What exactly is an "bad faith" argument? - Social Justice is confusing, nowadays.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
NerdShamer

NerdShamer

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 21, 2018
As far as I can tell, it's an tactic to curb wrongthink and Wikipedia lists it as intentionally telling a lie. But from what I've seen, it's an excuse for telling someone that they're offending someone and that they're on the verge of being excommunicated.

But since I don't hang out with the PC crowd, I'm kind of curious as to what they thinking when their talking like this.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: zedkissed60 and KimCoppolaAficionado
I was under the impression that making a "bad faith" argument entailed misleading the opposition about what you're actually arguing or what your actual stance is. Which sounds to me, honestly, like a good litmus test for figuring out whether your opponent knows jack and shit about you, not like a bad thing. I mean, that definition basically makes Devil's Advocate a high crime of debate, which it certainly is not.
 
  • Agree
  • DRINK!
Reactions: ABE LINN COHN, Gym Leader Elesa, MeatRokket08 and 5 others
Arguing and acting in bad faith is more than just lying: it implies that one is intentionally presenting a facade and arguing for things one doesn't truly believe in for ulterior motives. For example, if you say you are pro-gun, make stump speeches about how you are going to fight for gun rights, and then immediately propose a bill that heavily restricts gun rights, that's acting in bad faith. This isn't some PC term either; the idea of "bad faith" dates back to Rome.

Homoerotic Cougar-kun said:
I was under the impression that making a "bad faith" argument entailed misleading the opposition about what you're actually arguing or what your actual stance is. Which sounds to me, honestly, like a good litmus test for figuring out whether your opponent knows jack and shit about you, not like a bad thing. I mean, that definition basically makes Devil's Advocate a high crime of debate, which it certainly is not.
Click to expand...
If you deliberately argue a position you do not hold to consternate or bait your interlocutors, that's not quite bad faith; that's called being contrarian, or possibly a troll these days. Acting in bad faith is essentially a synonym for being duplicitous or committing fraud.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: mickey339, ABE LINN COHN, Bum Driller and 3 others
Not exactly surprised that to know that the woke crowd is getting their terminology mixed up again.
 
Asking questions that they don't like, don't lik the answers to, or expose their hypocrisy?
 
The thing that gets me is a bad faith argument... is still an argument. It's not the argument you want to hear and fight against, but if an argument uses things that are falsifiable in some fashion (i.e. you can prove that the argument does not hold water) it's still an argument and should not be dismissed, but argued against. The example given at first in that article would be non-falsifiable I think, and it's also known as tu quoque. (But it's Mitch the Bitch so lol) I could say that the Dems were hypocrites because they want to do the same shit, but that isn't an argument.

EDIT: The more I think about it the more I think that most of the time I hear "arguing in bad faith" used by your average Tom, Dick or Harry, they are (o irony) making a bad faith argument by saying that. At least, if I'm interpreting this correctly.
 
Last edited:
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Gym Leader Elesa
Homoerotic Cougar-kun said:
The thing that gets me is a bad faith argument... is still an argument. It's not the argument you want to hear and fight against, but if an argument uses things that are falsifiable in some fashion (i.e. you can prove that the argument does not hold water) it's still an argument and should not be dismissed, but argued against. The example given at first in that article would be non-falsifiable I think, and it's also known as tu quoque. (But it's Mitch the Bitch so lol) I could say that the Dems were hypocrites because they want to do the same shit, but that isn't an argument.

EDIT: The more I think about it the more I think that most of the time I hear "arguing in bad faith" used by your average Tom, Dick or Harry, they are (o irony) making a bad faith argument by saying that. At least, if I'm interpreting this correctly.
Click to expand...

Even if it is an argument, it's an argument meant specifically to detract from the argument that matters. Like if you wanted to argue the merits of x, but your opponent only engages in the discussion to turn it into a debate about y that is a bad faith argument. There may be value in debating y, but that is not the primary concern.

EDIT: In the traditional sense of Bad Faith arguments, all modern politicians are bad faith actors to a greater or lesser degree. They may hold one set of beliefs but for the sake of reelection they promote another. Like red state democrats who vote against gun control. Often times a lawyer may be a bad faith actor in his defense. These are examples of 'good' bad faith, because its forcing the person to do their job first. Of course, its bad when taken to extremes (like a corrupt politician or a lying lawyer). The real issue with bad faith comes when you're in a more personal one-on-one environment. If there is a good natured, honest discussion and one party isn't being honest about their beliefs its a pointless endeavor.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Spooky Bones, JambledUpWords and Homoerotic Cougar-kun
It’s a manipulative term meant to make it seem like even if you’re right, it’s for some morally wrong reason. They threw the term around a lot back when right-wingers were digging up old tweets that are more offensive by today’s standards made by progressive personalities who’d previously been doing the exact same thing to right-wingers. But only the righties were doing it in “bad faith”.

It’s just more narrative-spinning, opponent-vilifying bullshit that gets in the way of actual dialogue.
 
Last edited:
  • DRINK!
  • Dumb
  • Agree
Reactions: Gym Leader Elesa, KimCoppolaAficionado and Recoil
My personal example of a bad-faith argument also is related to free speech. I'm pro free speech as both a legal right from infringement from the government and as a philosophical position, but then you have people who purposely conflate the legal and philosophical free speech arguments to say that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Twitter, Facebook, etc. No one said it did, but it's a cheap and easy way to get people arguing the legal point so you can avoid arguing the philosophical point of whether social media giants have too much power over speech.

If you purposely do this while knowing they're not the same thing, it's arguing in bad faith.
 
  • DRINK!
  • Like
Reactions: Gym Leader Elesa and Ughubughughughughughghlug
I guess it’s an argument you make that conceals your true intent where you don’t believe it to be entirely accurate, are misleading someone or even know it’s outright false but are intentionally trying to mislead someone or you pretend you want to come to a compromise but don’t actually intend to do any compromising on your side.

A simplistic example could be saying ‘You really shouldn’t that last slice of pizza because pizza is bad for you’ when you want to eat it instead.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheSpinyShell
AprilRains said:
Which, of course, you get to decide unilaterally.
Click to expand...
That's the thing, too. If I bring up an ancillary but connected argument in order to flesh out a point I'm making, that could be shut down as "bad faith" before I have time to wrap it around to the meat of the matter. Dunno.
Billy "the Bot" Bobson said:
It's agreed upon prior to formal debate. There is a difference between using another point to argue the fundamental point and using another point to avoid arguing the fundamental point.
Click to expand...
How do participants differentiate? If I say "you're avoiding the point" I'm arguing against your intent which is something that becomes shaky to prove.
 
Homoerotic Cougar-kun said:
That's the thing, too. If I bring up an ancillary but connected argument in order to flesh out a point I'm making, that could be shut down as "bad faith" before I have time to wrap it around to the meat of the matter. Dunno.

How do participants differentiate? If I say "you're avoiding the point" I'm arguing against your intent which is something that becomes shaky to prove.
Click to expand...

Depends on if they actually bother to tie it back into the main argument. If they try to then its a case if its a bad point or a good point, if they don't then its just a bad faith argument.

AprilRains said:
And is therefore only ever used in that context, right?
Click to expand...

No, read my first post for an example of when it is used correctly in an informal setting. This tangent is specifically about when it is used correctly in formal debates. It can be misused and misconstrued any number of ways that are ultimately irrelevant to the point. If you want a specific example of whether something is or isn't a bad faith argument, give me a specific situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back