Critical Thinking: How we lost The Principle of Charity

marrec · Jan 22, 2019

The Principle of Charity is a philosophical and rhetorical term used to describe the idea that when you are having a discussion with someone, you should try to interpret their specific points in the most charitable way possible.

Study.com has a pretty great explanation of The Principle of Charity:

The principle of charity is particularly important when rhetoric is involved. Rhetoric is a form of communication intended to persuade another person to accept a particular point of view. The principle of charity ensures that we don't disregard the rhetoric of others simply because there are some weaknesses in their argument structure. We can go beyond what the other person says in their argument and look more closely at whether evidence supports their point of view or not. Our own rhetoric will be stronger as well because we have more clearly thought through the issues.

In many ways, this is the opposite of a Strawman and employing it helps prevent you from making a Strawman argument. It's an invaluable tool but it's hard to implement because typically when we are passionately arguing for or against something the LAST thing we want to do is give the person on the other side the benefit of the doubt, the reason I'm creating this thread is because I believe as a movement liberals have completely abandoned this principle in favor of what they believe is the superior form of rhetorical argument, the Strawman.

You see this all the time during heated arguments here on ERA and especially on Twitter where the constraints of 280 characters make argumentative brevity priceless.

Someone will be attempting to articulate their point of view and another person will interpret their articulation in the worst possible light in order to create a strawman that they can easily take down. This drags the discussion into the weeds of interpretation and completely derails any meaningful discussion that could be had. I believe that many liberals on the internet have adopted this style of argument because they mistakenly believe it worked well for the alt-right.

The principles of Critical Thinking are more important than ever in 2019 and as a group liberals and leftists should do more to encourage rationality rather than participating in the gatcha politics of the political right.

For further study, The Skeptics Guide to the Universe just did a great segment on The Principle of Charity (which inspired this thread) and Steven Novella has written about it before.

What do you think, does giving people the benefit of the doubt just weaken your rhetorical position and allow dogwhistle politics to promulgate? Or is it an essential part of rational argument?

Mona · Jan 22, 2019

good luck with that, disregarding it is way to much fun for some people

ZackieChan · Jan 22, 2019

Mona said:
good luck with that, disregarding it is way to much fun for some people

You're so transparent

Cocaloch · Jan 22, 2019

The problem is this first requires one to accept that meaningful dissent from your opinion is possible. That's something that seems to be getting increasingly less common in western popular discourse.

The best solution is probably better education in historical methods. Teaching children how to read artifacts created in a very different time and place can impart the necessary skills while removing some of the emotional urgency that clouds the picture in contemporary discourse.

Of course part of the topic should be understanding discourse more broadly, not every piece of discourse needs to be, or even can be, formal or informal debate. Depending on what you're trying to do there might not be much value in understanding the other person that you're talking too.

ahoyhoy · Jan 22, 2019

Gonna assume op is a secret Trump supporter because of this thread.

/s

Good luck trying to introduce best practices to internet arguments though.

excelsiorlef · Jan 22, 2019

Benefit of the doubt is entirely contextual.

No one is owed it though.

spam musubi · Jan 22, 2019

It's because the alt right has poisoned discourse. There is little point in being charitable to someone who is using language only as a weapon. If you try to play that game with them you lose. It's hard to tell the difference between someone who is a troll trying to sneak in alt right points and someone who is legitimately ignorant and could be educated, which is what the alt right wants. They want to break down those who are being charitable, and have them not extend the charity to anyone else either as a result, which then helps them point to the left and go "so much for the tolerant left".

Additionally, being charitable is a privilege of the well-off white man. Minorities don't get the same extended to them. It's hard to be charitable with people who want you to not exist. It's easy to go "woah woah let's have some calm and charitable discourse here" when you're not under attack daily through systematic and otherwise bigotry.

Kirblar · Jan 22, 2019

you should try to interpret their specific points in the most charitable way possible.

No. You should try and interpret their points and rationale in the way that actually takes context into account. Which generally does involve extending the benefit of the doubt, which can quickly be lost.

Mona · Jan 22, 2019

ZackieChan said:
You're so transparent

Arkestry · Jan 22, 2019

I've heard this being referred to as the "Strong" or "Iron" man argument, which is basically the same thing but seen through the lens of the straw man, which is helpful. And I agree, it's a strong tool *if* you actually want to debate and argue with an eye to compromise, rather than just to defeat the other person's point.

Deleted member 15440 · Jan 22, 2019

some of it is being obstinate and convinced of one's own rightness but i think most of it is the growing realization that so many (or even most) people do not argue or discuss things in good faith

ahoyhoy · Jan 22, 2019

Arkestry said:
I've heard this being referred to as the "Strong" or "Iron" man argument, which is basically the same thing but seen through the lens of the straw man, which is helpful. And I agree, it's a strong tool *if* you actually want to debate and argue with an eye to compromise, rather than just to defeat the other person's point.

You don't debate to compromise necessarily (unless you're explicitly seeking to make a deal).

Debate is an excellent way to explore your viewpoints and learn the viewpoints of others. No winners or loses. Unfortunately that's often forgetten and we usually just assume our counterparts are seeking to "beat" us in an argument no matter what.
It really makes the process tedious and frustrating and leads to some extreme reactions.

newline · Jan 22, 2019

The world has become more cynical, I don't think that'll change anytime soon.

Dook's Revenge · Jan 22, 2019

Sus af.

Mona said:
good luck with that, disregarding it is way to much fun for some people

Yep.

Deleted member 8860 · Jan 22, 2019

nynt9 said:
It's because the alt right has poisoned discourse. There is little point in being charitable to someone who is using language only as a weapon. If you try to play that game with them you lose. It's hard to tell the difference between someone who is a troll trying to sneak in alt right points and someone who is legitimately ignorant and could be educated, which is what the alt right wants. They want to break down those who are being charitable, and have them not extend the charity to anyone else either as a result, which then helps them point to the left and go "so much for the tolerant left".

Additionally, being charitable is a privilege of the well-off white man. Minorities don't get the same extended to them. It's hard to be charitable with people who want you to not exist. It's easy to go "woah woah let's have some calm and charitable discourse here" when you're not under attack daily through systematic and otherwise bigotry.

I think the OP is more in reference to how liberals (and Era posters) eat their own by overanalyzing non-controversial statements and using multiple degrees of separation to cast the worst possible light upon what are minor faux gaffes. It often doesn't even rise to the level of "ignorance".

Crossing Eden · Jan 22, 2019

nynt9 said:
It's because the alt right has poisoned discourse. There is little point in being charitable to someone who is using language only as a weapon. If you try to play that game with them you lose. It's hard to tell the difference between someone who is a troll trying to sneak in alt right points and someone who is legitimately ignorant and could be educated, which is what the alt right wants. They want to break down those who are being charitable, and have them not extend the charity to anyone else either as a result, which then helps them point to the left and go "so much for the tolerant left".

Additionally, being charitable is a privilege of the well-off white man. Minorities don't get the same extended to them. It's hard to be charitable with people who want you to not exist. It's easy to go "woah woah let's have some calm and charitable discourse here" when you're not under attack daily through systematic and otherwise bigotry.

Thank you

Dream Machine · Jan 22, 2019

Because the popular discourse has finally come to reflect the worst of 4chan and other message boards. Everything is disingenuous and every argument is only a means to earn internet points.

Plus the inherent "learning more and changing your mind is a pussy move for flip floppers so I've dug in my heels and will defend my initial argument to the death" shit that's ingrained in most people. It's a facet of toxic masculinity that everyone can share! If you aren't on the offensive, then that is showing weakness, and nobody wants to be weak.

Sub Boss · Jan 22, 2019

nynt9 said:
It's because the alt right has poisoned discourse. There is little point in being charitable to someone who is using language only as a weapon. If you try to play that game with them you lose. It's hard to tell the difference between someone who is a troll trying to sneak in alt right points and someone who is legitimately ignorant and could be educated, which is what the alt right wants. They want to break down those who are being charitable, and have them not extend the charity to anyone else either as a result, which then helps them point to the left and go "so much for the tolerant left".

Additionally, being charitable is a privilege of the well-off white man. Minorities don't get the same extended to them. It's hard to be charitable with people who want you to not exist. It's easy to go "woah woah let's have some calm and charitable discourse here" when you're not under attack daily through systematic and otherwise bigotry.

Sad thing is, even if black/brown/minorities were to dissapear for some strange reason, people would still find ways to turn on each other and create conflict, given time. Today has been a depressing day :(

marrec · Jan 22, 2019

Cocaloch said:
The problem is this first requires one to accept that meaningful dissent from your opinion is possible. That's something that seems to be getting increasingly less common in western popular discourse.

The best solution is probably better education in historical methods. Teaching children how to read artifacts created in a very different time and place can impart the necessary skills while removing some of the emotional urgency that clouds the picture in contemporary discourse.

Of course part of the topic should be understanding discourse more broadly, not every piece of discourse needs to be, or even can be, formal or informal debate. Depending on what you're trying to do there might not be much value in understanding the other person that you're talking too.

Absolutely, we're talking about public forums where anyone can interject during a discussion so expecting formalized rhetorical debate is naive. We cannot reasonably expect that we're talking to someone who will or even knows how to accept meaningful dissent.

However, there's far too much of this:

ahoyhoy said:
Gonna assume op is a secret Trump supporter because of this thread.

/s

unironically going on and it makes any meaningful conversation completely impossible :( (thanks for the assist ahoyhoy lol)

excelsiorlef said:
Benefit of the doubt is entirely contextual.

No one is owed it though.

It shouldn't be contextual, it should be your starting point.

nynt9 said:
Additionally, being charitable is a privilege of the well-off white man. Minorities don't get the same extended to them. It's hard to be charitable with people who want you to not exist. It's easy to go "woah woah let's have some calm and charitable discourse here" when you're not under attack daily through systematic and otherwise bigotry.

This is why principles of critical thinking are more important than ever, it's easy to go to 4chan and reasonably dismiss the Principle of Charity or give a snarky reply to Newt Gingrich on twitter based on an assumption of his true intentions, but it's far more difficult to do that in a relative "safe-space".

I am not suggesting that we sit down and have a rational discussion with every Jordan Peterson sock-puppet that invades our mentions, what I'm suggesting is that if you have no logical reason to remove the principle of charity, why do so?

excelsiorlef · Jan 22, 2019

marrec said:
It shouldn't be contextual, it should be your starting point.

Why?

That's silly. If red flags are there I'm not ignoring them in the name of charity.

That's nonsense

marrec · Jan 22, 2019

excelsiorlef said:
Why?

That's silly. If red flags are there I'm not ignoring them in the name of charity.

That's nonsense

Red flags are subjective and often reactionary.

Like I said, I'm not suggesting we go on KotakuInAction and try to convince gators in a rational way, you've already lost at that point.

However a "red flag" for a proven bad actor shouldn't be interpreted as a "red flag" for someone who hasn't made their intentions clear.

excelsiorlef · Jan 22, 2019

marrec said:
Red flags are subjective and often reactionary.

Like I said, I'm not suggesting we go on KotakuInAction and try to convince gators in a rational way, you've already lost at that point.

However a "red flag" for a proven bad actor shouldn't be interpreted as a "red flag" for someone who hasn't made their intentions clear.

I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt to an obvious bad actor because they have yet to say I'm a bad actor.

Deleted member 19066 · Jan 22, 2019

It's... tricky. I can think of times on this forum where I felt people were assumed to be arguing in bad faith, where I thought they came off as sincere. On the other hand, I can think of plenty of situations where people take advantage of this principle to get their bad faith arguments taken seriously. I know it took me a long time to wise up to that fact. I was projecting, essentially . Not my insecurities, but my own outlook on other people. I unconsciously sanitized some unsavory people.

marrec · Jan 22, 2019

excelsiorlef said:
I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt to an obvious bad actor because they have yet to say I'm a bad actor.

This is the exact attitude that has destroyed reasonable discourse because the bucket for "obvious bad actor" has gotten so wide anyone could be throw into it based on the smallest misarticulation or incorrect opinion or correct but hard to accept opinion.

spam musubi · Jan 22, 2019

marrec said:
Absolutely, we're talking about public forums where anyone can interject during a discussion so expecting formalized rhetorical debate is naive. We cannot reasonably expect that we're talking to someone who will or even knows how to accept meaningful dissent.

However, there's far too much of this:

unironically going on and it makes any meaningful conversation completely impossible :( (thanks for the assist ahoyhoy lol)

It shouldn't be contextual, it should be your starting point.

This is why principles of critical thinking are more important than ever, it's easy to go to 4chan and reasonably dismiss the Principle of Charity or give a snarky reply to Newt Gingrich on twitter based on an assumption of his true intentions, but it's far more difficult to do that in a relative "safe-space".

I am not suggesting that we sit down and have a rational discussion with every Jordan Peterson sock-puppet that invades our mentions, what I'm suggesting is that if you have no logical reason to remove the principle of charity, why do so?

marrec said:
This is the exact attitude that has destroyed reasonable discourse because the bucket for "obvious bad actor" has gotten so wide anyone could be throw into it based on the smallest misarticulation or incorrect opinion or correct but hard to accept opinion.

There is so much discourse online and people participate in it in varying degrees. You shouldn't assume how many bad actors people deal with, just because you don't. I'd say that charity is a luxury that is earned, not a default assumption.

excelsiorlef · Jan 22, 2019

marrec said:
This is the exact attitude that has destroyed reasonable discourse because the bucket for "obvious bad actor" has gotten so wide anyone could be throw into it based on the smallest misarticulation or incorrect opinion or correct but hard to accept opinion.

You don't know me like at all.

In fact, you're being very uncharitable and assuming a vast amount about how i apply my discretion.

You can't even talk your own talk.

marrec · Jan 22, 2019

excelsiorlef said:
You don't know me like at all.

In fact, you're being very uncharitable and assuming a vast amount about how i apply my discretion.

You can't even talk your own talk.

I never commented on how you apply you discretion, only that the attitude you expressed is exemplary of a breakdown of rational discourse.

However, I've seen you apply your discretion multiple times on ERA and being charitable I would say you are quick to judge on this specific forum.

As for your attempt to turn my own argument against me, let me ask you, how do you identify an "obvious bad actor"?

excelsiorlef · Jan 22, 2019

marrec said:
I never commented on how you apply you discretion, only that the attitude you expressed is exemplary of a breakdown of rational discourse.

However, I've seen you apply your discretion multiple times on ERA and being charitable I would say you are quick to judge on this specific forum.

I'm not sure how you plan on convincing anyone you're here to have a actual conversation, instead of just wanting everyone to nod and say well said OP it's hard to converse these days, when politely disagreeing somewhat with you that charity should the default in nearly all cases results in you psychoanalyzing my speech to determine I'm expressing myself in a way that represents the breakdown of rational discourse.

What you seem to want is softer speech, you seem to be conflating bluntness with a lack of rationality.

Like I really don't think you realize how your rhetoric to me flies entirely in the face of your thesis, you can;t even do what you're shaming others for not doing.

I merely said that sometimes bad actors are obvious, and you replied calling my attitude part of the breakdown of rationality.... Do you know how absurd that is?

moblin · Jan 22, 2019

if I don't get a tax credit for it then idc dude

OtherWorldly · Jan 22, 2019

Obviously the OP topic went way over my head

marrec · Jan 22, 2019

excelsiorlef said:
I'm not sure how you plan on convincing anyone you're here to have a actual conversation, instead of just wanting everyone to nod and say well said OP it's hard to converse these days, when politely disagreeing somewhat with you that charity should the default in nearly all cases results in you psychoanalyzing my speech to determine I'm expressing myself in a way that represents the breakdown of rational discourse.

Excuse me I didn't intend to come off that way, lets reframe the discussion then. You politely disagreed by saying you will not give charity to "obvious bad actors", how are you able to tell when someone is an "obvious bad actor"?

Doc Kelso · Jan 22, 2019

OtherWorldly said:
Actually many Americans gave a lot of charities to the African continent.. as long as they stayed in Africa, then African folks started to migrate to America. Now the US president calls these countries shitholes and the charity givers don't want them as their neighbours

I'm sorry—is this a metaphor that's going over my head? Because I'm not too sure what's happening here with regards to the charity OP suggests.

marrec said:
Excuse me I didn't intend to come off that way, lets reframe the discussion then. You politely disagreed by saying you will not give charity to "obvious bad actors", how are you able to tell when someone is an "obvious bad actor"?

Apologies for butting in, but my own personal bias against someone being a "bad actor" is exhibiting the clear signs of behavior I've witnessed in the past, and willfully so.

For example: White, cis men who proclaim that their community is a "safe space" have often been bad actors in my experience. Now, I'm more than happy to try and engage with that but I will be approaching it with the mindset that the person is using the plight of the LGBT+ community and minorities to establish a space they can control, while hiding it under a guise of safety. It is contextual because I'm basing it off of my own bias, but I still recognize that it is a bias and it will be wrong on occasion.

OtherWorldly · Jan 22, 2019

Doc Kelso said:
I'm sorry—is this a metaphor that's going over my head? Because I'm not too sure what's happening here with regards to the charity OP suggests.

I was just thinking out loud

excelsiorlef · Jan 22, 2019

marrec said:
Excuse me I didn't intend to come off that way, lets reframe the discussion then. You politely disagreed by saying you will not give charity to "obvious bad actors", how are you able to tell when someone is an "obvious bad actor"?

Obvious dogwhislting is obvious dude, obvious just asking questions is obvious dude. There are obvious tells. And specifically here things like registration date dating back to when Era opened but with next to no posts but somehow finding a controversial thread to make a controversial statement, people aren't as slick as they think. This isn't rocket science.

Again bluntness and a disinterest with mincing words is not equivalent to lacking rationality.

And on the rare time I overstep, I have a proven track record of admitting I'm wrong, it's not something I treat as shameful.

Mona · Jan 22, 2019

OtherWorldly said:
Actually many Americans gave a lot of charities to the African continent.. as long as they stayed in Africa, then African folks started to migrate to America. Now the US president calls these countries shitholes and the charity givers don't want them as their neighbours

PogiJones · Jan 22, 2019

The problem, marrec, is that people incorrectly conflate being charitable with being weak or being dumb/naive, when in reality it is neither. Charity shows strength and character. You're absolutely right, and I salute your effort of trying to turn the tides of this forum's attitudes toward each other. Godspeed.

Air · Jan 22, 2019

If you want to have a rational discourse you have to be charitable with how you choose to interpret another person's argument. If you don't the argument just becomes a battle of attrition and whoever leaves/gets angry first loses. It does happen here a lot which is why so many threads get messy really quickly. There's a time and place for bludgeoning someone else with your self righteous opinions (times of moral crisis and panic and an attempt to keep the peace, or deplatform hate), but like any tool it shouldn't be used so often that it wears out it's use

marrec · Jan 22, 2019

Doc Kelso said:
Apologies for butting in, but my own personal bias against someone being a "bad actor" is exhibiting the clear signs of behavior I've witnessed in the past, and willfully so.

For example: White, cis men who proclaim that their community is a "safe space" have often been bad actors in my experience. Now, I'm more than happy to try and engage with that but I will be approaching it with the mindset that the person is using the plight of the LGBT+ community and minorities to establish a space they can control, while hiding it under a guise of safety. It is contextual because I'm basing it off of my own bias, but I still recognize that it is a bias and it will be wrong on occasion.

I think your example is a pretty good way to look at it to be honest.

excelsiorlef said:
Obvious dogwhislting is obvious dude, obvious just asking questions is obvious dude. There are obvious tells. And specifically here things like registration date dating back to when Era opened but with next to no posts but somehow finding a controversial thread to make a controversial statement, people aren't as slick as they think. This isn't rocket science.

Someone who hasn't engaged much making a controversial statement out of nowhere is an extremely specific example and even in that specific case, should you choose to engage with them sincerely, interpreting their argument in the most charitable light is the rational way to approach them. If you instead automatically assume that they are a bad actor and still choosing to engage with them you are playing a zero sum game trying to "win" which degrades discourse by making it about post count rather than how correct or incorrect their controversial opinion is. Wouldn't it be more rational to just ignore them?

The rest, "obvious [x] is obvious" is... not obvious. Dogwhistles are intended to be obfuscated by design and can be repeated by those with good intentions but bad research skills. Someone repeating a dogwhistle does not make them an "obvious bad actor". The same can be said for "just asking questions."

Again bluntness and a disinterest with mincing words is not equivalent to lacking rationality.

And on the rare time I overstep, I have a proven track record of admitting I'm wrong, it's not something I treat as shameful.

Listen, I really don't want to make this personal, I'll just accept that you are gracious in failure and give you the benefit of the doubt.

subpar spatula · Jan 22, 2019

I never give anyone the benefit. That's how you lose. It's why I am a winner.

Deleted member 32374 · Jan 22, 2019

Air said:
If you want to have a rational discourse you have to be charitable with how you choose to interpret another person's argument. If you don't the argument just becomes a battle of attrition and whoever leaves/gets angry first loses. It does happen here a lot which is why so many threads get messy really quickly. There's a time and place for bludgeoning someone else with your self righteous opinions (times of moral crisis and panic and an attempt to keep the peace, or deplatform hate), but like any tool it shouldn't be used so often that it wears out it's use

I agree. Rational discourse and trying to find middle ground requires accepting that someone else is talking to you in good faith. This worked better in 2006.

Threads get messy really fast around here because ResetERA was born during a moral crisis and in an age of naked hate. If this was 2006 you wouldn't see so many posters attempting to "expose" other posters and so many people with their profiles hidden. Now we have twitter botnets, entire forums dedicated to trolling and "infiltrating" ERA, people detoxed.... It turns out that the best defense for these problems, especially here, is a good offense.

excelsiorlef · Jan 22, 2019

marrec said:
Someone who hasn't engaged much making a controversial statement out of nowhere is an extremely specific example and even in that specific case, should you choose to engage with them sincerely, interpreting their argument in the most charitable light is the rational way to approach them. If you instead automatically assume that they are a bad actor and still choosing to engage with them you are playing a zero sum game trying to "win" which degrades discourse by making it about post count rather than how correct or incorrect their controversial opinion is. Wouldn't it be more rational to just ignore them?

The rest, "obvious [x] is obvious" is... not obvious. Dogwhistles are intended to be obfuscated by design and can be repeated by those with good intentions but bad research skills. Someone repeating a dogwhistle does not make them an "obvious bad actor". The same can be said for "just asking questions."

What?

Ignoring evidence in the name of charity is not "rational"

You're not arguing for the return of rationality, you're making elaborate tone arguments.

You just keep throwing out the word rational

Btw I generally just report them, or deconstruct their posts, i mean that's the irony here, if you did know me you'd know that by and large more than most I dedicate far more time to actually deconstructing posts of many many many bad actors, that I take the time to research and cite and cite and cite, I just don't grant them charity nor do I shut off my brain and assume they're here in peace. The reason why I said it ought not to be expected is that shit is exhausting and time consuming and frequently pointless, but I do it anyway because I like writing. I argue against that being the expected norm however because not everyone should be expected to dedicate that amount of time.

Also, no it's not rational to ignore obvious red flags, and yes red flags can in fact be obvious, and no it is not rational to ignore bad actors.

In fact your thesis can in fact result in conversation stagnation, if every bad actor is to be treated as if they are not, it encourages more to come, and causes an endless 101 level conversation as everyone's time is taken up addressing, and frequently re-addressing surface level things, thus exhausting the thread before it goes deeper. This happens a lot in feminist threads, and BLM protest threads. In fact it'a why safe spaces on colleges were created for minorities, so that they can freely talk amongst themselves without having to always be dealing with 101 level shit from the peanut gallery.

marrec said:
Listen, I really don't want to make this personal, I'll just accept that you are gracious in failure and give you the benefit of the doubt.

You say you don't want to make it personal after you declared my attitude to be indicative of the breakdown of rational discourse, the level in which you're entire thesis involves you being incredibly judgmental and then ignoring the irony of that does amuse me though.

You've not supported why not giving obvious trolls the benefit of the doubt is less "rational" than assuming everyone comes in peace. Again you're not arguing rationality, you're arguing tone and are using rationality as a sort of academic moral crutch to make your argument come across as deeper and more insightful. There is humour that your blanket idea is far less nuanced than the idea that yes context is important, and I'm really not sure it's "rational" to argue context doesn't matter.

I did like your benefit of the doubt there at the end though, it's a clever. I'll give you linguistic style points there.

Lemoncholy · Jan 22, 2019

excelsiorlef said:
And specifically here things like registration date dating back to when Era opened but with next to no posts

Hey, hey! I resent this.

mael · Jan 22, 2019

nynt9 said:
It's because the alt right has poisoned discourse. There is little point in being charitable to someone who is using language only as a weapon. If you try to play that game with them you lose. It's hard to tell the difference between someone who is a troll trying to sneak in alt right points and someone who is legitimately ignorant and could be educated, which is what the alt right wants. They want to break down those who are being charitable, and have them not extend the charity to anyone else either as a result, which then helps them point to the left and go "so much for the tolerant left".

Additionally, being charitable is a privilege of the well-off white man. Minorities don't get the same extended to them. It's hard to be charitable with people who want you to not exist. It's easy to go "woah woah let's have some calm and charitable discourse here" when you're not under attack daily through systematic and otherwise bigotry.

Absolutely this.
Fuck having to extend charity to people that want me dead and full of holes.
I may have been raised as a Catholic, that doesn't mean I have to extend the other cheek every single damn time.
Shit doesn't work anyway.
Debates aren't a goal worth pursuing at the cost of everything else.

marrec · Jan 22, 2019

excelsiorlef said:
What?

Ignoring evidence in the name of charity is not "rational"

You're not arguing for the return of rationality, you're making elaborate tone arguments.

You just keep throwing out the word rational

Btw I generally just report them, or deconstruct their posts, i mean that's the irony here, if you did know me you'd know that by and large more than most I dedicate far more time to actually deconstructing posts of many many many bad actors, that I take the time to research and cite and cite and cite, I just don't grant them charity nor do I shut off my brain and assume they're here in peace. The reason why I said it ought not to be expected is that shit is exhausting and time consuming and frequently pointless, but I do it anyway because I like writing. I argue against that being the expect norm however because not everyone should be expected to dedicate that amount of time.

Also, no it's not rational to ignore obvious red flags, and yes red flags can in fact be obvious, and no it is not rational to ignore bad actors.

I think you may be misunderstand what "the principle of charity" means in this case? I'm not suggesting that you ignore the "red flags" I'm instead suggesting that you:

1) Assume they're arguing in good faith

2) Interpret their argument in the most charitable light

If you deconstruct their posts and take time to research and cite, cite, cite without creating strawmen or insulting the particular poster then you're already there. However I've seen people simply quote a post with the posters post count as if that is somehow a rational way to communicate anything other than smugness. Or the lazy "your transparent' responses, or the ever ubiquitous "you aren't slick".

What I'm arguing for is a return to charitable interpretations in order to present stronger counterarguments. Anything less is intellectually lazy.

excelsiorlef · Jan 22, 2019

marrec said:
I think you may be misunderstand what "the principle of charity" means in this case? I'm not suggesting that you ignore the "red flags" I'm instead suggesting that you:

1) Assume they're arguing in good faith

2) Interpret their argument in the most charitable light

If you deconstruct their posts and take time to research and cite, cite, cite without creating strawmen or insulting the particular poster then you're already there. However I've seen people simply quote a post with the posters post count as if that is somehow a rational way to communicate anything other than smugness.

What I'm arguing for is a return to charitable interpretations in order to present stronger counterarguments. Anything less is intellectually lazy.

Because not everyone has the time and energy and those that point out to obvious are doing a service to let others know that it might not be worth their time either,

Again how I approach everything should not be the norm, everyone would be deadass tired :P

Your #2 is a leading cause of 101 looping. It's one of the reasons major societal issues get stuck on say blocking traffic or the lack of the word some.

Again I really don't think you have any grasp on the word rational, it's not irrational to point out that some day one dude with 10 posts, who manages to show up in a controversial thread and say something blatantly inflammatory, is a day one dude with 10 posts.

People ought to have as much info as possible.

You've yet to compellingly tell me why context doesn't matter.

Again I don't think you want a better conversation per se , you want a nicer one, that's why I think you invoking rationality is entirely a crutch to dress up your tone argument.

TissueBox · Jan 22, 2019

Unfortunately, heated issues that people take personally do not leave room for proper debate etiquette because, understandably, in order for that to flourish, their must be a staunch trust in the foundation they and their discussion are being upheld by for such discourse to partake on. And many are argumentative in the first place because their trust was betrayed in the past and seem to be misplaced by way of pattern. One can argue this only allows perpetual obfuscations to foster, but in the end, it can devolve into chicken-or-egg's and there's no changing it.

At the end of the day, until true truth and logic can be trotted forward with as little engineering as possible in the given context, then the pursuit of it in its current definition is secondary to the preservation of what many may perceive to be rights under threat...

boris_feinbrand · Jan 22, 2019

I've just given up taking online discussions seriously and mostly refrain from even participating. Just not worth it most of the time when every time it becomes adversarial to score some internet points.
It is actually a huge factor in feeding my depression so to protect myself I just try to refrain from participating or sharing my viewpoint.

There's a reason why serious debates and discussions only really work in a closed and heavily moderated setting.

Swab · Jan 22, 2019

"Critical Thinking" is basically a fancy way of saying "Just asking questions..." most people know what someone really means and knows it is in bad faith and so they don't fall prey to those tactics.

Deleted member 1248 · Jan 22, 2019

It's a sophist's job to waste everyone's time with endless pondering and they've sided with the trolls?

Pass.

Chasex · Jan 22, 2019

You all are going to hate this, but this article is the exact reason why I continue to listen to IDW folks like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. They engage in good faith, don't assume anything based on the person, and go through great lengths to steelman their guests points. There are no misrepresentation games, assumptions, or tip toeing around ideas because they might be offensive. There's no political scoring game going on. It's honestly so refreshing to listen to people engage in an academic demeanor about hard topics with gray areas, and to acknowledge all sides of a point. To engage the idea rather than the person, and to change their minds and admit when they are wrong, even in real time. It's everything that our current discourse is not, and our current discourse is toxic as fuck and unproductive.

Critical Thinking: How we lost The Principle of Charity

Bad Praxis

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

User-Requested Ban

Refuses to Wash his Ass

User requested account closure

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis