Unless someone prefaces their statements with a disclaimer (like "just for the sake of the argument"), I will assume in good faith they believe their own statements. Any later claim to the contrary leaves me with the following choice to make: were they lying then, or are they lying now.
A lot of the time this can take the shape of "have you considered...?" or "what if...?", so there is a built in hypothetical.
I frequently make points to taste test them without being married to them, but I'm not going to lose sleep if someone wants to get worked up over whether or not it was genuine.
A lack of acknowledgement when these biases are discovered, is a compelling reason to eject from a discussion. Discussion is one tool to convert beliefs to truths. Sometimes the beliefs changed are ill-recieved, but it your own or another's.
> It matters when one of your goals is to determine what the people around you believe.
What people say is some of the lowest fidelity information to use when trying to assess what people believe.
Actions >>> Words
That is perhaps an unusually... mechanical... way of conversing.
Human conversation can be a playful dance when contextual grey areas of shared and individual intent and information are explored. Most people do this implicitly, without need for explicit disclaimers — indeed, explicitness extinguishes much of the pleasure of the dance.
In other words, many people talk with others for the sheer pleasure of conversation, as opposed to a simple exchange of facts. This conversation-as-pleasure naturally leaks even into specific conversations that are indeed largely about the exchange of facts, because many people are accustomed to, familiar with, and enjoy the dance.
That's great when it's mutually understood, but just like a real dance you should solicit someone's agreement to participate beforehand.
"it should not matter"
The notion that these conversations are free is an idea held by a very small group. Most people have reasonable reasons for assuming that the conversation has a cost and therefore you have a motivation for proposing a particular point of view. Some people find conversations emotionally draining, some people perceive every conversation as a risk to one's political capital, other people feel that any time invested in a conversation is a cost that should be recouped at other points, other people are keenly aware of the meta message sent by one's words and therefore the impact on the relationship of those who participate in the conversation. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that most people will assume that a person advancing a viewpoint also believes in that viewpoint, and since that perception is wide spread, if you refuse to acknowledge it with a comment such as "for the sake of argument" then ask yourself why you feel those 5 words cost you more than the 500 or 5,000 other words that you'd like to invest in the conversation.
The point being made is if it's a substantive point it doesn't matter how much the speaker identifies with it, the valid point has been made to you and it is to be considered. Hence it should not matter provided you are sticking to the facts. It seems you have made this into a personal insult about whether or not your transactional view of the costs of speaking are being respected. That is to shoot the messenger.
The person is doing you a favor by pointing out valid concerns even if they don't agree with them.
But if the discussion actually influence real-world decisions then it matters a great deal what people actually believe.
I really don't understand why more people are not getting this.
It can be plenty consequential in the real world, I said from the start of this thread that someone could be arguing a popular opinion that nobody in the room happens to hold.
This happens all the time in silicon valley as an example: a bunch of educated, comparatively wealthy, mostly white men make decisions. Maybe they are not very in touch with the opinions of the vast majority of humans who fall outside that category. What I am advocating for this case is the ability to have empathy for those who are unlike you, step outside your biases and adopt an argument that is not your own. This is a good skill. People are falling over themselves trying to call that lying and universally bad or nearly so.
With parenting - I see no issues. And I do use such an approach, but my spouse, I believe, trusts me.
So... It looks like the problem is - when the debate is used to judge world view of the person to decide if one would like to trust them - such "devil advocate" arguments are harmful. I believe it is just one possible use of the discussion, but I will keep in mind that and try to avoid arguing from some other perspective if I see the person is trying to figure out if they want to trust me or not.
Relatedly too, getting called in a lot to play Devil's Advocate by other people for sides/opinions that you do hold and care about can be an indicator that those people do not value your opinion and think you may be in the Devil's employ already. While they may not mean harm by it, it can be important to realize the emotional investment you are putting into the work will not be returned in how it is perceived, you might not be well enough "compensated" for that work, and should maybe renegotiate terms (or stop agreeing to it).
It's the whole "I'm just asking the question" phenomena, and I see it a lot with people who claim to be centrists but are more accurately described as right wing reactionaries. It allows them to seed the discussion with bullshit, without having to defend any of it.
Today. the mechanics of internet forums works such that on average, the safe milquetoast post gets the most points, so it devolves into a popularity contest of who gets the most Internet points, especially when the person is not anonymous.
In the city state of Athens there were no such things as 'lawyers' to represent you. If you had a legal problem and it was brought up to court (typically consisting of dozens, sometimes hundreds of judges) you argued your case yourself. Those who were better orators had a better chance of winning, so the nobility and rich often went to schools where they practiced rhetoric.
This obviously meant having to argue over the dumbest and inane things possible, some of these discourses we've managed to preserve over the millennia.
Shane Parrish of Farnam Street and Sam Harris recently sat down and chatted,in part, about this need. Highly recommend giving a listen.[0]
But I wonder about the unintended consequences of this. How many 'opinions' are out there in the world purely to cause pain? What portion of opinions that are shared on social media or the news actual opinions from those people, vs crafted statements of trolling themselves?
When you take the 'other side' for practice, is there really a valid [1] other side to take? I find often that the other side is based on logical fallacies and is not, at its base, a valid argument. I wonder if you are creating distance between you and others while you test out the opinions of propagandists? How valid [1 again] really are all these opinions?
[1] Okay here we go with this. I am indeed calling some opinions "invalid". What I mean is, I do not think it is a valid opinion to cause harm to minorities on purpose. I think this is cruel and amounts to a crime in our society. But you will find people advocating it loudly on social media and TV - and their arguments are based on treating humans cruelly for no reason other than the cruelty and other various logical fallacies.
If you are to take stances that you don't agree with, please check them logically first before putting those arguments out there in the world. Some things are better understood without trying to understand 'the other side', simply because it is not going to be based in logic and has no possible outcome of being 'understood'.
However, if they have a known position and they make arguments clearly outside those boundaries, and then /show that they return to their usual position after/, it is much more feasible to believe that they are indeed merely testing their own position thoroughly, as any reasoning person should.
You know, some could make the argument that in order to satisfy the second demand of your sentence here, one has to indulge in the first.
I don't know if I would, but maybe that's the point ;)
Secondly is the matter of epistemological framework; some people seem stuck with a particular way of finding information about the world which intentionally or not is constructed to dismiss critical engagement.
The most controversial topics of political philosophy are very interesting to me because it can be hard to find a view which is internally consistent. I'm emotionally upset when I can't arrive at such a view. To hold a view I can't justify is a horrible feeling. The kind of topics I'm talking about are issues of freedom of speech (pornography, hate speech, censorship, debate, the notion of harm and the validity of the harm principle), economics (the labour theory of value, tendency for the rate of profit to fall, objectivity or subjectivity of value, various historical arguments), social psychology (ideology in society and the flattening of culture, totalitarianism of the market, the experience of other sexualities e.g. the adult My Little Pony fan community and the Japanese lolicon phenomenon), and the nature of work (the meaning of consent and coercion, free will, the phenomenon of "bullshit jobs"). In the face of these issues, I find that it's hard to spend any energy on talking about such banalities as vim vs emacs or FOSS.
As with science, we have to accept that we can simultaneously hold two theories to be "true" even when they don't square with each other. To do otherwise is an exercise in frustration. Or extremism, if you choose to discard all philosophies that do not fit with your preferred one.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/a-foolish-consistency-is-t...
It's strange that you think trolling is some subversive and venerable reaction to censorship, when anonymously commenting on websites is a nearly effortless act that incurs neither a cost nor risk.
Does this mean you are "often" right?