Bad Faith and Sealioning

[UngainlyTitan]

Did not realize until I got to the end that this was a necroed thread but internet arguments cannot be won or lost. There are no real stakes and no adjudication of victory. Many people cannot give the other the last word and once the same points have been gone over more than once it is time to drop the conversation and move on.
If more people did that there would be less accusations of sealioning.
Though what the poor sealions did to get tagged with this I will never know. I will also admit that I have to look up the expression a number of times.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Well, that's my point, though. We have this thought that "bad faith" applies only to deliberate, willful choice, when in reality it doesn't. You can be yammering along, thinking you are a bright, alert, and open minded part of a discussion, when you don't realize that you really are not.

I think you conflating here...
Good Faith relates to honesty and sincerity of intention
Bad Faith would be the opposite
"Bright, alert and open-minded" or their opposites do not enter that discussion.

 

[Umbran]

I think you conflating here...
Good Faith relates to honesty and sincerity of intention
Bad Faith would be the opposite
"Bright, alert and open-minded" or their opposites do not enter that discussion.

The large part of my point is that those definitions for Good/Bad Faith are at best incomplete, and at worst just incorrect.

With that in mind, bright and alert are qualitative, but somewhat relevant. And open-minded is certainly relevant. Arguing as if your mind could be changed or that you will accept evidence contrary to your position, when it cannot and you will not, is a quintessential example of "bad faith".

 

[cranberry]

This isn't a political or science forum where facts are facts, and if the person denies the evidence provided, there isn't much point in continuing the conversation. Best just to ignore.

Just about everything in TTRPGs is opinion unless you are discussing RAW, and that information is usually easy to verify. (unless the rules are ambiguous, in which case it falls back into opinion)

 

[Belen]

It is ENWorld. This behavior has been happening for 20 years or more. It is constant. You state an opinion and you get bombarded by calls to justify it with examples and proof in an effort to generate a "gotcha" moment to prove your opinion is wrong.

Sometimes, it is best not to keep responding to that person.

Usually, I get where the opposite poster is coming from in their arguments. The big thing that annoys me is when someone cannot admit that there is any truth in the other persons view.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've had to work out the habit that when a topic seems to have circled around for the third time, its time to walk away, because its not natural to me. But not only are you unlikely to convince someone of your point by that part of the cycle, any useful/interesting side discussion will have been exhausted by then.

I also find the phrase "I don't accept your premise so any argument toward your conclusion is not useful" to sometimes be helpful, as it either convinces the other person to back up and see if anything can be done with the premise, or convinces them that its a waste of time discussing it with me.

 

[FrogReaver]

The large part of my point is that those definitions for Good/Bad Faith are at best incomplete, and at worst just incorrect.

With that in mind, bright and alert are qualitative, but somewhat relevant. And open-minded is certainly relevant. Arguing as if your mind could be changed or that you will accept evidence contrary to your position, when it cannot and you will not, is a quintessential example of "bad faith".

Counterpoint: One doesn’t know what might change their mind until they see it. If they did then their mind would have already been changed.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Counterpoint: One doesn’t know what might change their mind until they see it. If they did then their mind would have already been changed.

True but seeing it is not enough, often it takes time after seeing to consider it and then the mind is changed. A lot of Umbran's points are still valid. There are also people that think that their opinion is based on facts and that they will change their mind if presented with contrary evidence when in practise they are not open to changing their mind.
People are also good at lying to themselves.

 

[Thomas Shey]

True but seeing it is not enough, often it takes time after seeing to consider it and then the mind is changed.

I'm notorious for this among people who know me well. I'll have an extended discussion with people I know, stick to my guns, then mull it over overnight and come back and say "You know what, I've concluded you're right". Its like I need to mentally chew on the conversation for a while before I properly engage with it.

 

[Ombre29]

To understand sealioning, watch the (good) movie heretic (with Hugh Grant). It appears to be a good rendation of the theme