Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

I've never understood what "bad faith" actually means, but I gather it's when someone has no desire to understand a conflicting perspective?

GOOD FAITH: A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person’s dignity, follow generally-accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say. In many cases, they are working together towards a resolution that will be mutually satisfying. “Good faith” is similar to “good will,” in that you wish the other party well and do not intend harm. Each party accepts the other person as a separate individual with autonomous freewill, an independent mind, good and true intentions, and the right to have their own opinions and reach their own conclusions. We see this sort of discussion on display in governmental bodies where representatives of opposing parties refer to each other as “the loyal opposition” or the “honorable” member, and so on. A “discussion” in which both parties are operating in “good faith” can be worthwhile, productive, enlightening, and satisfying, even if no agreement is reached and, in the end, they “agree to disagree.”

BAD FAITH: A “Bad Faith” discussion is one in which one or both of the parties has a hidden, unrevealed agenda—often to dominate or coerce the other individual into compliance or acquiescence of some sort—or lacks basic respect for the rights, dignity, or autonomy of the other party. Disrespect for the other party may include dishonesty. A person engaged in bad faith does not accept the other person as s/he is, but demands that s/he change in order to satisfy his/her requirements or to accept his/her will. A “bad faith” discussion is doomed to fail, as one or both person’s rights, dignity, and autonomy are not respected. A “good faith” argument relies on persuasion to try to convince the other person whereas a “bad faith” argument relies on other means, possibly including intimidation or coercion. “Bad faith” arguments in private life are best exited swiftly, and are generally not effective at swaying hearts and minds. In public life, they are best exposed. As Dale Carnegie expressed it in How to Win Friends and Influence People, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” [This adage appeared earlier as “Convince a man against his will, He’s of the same opinion still.” in the notes of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, 1792, by Mary Wollstonecraft.]In general, it is always best to begin a discussion and to proceed with the presumption of mutual good faith, until or unless proven otherwise.
I would slightly modify the aforegoing to note that such pleasantries as "the loyal opposition" and "the honorable member" are signifiers intended to formally encode good faith norms, though in practice they can be used sarcastically or become empty phrases, so I'd caution the reader that a debate using this kind of language isn't necessarily one where Good Faith is actually on display.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Some of my meteorite jewelry has developed some minor cracks, and others are showing some oxidation that is obscuring crystalline structures.
Rather than calling them "cracks," I like to refer to it as "cratering."

I said it survived millions of miles of space, but I didn't mean "undamaged"...

Seriously speaking, I don't think non-scientists appreciate just how damaging the environmental conditions on Earth really are, cosmically speaking.
 


My mind immediately went from:
Emperor Joseph II: My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.

To:
Hannibal Lecter: My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many cuts, that's all. Just hold back a few and it will be perfect.
I suppose it was a deep cut, but I was referencing Douglas Adams. Though I can see getting to either or both of those.
 


Rather than calling them "cracks," I like to refer to it as "cratering."

I said it survived millions of miles of space, but I didn't mean "undamaged"...

Seriously speaking, I don't think non-scientists appreciate just how damaging the environmental conditions on Earth really are, cosmically speaking.
And also necessary for complex life. Oxygen packs so much energy but is also chemically stable which makes it uniquely valuable. It seems probably that intelligent life anywhere in the universe would use oxygen, because chemistry demands it (See here for a classic paper).
 


Sometimes, it’s surprising. Diamonds are the hardest natural mineral, and are facetable because they have a property called cleavage. Hit with force at certain angles, and you can literally just nick a piece clean off. And because of this, diamonds set in rings are usually well protected by metal and other stones. But every once in a while, you’ll whack your hand at just the right angle, with just enough force…

(Yes, I have chipped diamonds in my rings.)

Other minerals, while technically on the softer side, don’t crack easily and are more likely to be scratched than chipped or broken. A little polishing, and they’re almost good as new.

My old boss was talking more about brittleness than softness. As you say, a scratch is one thing, having the whole stone shatter or at least have a massive chip off of it was something else.

Some of my meteorite jewelry has developed some minor cracks, and others are showing some oxidation that is obscuring crystalline structures.*

I can do things about the latter, but the former is permanent.

Yeah, that's an intrinsic issue with stones with siginificant metallic content (though the beryls have the advantage their main metallic content is pretty oxidation resistant itself).
 

That's part of it. A person arguing in bad faith is set in their opinions, they want to "win" the argument no matter what, and they're not going to let any pesky facts or logic get in their way. They may also use under-handed tactics to "win".

Yeah, the gamifying of their arguments is what gets tiresome right quick.
 

I would slightly modify the aforegoing to note that such pleasantries as "the loyal opposition" and "the honorable member" are signifiers intended to formally encode good faith norms, though in practice they can be used sarcastically or become empty phrases, so I'd caution the reader that a debate using this kind of language isn't necessarily one where Good Faith is actually on display.

One of the things often embedded in bad faith arguments is both the assumption and the insistence that the other party share all the same basic premises you do, and unwillingness to cede any of those premises or step back and consider them first (admittedly, sometimes that gets so into the weeds its not worth it, but you can at least be honest about that and not get aggressive about insisting the other person must share those premises or they're bad people in one fashion or another. "I don't share your premise so I don't accept your conclusion" should be an acceptable phrase in a discussion).
 

Remove ads

Top