOVE 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troubadour
17 minutes ago, Stickyflames said:

Share your perspectives with us here. 

 

53 minutes ago, Troubadour said:

BTW. I think Marianne Williamson got it right and Dave Rubins outlook was shown to be flawed in this matter.

I would answer this with quotes from the thread 'Revisiting my position on Trump followers' but the thread was closed and cannot be quoted from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian

Dave rubin is a hack and a sellout.

 

He has 5 talking points.

 

He's gay.  Yes ge uses that as a talking point usually right before he says something bigoted.

 

He is a "classical liberal"  which is a meaningless term.

 

The left is responsible for everything wrong.  The left don't want to engage with big idea.

 

The Marianne interview proved why.

 

He is not interested in a conversation. He is interested only in spouting his talkong points which are straight out of the prager not a U playbook.

 

She reponded appropriately to level of ignorance Dave displays on a daily basis.

 

Finally, he spouts his love of big ideas.  As long as those idea are conservative ones. Marianne exposed that.  He had nothing to respond to her with except vacuous talking points that were suppose to be come back that very often had nothimg to do with what she was just talking about.

 

So yeah.  Don't listen to Rubin.  

 

Joe Rogan isn't worth the time either.  For everytime he has a Cornell west on the show he has 5 fascists on.

 

There is not a both sides issue. The side that Joe rogan and Dave Rubin represent aim for more oppression and sustaining the hierarchy.

 

The other side wants to dimantle all that and ya know maybe treat humans humanely.

 

 

  • LIKE/LOVE 4
  • THANK YOU! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...