Comment on People who reject challenging ideas as stupid without engagement are like intellectual nepobabies
lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 23 hours agoWhen one assumes bad faith, one is assuming guilt. That isn’t fair. I have found it better to assume innocence, to adopt Judge Blackstone’s ratio over Judge Dredd’s.
Yliaster@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
I think it’s fair to assume those when people openly support a movement that visibly takes away the rights of marginalized groups and kills innocent people.
lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
In some discussions, faith, good or bad, doesn’t matter. If a politician says that ducks have three feet, whether they say that in good faith or not, it’s wrong. So it’s still best to assume good faith and logically explain how it is incorrect. To respond to such a statement with an accusation is a fallacy.
Yliaster@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
The analogy you’re providing is fallacious because unlike nonsensical singular statements about ducks (an ethically neutral statement), what we’re actually getting is people consistently defending various forms of hate that endangers minorities and marginalized people. They rarely, if ever, and it is my opinion that it almost never occurs, respond to reason. People being purposefully obtuse and heartless within discussions do not really deserve logical vigour or effort. You could try, but it’s a waste of time and energy, and it’ll just put one in a bad mood.