Ask Lemmy

26664 readers

2247 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

AsudoxDev

How might one co-opt bad faith methods to spread helpful, good information instead? (lemm.ee)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/22757703, but revised to try to find less individual focused ideas/responses.

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 made me wonder if there might be some ways to play off of these approaches to spread beneficial information more than the harmful info they've otherwise enabled to abound. What might be some ways to pass along helpful or generally benign info without getting as caught in the weeds explaining things, continuing to allow more harmful info to flourish?

For those unfamiliar, here are the quotes in question:

“Never 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] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's kind of interesting that yours is the first reply in this vein that I've seen so far. I honestly expected more.

I think though that there's possibly more of a gray to this, which is why I was asking. Think somewhere in the space of white lies, benign comments that aren't as forthcoming as some might prefer, but they often serve to make someone feel a little better, and who knows, maybe that feeling better helps lift their self-esteem enough to improve themselves so that the white lies fall away to be honest compliments or comments.