I personally always assume good faith. I can’t read people’s minds. On the Internet, I can’t even see facial expressions or hear how they’re saying it. It’s like that Key and Peele text message sketch.
When one assumes bad faith, one is assuming guilt. That isn’t fair. I have found it better to assume innocence, to adopt Judge Blackstone’s ratio over Judge Dredd’s.
I think it’s fair to assume those when people openly support a movement that visibly takes away the rights of marginalized groups and kills innocent people.
In some discussions, faith, good or bad, doesn’t matter. If a politician says that ducks have three feet, whether they say that in good faith or not, it’s wrong. So it’s still best to assume good faith and logically explain how it is incorrect. To respond to such a statement with an accusation is a fallacy.
The analogy you’re providing is fallacious because unlike nonsensical singular statements about ducks (an ethically neutral statement), what we’re actually getting is people consistently defending various forms of hate that endangers minorities and marginalized people. They rarely, if ever - and it is my opinion that this almost never occurs - respond to reason. People being purposefully obtuse and heartless within discussions do not really deserve logical vigour or effort. You could try, but it’s a waste of time and energy, and it’ll just put one in a bad mood.
This is still a fallacious analogy because it’s clearly exaggerated/fictitious and nobody argues like this. If it was instead:
A: We should torture indigenous people by killing their offspring in front of them.
B: You are acting in bad faith
Is totally acceptable - anyone arguing something like point A is most certainly not engaging in a ‘‘good faith’’ discussion, it’s plain common sense that they aren’t.
If you want to argue in terms of strict ‘‘logic’’, ‘‘faith’’ isn’t even something that would ever ‘‘follow’’ from a statement anyway, so to say that following a statement with ‘‘you’re acting in bad faith’’ is a ‘‘non-sequitur’’ is a meaningless statement. Unless you’re reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ‘‘hey everyone, I’m acting in bad faith!’’ (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.
How do you determine what’s not in good faith?
I would imagine this would tie to values, but do those become the unquestionable object, then?
That’s a great question and I’m not sure I have a definitive answer. For lack of better description, it would be the vibe I got from them:
I personally always assume good faith. I can’t read people’s minds. On the Internet, I can’t even see facial expressions or hear how they’re saying it. It’s like that Key and Peele text message sketch.
Even with MAGAts and the wave of red that’s ever-present online?
When one assumes bad faith, one is assuming guilt. That isn’t fair. I have found it better to assume innocence, to adopt Judge Blackstone’s ratio over Judge Dredd’s.
I think it’s fair to assume those when people openly support a movement that visibly takes away the rights of marginalized groups and kills innocent people.
In some discussions, faith, good or bad, doesn’t matter. If a politician says that ducks have three feet, whether they say that in good faith or not, it’s wrong. So it’s still best to assume good faith and logically explain how it is incorrect. To respond to such a statement with an accusation is a fallacy.
The analogy you’re providing is fallacious because unlike nonsensical singular statements about ducks (an ethically neutral statement), what we’re actually getting is people consistently defending various forms of hate that endangers minorities and marginalized people. They rarely, if ever - and it is my opinion that this almost never occurs - respond to reason. People being purposefully obtuse and heartless within discussions do not really deserve logical vigour or effort. You could try, but it’s a waste of time and energy, and it’ll just put one in a bad mood.
Even with an ethical element tied to the statement, an accusation of bad faith is a bit of a non sequitur.
A: We should torture ducks and masturbate to their suffering because they have three feet.
B: You are acting in bad faith.
This is still a fallacious analogy because it’s clearly exaggerated/fictitious and nobody argues like this. If it was instead:
A: We should torture indigenous people by killing their offspring in front of them.
B: You are acting in bad faith
Is totally acceptable - anyone arguing something like point A is most certainly not engaging in a ‘‘good faith’’ discussion, it’s plain common sense that they aren’t.
If you want to argue in terms of strict ‘‘logic’’, ‘‘faith’’ isn’t even something that would ever ‘‘follow’’ from a statement anyway, so to say that following a statement with ‘‘you’re acting in bad faith’’ is a ‘‘non-sequitur’’ is a meaningless statement. Unless you’re reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ‘‘hey everyone, I’m acting in bad faith!’’ (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.
I assume good faith unless clear evidence indicates otherwise. I try to adopt a more general version of WP:AGF in life.