• Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 month ago

    The person making the argument could just be naive too.

    I could see myself 25 years ago making such a statement in completely good faith, trying to see both sides and all that. But I was naive to think that both sides were also arguing in good faith.

    But to be fair, that naive messenger would still be repeating an argument that originated in bad faith.

    • DillyDaily@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Heck I still find myself thinking this on a subconscious level. I can’t let go of the sense that we should be able to discuss things in good faith and make change through civil discourse.

      I have to remind myself that history does not support my blind faith in the goodness of humanity like this.

      Even people who have less than two seconds ago proven they are arguing in bad faith, my gut reaction is to give them another chance to come to the discussion properly.

      It’s like pathological naivety, and yes, it’s just as harmful as the original bad faith argument when all it’s doing is echoing the bad faith argument.

      I have been booted from many communities for asking what I thought was a genuine question. And at first been left wondering why a community would ban someone for asking questions and trying to learn. I’ve experienced this my entire life and only recently began to understand that it’s not some personal slight against my curiosity and ignorance. It’s a necessary safety measure for that community.

      I’m just an idiot, questioning an asshole, but from everyone else’s perspective there’s two dumb assholes over here.