If it were obvious from a single example, it wouldn’t work. The goal of bad faith discussion is to make the other party engage in good faith, and they won’t do that unless they think you’re also acting in good faith. Once they’re engaging, you can do things like waste loads of their time (it takes much less time to spout some dumb bullshit than explain why it’s dumb bullshit), persuade bystanders that you’re right by arguing with more logical fallacies and unreliable sources than they can point out, and make it look like they’re being unreasonable by sealioning.
Once they’re engaging, you can do things like waste loads of their time (it takes much less time to spout solve dumb bullshit than explain why it’s dumb bullshit), persuade bystanders that you’re right by arguing with more logical fallacies and unreliable sources than they can point out, and make it look like they’re being unreasonable by sealioning.
Bad faith debate/discussion is something I see more and more from the right. It seems that they’ve now grown an entire ecosystem that can manufacture plausible support for anything they might need to get what they want.
General or scientific consensus on a topic? The consensus is just greedy establishment types trying to maintain funding - a conspiracy. Why else would we have a number of scientific papers/books/academic works from think-tanks with generic, helpful-sounding names brave enough to publish opinions that are contrary to the alleged consensus? We’ve even had success lawsuits strategically worded and filed strategically in specific districts, decided in our favor by judges we recommended!
If it were obvious from a single example, it wouldn’t work. The goal of bad faith discussion is to make the other party engage in good faith, and they won’t do that unless they think you’re also acting in good faith. Once they’re engaging, you can do things like waste loads of their time (it takes much less time to spout some dumb bullshit than explain why it’s dumb bullshit), persuade bystanders that you’re right by arguing with more logical fallacies and unreliable sources than they can point out, and make it look like they’re being unreasonable by sealioning.
Bad faith debate/discussion is something I see more and more from the right. It seems that they’ve now grown an entire ecosystem that can manufacture plausible support for anything they might need to get what they want.
General or scientific consensus on a topic? The consensus is just greedy establishment types trying to maintain funding - a conspiracy. Why else would we have a number of scientific papers/books/academic works from think-tanks with generic, helpful-sounding names brave enough to publish opinions that are contrary to the alleged consensus? We’ve even had success lawsuits strategically worded and filed strategically in specific districts, decided in our favor by judges we recommended!