• pahlimur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yeah maybe. Still stand behind that statement. Insults are useful for people arguing in bad faith, those people should always be shouted down.

      • pahlimur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Entering an argument in good faith with someone who obviously is arguing in bad faith is pointless. The biggest problem is often that those who make bad faith arguments don’t know they are doing so. Instead they lean into semantics to justify making bad faith arguments. Then start doing the “no u” thing before they start whining.

        I choose to yell first because it triggers these types of defensive responses they would do anyways at the end of a good faith discussion. Kind of like splashing the antichrist with holy water so we can just know who they are.

        • Sybil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          those who make bad faith arguments don’t know they are doing so.

          then it’s not bad faith. in order to be operating in bad faith, you must be choosing to use intellectually dishonest rhetoric. what youre describing is just amateurs.

          • pahlimur@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Huh you know what, your right. Is there a word for purposely derailing a discussion by bringing up unrelated information? I guess it would be misleading, maybe?

            • Sybil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              people do derail and use red herrings, but I think most of them don’t even realize it unless someone calls it out.