this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
31 points (94.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43736 readers
2353 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
31
How might one turn bad faith on its head to help rather than harm? (lemm.ee)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In thinking on the classic Sartre quote concerning the folly of arguing with anti-Semites as if they're arguing in good faith, as well as the Swift quote regarding reasoning being unable to correct an ill opinion one didn't reason themselves into...It's left me thinking that perhaps a way to alter the path of those astray is to "play" them out of it, so to speak, but what might this look like?

After all, despite Sartre's last somewhat optimistic sentence, you may easily find that many that argue in bad faith rarely fall silent for long, if at all, when pressed.

For those unfamiliar, here are the quotes in question:β€œNever believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre

And: "Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired." ― Jonathan Swift.

(This second one takes on various forms.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In my experience, it's most important to give them a path to leave their position without losing face.

Many times, it may look like someone is arguing in bad faith, even though they're really just wrong about something or may even just have a different perspective on things.
If you approach them by saying "Hey, this is a common misconception, here's why it's wrong." or "Hey, my experience is like this, is yours different?", then they can easily come back around and learn from you, or teach you something.
If you're assuming they're arguing in bad faith, chances are, they think the same of you, so breaking that up before you try to bring in your best arguments, is in the interest of everyone involved.

For the rare cases that someone is genuinely arguing in bad faith (i.e. trolling, really), I find it most effective to make it clear that you're not personally invested in them not being an asshole. If they want to be intolerant, so be it.
But that does not mean that you tolerate their intolerance. If they're intolerant, they break with the social contract of tolerance and will be treated as lesser.
That way, you:

  • nix the fun of trolling you.
  • make it clear that they're being dumb.
  • give them a clear path out of there (i.e. simply not being an asshole).
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I think this is all pretty good advice, thanks!

However, this & the other replies, have made me realize I should have taken more time with the body text of this question. What I was a little more interested in was less the one-on-one interactions, and more something like..."How might one co-opt bad faith methods to spread helpful, good information?"

It's so easy to to toss out bad, harmful information, but might there be some ways to more easily put out good, helpful information that sticks with people? Or at a minimum, more benign info that doesn't gradually push people down darker paths? πŸ€”