I never said people should “agree to disagree”, and people should debate opinions they think are bad. A good debate can show strengths and weaknesses of arguments.
People have tried this for ages. It has not worked. These bigots are not debating in good faith. The only response is the verbal or legal equivalent of bapping them on the nose with a newspaper and going, “NO! BAD!”
Debate does not work if they are not arguing in good faith
While i agree with the spirit of what you’re saying here, I’d just like to add that’s it is important to not let these bad faith arguments go unanswered. Anybody that reads the conversation later on will (hopefully) see one side is trying to have a debate/conversation, while the other side is basically full of it.
Arguing in bad faith is advantageous because your arguments are able appeal to existing biases or emotional responses or “common sense.” Those biases, emotional responses, and “common sense” are by definition conservative and populist and so they hurt marginalized groups and stand in the way of progress. A rational debate requires a certain level of disconnected and objective reasoning, which bad faith arguments do not do. It also requires the principle of charity, where you interpret your opponent’s argument in the most charitable way rather than rejecting it outright or latching on to some detail they got wrong. Bad faith arguments don’t do that either.
This is why uneducated people and people with limited life experience are more likely to be conservative as well, they only know the default culture they absorbed through their existence, and new ideas are scary. They’re scary for everyone, at first, but progressives are just people who have become accustomed to them and allowed their knee jerk reactions to succumb to reason.
If your goal is to win an argument, then using bad faith offers no advantage.
If your goal is just to do whatever the fuck you want, to not reveal (or possible even have) your actual motives, or to badger people into giving up the exchange, then arguing in bad faith is highly resistant to considered arguments and offers a never-ending supply of counters.
to not reveal (or possible even have) your actual motives,
Yes, if the hidden motives are to irritate, waste time or troll the other person
or to badger people into giving up the exchange,
Here it’s more the other way around. The bad faith accuser gets to quit while claiming victory. If someone’s arguments are not logical then they should just be called out.
By doing so you’re validating those opinions and giving fringe nut job opinions the same airtime (and therefore the same weight and import) as non bat shit opinions.
The BBC is particularly bad for this, in the interest of being “balanced” they give climate change denier loons space alongside highly researched climate scientists. That’s not balance though, because it makes it seem like the loons views are just as valid as the scientists.
Of course not, she just believes in protections for “natal” women, or at least that’s where all this started. The reaction to that seemed to radicalise her, which is a pattern I’m seeing a lot of.
If you wanted to "debate"something like whether black people have lower IQ based on their head shape, we’d rightfully call you a racist piece of shit.
There’s nothing to debate when it comes to how Rowling attacked a non-trans person, stated that she was a man who enjoyed beating up women, and led a public campaign against her using her influence.
What exactly is the point that you think is up for debate?
I never said people should “agree to disagree”, and people should debate opinions they think are bad. A good debate can show strengths and weaknesses of arguments.
People have tried this for ages. It has not worked. These bigots are not debating in good faith. The only response is the verbal or legal equivalent of bapping them on the nose with a newspaper and going, “NO! BAD!”
Debate does not work if they are not arguing in good faith
While i agree with the spirit of what you’re saying here, I’d just like to add that’s it is important to not let these bad faith arguments go unanswered. Anybody that reads the conversation later on will (hopefully) see one side is trying to have a debate/conversation, while the other side is basically full of it.
What is the advantage of someone arguing in bad faith?
Isn’t labeling someone “bad faith” just an excuse not to respond in a considered manner?
Arguing in bad faith is advantageous because your arguments are able appeal to existing biases or emotional responses or “common sense.” Those biases, emotional responses, and “common sense” are by definition conservative and populist and so they hurt marginalized groups and stand in the way of progress. A rational debate requires a certain level of disconnected and objective reasoning, which bad faith arguments do not do. It also requires the principle of charity, where you interpret your opponent’s argument in the most charitable way rather than rejecting it outright or latching on to some detail they got wrong. Bad faith arguments don’t do that either.
This is why uneducated people and people with limited life experience are more likely to be conservative as well, they only know the default culture they absorbed through their existence, and new ideas are scary. They’re scary for everyone, at first, but progressives are just people who have become accustomed to them and allowed their knee jerk reactions to succumb to reason.
Thanks for your comments on bad faith arguments, listening and responding to the opponent is essential for a decent discussion.
Bad faith arguments are probably prioritising publicising their own opinion, rather than trying to change others (or their own).
If your goal is to win an argument, then using bad faith offers no advantage.
If your goal is just to do whatever the fuck you want, to not reveal (or possible even have) your actual motives, or to badger people into giving up the exchange, then arguing in bad faith is highly resistant to considered arguments and offers a never-ending supply of counters.
Here, not engaging has no effect.
Yes, if the hidden motives are to irritate, waste time or troll the other person
Here it’s more the other way around. The bad faith accuser gets to quit while claiming victory. If someone’s arguments are not logical then they should just be called out.
A persons existence and identity are not opinions. There is no debate there. It’s just bigotry.
By doing so you’re validating those opinions and giving fringe nut job opinions the same airtime (and therefore the same weight and import) as non bat shit opinions.
The BBC is particularly bad for this, in the interest of being “balanced” they give climate change denier loons space alongside highly researched climate scientists. That’s not balance though, because it makes it seem like the loons views are just as valid as the scientists.
Ok debate the strengths and weaknesses of “you don’t get to live”
Go.
Did JK Rowling actually say that?
Of course not, she just believes in protections for “natal” women, or at least that’s where all this started. The reaction to that seemed to radicalise her, which is a pattern I’m seeing a lot of.
Once you’re cast out of the group you’re in, you either embrace the other outsiders or you go it alone. It’s Sherwood Forest writ large.
If you wanted to "debate"something like whether black people have lower IQ based on their head shape, we’d rightfully call you a racist piece of shit.
There’s nothing to debate when it comes to how Rowling attacked a non-trans person, stated that she was a man who enjoyed beating up women, and led a public campaign against her using her influence.
What exactly is the point that you think is up for debate?
Didn’t give oxygen to shitty ideas
It’s an equivalent idea.