I really liked the idea of building a steel man argument as opposed to a straw man. Finding common ground and engaging in conversations for the sake of mutual growth rather than "winning/losing"...
I really liked the idea of building a steel man argument as opposed to a straw man. Finding common ground and engaging in conversations for the sake of mutual growth rather than "winning/losing" truly encourages civil and productive discussion. As a community, I hope that we can continue to be supportive and critical of one another in order to cultivate an enjoyable and meaningful forum.
I love this idea when talking to people that you know. With the massive rise of misinformation, I'm not sure it applies - especially when someone is not operating in good faith. When people are...
I love this idea when talking to people that you know. With the massive rise of misinformation, I'm not sure it applies - especially when someone is not operating in good faith. When people are not operating in good faith and instead are trying to forward misinformation as fact, you call that shit out early and often otherwise you end up creating more space for the flow of misinformation.
You can call it out, and assume their intent isn't to misinform. If your goal is to correct it, focus on the correction rather than any assumption you have about their intent.
You can call it out, and assume their intent isn't to misinform. If your goal is to correct it, focus on the correction rather than any assumption you have about their intent.
Many years ago I taught courses on race/class/gender at a Big 12 university while in graduate school. As an graduate instructor, I always took this approach because charity is necessary in the...
Many years ago I taught courses on race/class/gender at a Big 12 university while in graduate school. As an graduate instructor, I always took this approach because charity is necessary in the classroom for students to learn. I also ascribe to this principle with people that I personally know or am talking to in person.
The internet is an entirely different beast because you can look up a user's comment history and tell if they're operating in good faith. If I find that someone is not operating in good faith and is trying to forward something that's misinformation, I do not act charitable. I call it out. Covid was a hard lesson for me in this regard.
Fair point with people's histories, but that history also being available means you have sufficient evidence to know their position. Charitable interpretation is more about not assuming the worst...
Fair point with people's histories, but that history also being available means you have sufficient evidence to know their position. Charitable interpretation is more about not assuming the worst with no evidence, not being polite to demonstrably bad actors. I would agree that attempting to correct a certifiable asshole has typically gone how I expected it, however polite I was in the interaction.
Yes, when it is evident that someone does not argue in good faith and just want to disturb, my recommendation is to not engage with them at all. That is when labels and moderation should kick in....
Yes, when it is evident that someone does not argue in good faith and just want to disturb, my recommendation is to not engage with them at all. That is when labels and moderation should kick in. Ideally, the way a website is run should naturally take care of curbing abusive behavior in a such a way that makes charitable interpretations possible.
It's really, really hard for me to get away from that Reddit habit of responding to a post point by point just to... win, I guess? Have the last word in? I'm going to try really hard to unlearn...
It's really, really hard for me to get away from that Reddit habit of responding to a post point by point just to... win, I guess? Have the last word in?
I'm going to try really hard to unlearn all these bad habits and assume the best of people's arguments.
I really liked the idea of building a steel man argument as opposed to a straw man. Finding common ground and engaging in conversations for the sake of mutual growth rather than "winning/losing" truly encourages civil and productive discussion. As a community, I hope that we can continue to be supportive and critical of one another in order to cultivate an enjoyable and meaningful forum.
I love this idea when talking to people that you know. With the massive rise of misinformation, I'm not sure it applies - especially when someone is not operating in good faith. When people are not operating in good faith and instead are trying to forward misinformation as fact, you call that shit out early and often otherwise you end up creating more space for the flow of misinformation.
You can call it out, and assume their intent isn't to misinform. If your goal is to correct it, focus on the correction rather than any assumption you have about their intent.
Many years ago I taught courses on race/class/gender at a Big 12 university while in graduate school. As an graduate instructor, I always took this approach because charity is necessary in the classroom for students to learn. I also ascribe to this principle with people that I personally know or am talking to in person.
The internet is an entirely different beast because you can look up a user's comment history and tell if they're operating in good faith. If I find that someone is not operating in good faith and is trying to forward something that's misinformation, I do not act charitable. I call it out. Covid was a hard lesson for me in this regard.
Fair point with people's histories, but that history also being available means you have sufficient evidence to know their position. Charitable interpretation is more about not assuming the worst with no evidence, not being polite to demonstrably bad actors. I would agree that attempting to correct a certifiable asshole has typically gone how I expected it, however polite I was in the interaction.
Yes, when it is evident that someone does not argue in good faith and just want to disturb, my recommendation is to not engage with them at all. That is when labels and moderation should kick in. Ideally, the way a website is run should naturally take care of curbing abusive behavior in a such a way that makes charitable interpretations possible.
It's really, really hard for me to get away from that Reddit habit of responding to a post point by point just to... win, I guess? Have the last word in?
I'm going to try really hard to unlearn all these bad habits and assume the best of people's arguments.
That is a continuous struggle for everyone, we will all get it wrong sometimes, and any sincere effort will be appreciated ;)