There are, in my opinion, two problems with that. The first is that it is very, very difficult for most people to view their own side objectively. The Russel conjugation comes to mind; "I am a freedom fighter, you are a rebel, he is a terrorist." The other problem is that often, calling out your own side's bad behavior feels like treachery. "When arguments become soldiers, to criticize your own sides' points is to stab your fellows in the back." Anyone who engages in that kind of criticism is likely to be ostracized as a traitor well before their criticisms are taken seriously. See, for example, the Hundred Flowers Campaign. I believe the book Scout Mindset by Julia Galef discusses ways around the first problem (I have not personally read the book), with the main thrust being that this is exceptionally difficult to train oneself to do and a mostly personal endeavor. For the second problem, I have no idea except to aspire to groups that welcome self-criticism.

The second problem is being made worse by the increasing polarization and the cutting of the ties that bound the different sides, at least in America. People with political disagreements were never best friends, but there used to be more shared socialization than there is now.

I'm from a bipartisan family in a purple area in a purple/battlefield state. You can't grow up like I did without being exposed to both/all sides of the aisle, so you end up with a pretty decent idea of the follies of your own side as well as a lot of friends/colleagues/etc. that don't agree with you.

10-15 years ago, I was still 'allowed' to deviate from accepted practice/opinion, as long as I respected the hosts, and conditional/partial belonging was allowed. (e.g. I might be a dirty commie liberal, but I'm still a Christian or, on the other end, I might be a gun nut but I'm still queer so I fit in 'enough'). Now, not so much. We also used to have more defined and accepted internal fighting/it used to be accepted that sides were coalitions instead of Borgs.

Now, not so much. We talk a lot about things we can't say/do, and share tips on how not to be pilloried for saying the wrong thing. Interestingly, these discussions are happening with people across all parts of the political spectrum.

People were always somewhat suspicious of you for hanging out with the enemy, but it was accepted if you were of an intellectual or sneaky bent. Now it's not. You're in or you're out.

If you're at a point with your side where any criticism is taken as treachery, you're not really on the same side. Some even think the intention of the 100 flowers campaign was to weed out people who didn't exactly align with Mao (i.e. it was "bad faith" to begin with). Also, the campaign was open to all, not just members of the CCP (Mao's "side" in this context). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign#Debat...

I think the 'critisize your own is backstabbing' thought is much less relevant in private discussion, and that might be where it's most possible to call out and change compatriots who engage in bad-faith communication.

In high-trust social circles, certainly. But the risk of reputational damage still exists when using these channels; this is how whisper networks destroy people seen as insufficiently dedicated to the Cause. Criticize the wrong person or do so insensitively, do it to a person with an outsized ego, and you may find yourself ostracized. Jo Freeman's essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness well describes how such power imbalances can occur and how people suspected of insufficient loyalty can be informally but firmly removed from the decision-making of a group.

This is, after all, why virtue signalling is such a common tactic. It shores up reputational defense against such accusations. Unfortunately, it also commonly has the effect of further deepening the divide between the group and other parties who might otherwise be interested in the Cause, as the most valuable signalling techniques require costly actions - i.e. ones that are materially or socially damaging to the member doing said signalling. This may affirm loyalty, but often harms proselytization efforts (you cannot advance the Cause to your family if you have cut off contact with them for not already being part of the Cause, for example).

I would think "calling out" is, or often takes the form of, exactly the type of bad faith communication that this article is trying to argue against (possibly categorised under "Undue social pressure" or "Villainization").

Engaging in a good-faith argument, especially with those you often agree with, yes. "Calling out" - I'd be hesitant about that.

Indeed. I also rarely "call out" someone when they engage in what's clearly a fallacious argument. Instead, I will engage by saying "I don't think that is an accurate portrayal of the position, because [..]" (strawman), "because [other thing] is bad doesn't say much about [this-thing]; if you want to talk about [other-thing] we can do that another time" (whataboutism), "Just because [organisation/person/group] says X doesn't mean X is true, I think it's more important to look at the arguments they're making" (argument from authority), etc.

This way it doesn't come off an an accusation, it keeps the conversation going, and is generally much more constructive. I found that people who "call out" logical fallacies and the like are generally looking to "win the argument" rather than actually have a conversation.

Calling people out on "bad faith" is common; there's an entire string of terms for this ("gaslighting", "sealioning", "concern trolling", what-have-you). I've never seen it end well. If someone is actually engaging in bad faith then it's better to disengage and call it a day, and if someone is engaging in good faith then all you've did is insult them without actually contributing all that much.

"Gaslighting" has a different meaning (go watch the movie; it's a classic).

I haven't heard the other two terms, and wouldn't be able to guess what they mean.

Sea lions spend all day fighting over [arbitrary thing] to impress potential mates. I'm certain this happens on social media, and that most potential mates are as impressed as they are by an actual sea lion. :-)

Concern trolling seems to be too specific a term.

Gaslighting seems to have mutated to mean "asserting strongly that something isn't true, which I've personally experienced to be true", or in the more extreme cases, "...which I believe to be true."

IMO it's an annoying corruption of what was actually a rather useful term, but there you go.

I agree that it’s important for your own side to call out bad faith communication as much as possible. Scrutiny of your own sides arguments helps improve your position and intellectual honesty.

That being said, what is ideal in theory, breaks down in practice.

Feel free to take this with a grain of salt, my experience has been that when one person calls out another on their side for bad faith communication, a weird popularity contest happens.

As others have said about “feeling like a traitor”, the person who is called out feels metaphorically “stabbed in the back” by someone they now perceive as a “turncoat”. The ensuing popularity battle is used to discredit the position of the person who called out the bad faith communication. I’ve seen it many times, it’s both predictable and bizarre. Watching folks alienate their closest friends and advocates to protect a perceived attack on their ego is wild.

I agree with this, but in spaces where bad faith is the predominant form of communication, you'll probably be accused of being a centrist for not falling exactly in line.

You'll be called much much worse than that. IME, you'll be lumped into the "other side" as defined by each of the bad faith participants. And if you point out their bad faith intent and rhetorical games, the level of ad hominem attacks increases exponentially.

Exactly. This explains why those in the middle receive the most aggression: they're traitors AND hated by both extremes.

Whether you want to or not, as things get more polarized, it becomes ever more difficult to maintain any kind of nuanced position.

Except centrism isn't a real position - by definition. It's solely defined by the sides in opposition. There's a real and important difference between holding positions which make you "roughly" at the center of apparent sides, and the apparent holding of positions because "moderate" or "centrist" is being held up as a virtue.

And that last part is key: at the point where people are arguing that they are moderate, rather then what they actually believe, they're not arguing in good faith to start with - they're trying to argue they're morally superior without engaging with the actual subject matter.

At best, they're in fact arguing for the status quo and trying to pretend that they are not in fact very definitely asserting a position by doing that.

I think what's caused a disagreement here with you and /u/notahacker is the word "real" in this casual, seemingly fine phrase:

>> Except centrism isn't a real position - by definition.

There is something distinctly and genuinely different about centrism, but it is still a real position (it does in fact exist, and is thus "real").

I think what you're actually getting at is that centrism is a relative position (by definition), whereas non-centrists are absolute positions. Well...at least potentially. Fundamentally, few positions are not mostly relative (especially if one includes premises, axioms, etc), as the mind fundamentally and almost necessarily perceives reality thorough relative lenses (with respect to the individual's prior experiences, or in neural network terms: according to the training of their model). And if one is to discuss things in purely/highly absolute terms, the other person will balk ("That's pedantry/Gish Galloping / JAQing off!", behavior which more than a few HN'ers are not immune to themselves).

I believe a large percentage of the population actually possesses these abilities, and some subset of people even exercise these abilities on a very regular basis, with extreme skill (say, when we are programming software) - but only under specific circumstances. Take someone who has these capabilities and drop them into an object level culture war discussion, and these abilities will vanish. This phenomenon can be seen in large quantities not just on sites like Reddit, but also here - it is our nature, at least for now (perhaps some day someone will notice and try to address the issue).

There are also other hidden fundamental problems that are rarely realized or discussed: as just one example, the very language we use to communicate - take the innocuous looking word word "is"....oh, the problems this one seemingly simple word causes in "reality".

"Centrism" is every bit as real as "right wing" or "left wing", both positions also defined in different contexts by what is to the left/right of them. And people can be as genuinely enthusiastic in principle and detail about "a market, but a heavily regulated one" as they can about "the government has no business interfering in markets" or "private profiteers can't be allowed to exploit this resource". Or indeed hold a particular "right wing" or "left wing" position purely because they believe that agreeing with their tribe or expressing the appropriate degree of vehemence of disagreement with the other tribes makes them more virtuous.

There's a certain amount of irony in dismissing a entire range of political opinion as uniquely susceptible to "trying to argue they're morally superior without engaging with the actual subject matter" under an article about bad faith communication.

> Except centrism isn't a real position - by definition.

> they're in fact [...] very definitely asserting a position by doing that.

You seem to have talked yourself out of your own argument through the course of making it.

Status quo conservatism is definitively right wing.

I've found they usually assume I'm secretly on the other side.

Someone (that is generally thoughtful and level-headed) once implied I was racist because I agreed with a conservative.

The conservative had claimed, and I agreed, that, on average, people of African descent have quantifiably darker skin than those with Northern European ancestry.

Edit: The context was a paper on Vitamin D deficiency arguing that funding for increasing Vitamin D supplementation should be aimed at African American communities, since Vitamin D deficiency is more common in darker-skinned communities.

According to the paper, darker skin means less sunlight gets through, which means less Vitamin D production per unit of sun exposure. This matches common sense, and also their epidemiological data.

Nah, you'll be accused of being the opposite of what you are. See Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi.

Why it happened to Taibbi I am unsure, but Greenwald has often resorted to bad faith callouts, before and after his "excommunication". I remember his Iraq war era blogging and uncharitable paraphrasing was pretty common. I just didn't care at the time because I was also antiwar.

"Concern troll" is another popular one.

I'd say it slightly different: I hope that we can have the courage to tell the people closest to us when their behaviors make us feel angry or disgusted or ashamed.

I don't like to use the word "criticism" because I believe it tends to be about trying to objectively label their actions, and much more prefer opening up about we individually feel or even how we imagine others might feel in reaction to those actions.

I agree with you in that this may be more well received by people who feel closest to us and also may be easier for us to open up to them when we fee close to them.

One of the things about call out culture is that it can be an extremely potent weapon for bad faith actors to silence everyone else. Thus stiffling vital dissent and making organizations stupid. In the recent Atlantic, there is an article by Jonathan Haidt that argues precisely that.

Looking at past results, I would not encourage call out culture further.

> It would be great for people who desire good faith communication to call out people who are resorting to bad faith techniques.

In fact that practice is expressly disallowed on this very site, whose guidelines demand we assume good faith on the part of other commenters.

I agree that is one way to interpret those guidelines, but I don't think it is the only way to do it.

It is completely possible for one person to use bad faith techniques without doing it on purpose. You can assume they did that by mistake, and point that out. If after being presented with the evidence they simply refuse to take it, you can continue from there. But be prepared to be presented by their own counter-argument, though.

According to the article always assuming bad faith by the other side is part of the problem that we are lead into. So by calling for the assumption of good faith we can avoid falling into the spiral of bad faith communication.

Thank you. I wondered how many others have reached the same conclusion. I know I did almost immediately

I once got in a long argument with a pro vaccine journalist about this (I am also for vaccines).

The predominant viewpoint in modern day journalism is that a true headline that is technically correct and gets page views is a good headline.

This is the first sign of bad faith communication in the article (misleading with facts).

Example (ficticious) controversial headline:

"Scientists extremely concerned that new variant will kill more children."

Two scientists, and only two dead kids globally (so, less than the current variant), and this is a fine thing to say, apparently.

The goal of a good journalist, in their mind, is to be technically correct while selling papers by getting people to assume the headline means:

"The scientific consensus is that a larger percentage of children will die from the next Covid variant".

No minds were changed during the argument, but I think we both learned something.

In the sprit of TFA, let me try to steel man their argument, with which I don't agree.

Effective communication requires nuance, and definitionally nuances are subtle, and therefore are often difficult to convey in a terse way.

Headlines definitionally are restricted in length. So we can say that nuance and headlines are natural enemies.

Therefore, the best thing a headline can do is to direct a reader toward nuance, which hopefully is contained within the article. So an article that gets page views is not just good for the publisher, but it's also good for discourse in general.

But what about technically correct? Well, I think it's safe to say that a headline that gets clicks but is technically wrong is not what we want. Then let's consider technically correct, what does that even mean? To me, I'd really have to hear the argument in full, but in the spirit of steel manning I'd have to think what they meant was "factually correct", as "technically correct" has some negative connotation having to do focusing on facts while ignoring or discounting more salient issues.

Then again, due to the limited nature of a headline, some or even most of the context must be elided. So really I think the difference between something being "factually correct" and "technically correct" is intent to deceive through lies of omission.

Given the above, I would say a good headline is one which drives the reader to nuance and does so in a way which is factually correct, which I could see characterized as "technically correct and gets page views".

This is consistently what Glenn Greenwald has done and the smear campaign against him by the DNC and liberal establishment has taken him from a world famous Oscar and Pulitzer prize winning journalist to a pariah and supposed Russian right wing shill, kicked out of the organization he founded, The Intercept.

His beliefs and ideas are clearly left wing and he has remained consistent, but by doing what you suggest he has been effectively destroyed. It's really sad to see. And I agree with you, I think he did the right thing regardless of the consequences.

I think Glenn Greenwald was stressed into a place where he just kind of cracked, such as by governments actually hounding him. I have listened to his recent interviews and I think he's gone into classical conspiracy theories involving the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwal...

https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-...

Could you cite a particular unfounded "conspiracy theory" that he is espousing? Most of the things he's written about the CIA, FBI, NSA etc that I've read are grounded in fact and sourced..

Are you suggesting that these three letter agencies aren't constantly involved in shady unethical often law-breaking activity? Have you not been reading hacker news at all? They make it to the front page regularly with their poor behavior.

Bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine.

Greenwald (and Tulsi Gabbard) quoted Nuland directly, who admitted that there were biological research labs.

Greenwald had previously worked on the Anthrax story of 2001, where a couple of high profile people got sent a sophisticated Anthrax variant in the mail.

It was supposed to be foreign terrorism at first, later it was found that the strain came from a U.S. research facility.

Biological weapons aren't allowed by treaty. Research how to combat biological weapons however is allowed. So many countries produce strains in biological research facilities under the guise of defense.

That is precisely Greenwald's point, he has never claimed that bioweapons are manufactured in Ukraine. He has claimed that dangerous biological agents might be present, like they were in the U.S. in 2001.

It takes a lot of history and reading to understand Greenwald. The man is a walking encyclopedia, very careful in his statements and touches issues of great complexity. One can rarely refute him in a one liner.

> admitted that there were biological research labs

Which is fairly normal thing to have in a developed country. And is much different thing the bioweapons lab.

This muddying things does not make Greenwald's sound better. It makes him exactly what he is - someone building conspiracy theory.

If you call my carefully written post "muddying things", there is no point in prolonging the discussion.

You have been smearing Greenwald all over this discussion. This is what he actually said:

https://nitter.net/ggreenwald/status/1501313109520175104

The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons.

If he wanted to make historical point about Antrax, he did not had to make it in context of Ukraine. If he wanted to make point about bioresearch labs in general, he could have made that one. He did not wanted to do either. He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded.

> The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons.

Who is it that's actually doing the confusing here? It's certainly possible that Greenwald is dog-whistling "bioresearch lab" into "bioweapons", but is he actually doing that, and to a large degree (mostly, etc)?

Consider this: within your mind, might there be a bias toward perceiving that this is what he is doing, and might it be also possible that you may not be able to perceive that this is happening (due to the evolved nature of the human mind)?

Let's try to simultaneously operate in a dual state of mind: both abstract (keeping in mind the phenomena discussed in the article, and taking it seriously) and object level (discussion of "these bio labs"[1]): is it possible that some of the things discussed in the article could happen to us folks here on HN, sometimes? To be clear, I am not asserting as a fact that this is happening here, in a big way - rather, I am merely and explicitly offering it as a suggestion of what might be happening, at least to some degree.

[1] I put "these bio labs" in brackets because technically, at the cognitive/neuroscientific level, that is not what either person is actually discussing - rather, each person is necessarily discussing their model of "these bio labs". However, while this is architecturally unavoidable, this is not to say that there is no way to optimize the manner in which we perceive and discuss our respective virtual realities.

As a third party, I can weigh in to eliminate some of the ambiguity you're worried about:

It seems like the views you're replying to, match reality (Greenwald is indeed spreading FUD about something which is totally normal), and, I'm sorry, you are coming across as incomprehensible

> It seems like the views you're replying to, match reality (Greenwald is indeed spreading FUD about something which is totally normal)

Consider this: are things always as they seem? If you consider the entirety of your history on this planet, has there ever been a time where you were at least partially mistaken? Or even easier: have you ever observed another human being mistaking belief for knowledge?

I mean technically: is it not true that you are representing/asserting your perception of "reality" (virtual/perceptual/cognitive reality) to be 100% perfectly and comprehensively aligned with reality itself?

> and, I'm sorry, you are coming across as incomprehensible.

This is extremely common in conversations within certain domains.

Consider this:

- if someone has a bias against certain things, might this have some negative effect on the style and effort they devote to trying to truly understand it (also taking into consideration what is happening in the subconscious mind, which is sub-perceptual, and arguably has the ability to place a ~"hard cap" on what any given individual is capable of, especially if they are not intimately(!) familiar with the phenomenon and actively taking measures to counteract its effects)?

- if one was to give a quantum mechanics textbook to someone who has no background in math/physics/etc, might it seem incomprehensible to them?

And based on prior conversations, it is perhaps a good idea to preemptively counter some common rebuttals to this sort of thinking: often the response I will get to this sort of reasoning is that it is "pedantic", or various memes/slurs such as /r/iamverysmart, Gish Gallop, JAQing off, etc. I promise that this is not what I am doing - I am genuinely trying to have a truly good faith conversation (which, unsurprisingly, may appear "very weird"), and I encourage you to disagree with any points I've made that you believe (after some self-critical contemplation, ideally) contain a genuine flaw(s), however small.

>are things always as they seem

you already asked that of the other person

I am a third party confirming that, yes, in this case, they are as they seem to that person

if you believe their position, as confirmed by a third party, contains genuine flaws, it might just be your biases showing through

nonetheless, I encourage you to clearly (and succinctly) articulate them, and try to convince us that said person's views do not reflect reality

> you already asked that of the other person

> I am a third party confirming that, yes, in this case, they are as they seem to that person

And now I am asking you. Two people agreeing that something "seems" true does not render it true in actual/shared reality.

> if you believe their position, as confirmed by a third party, contains genuine flaws, it might just be your biases showing through

This is one possibility, but another possibility is that their position, and the "confirmation" by the third party, is erroneous, perhaps due to their biases.

> nonetheless, I encourage you to clearly (and succinctly) articulate them, and try to convince us that said person's views do not reflect reality

I do not "have a dog" in this object level fight - my interest is in the abstract: what are the various ways in which human beings perceive reality incorrectly, and is it possible to get even one of them to explicitly acknowledge that it is possible that their belief is incorrect, at least to some degree....and, might it be possible that this ~methodology (exerting effort to discover what is actually true, and fine-grained "hard stops" preventing that discovery, etc) may have materially important utility to humanity, and should therefore perhaps be taken seriously.

Note also that I explicitly encourage disagreement, as well as avoiding the premature formation of conclusions (I did not do this explicitly before, so I am appending it here).

>And now I am asking you.

Actually, I am the one asking YOU!

>I do not "have a dog" in this object level fight

As the third party here, I am actually the unbiased one in your disagreement with the other person, and I am simply saying that your position is unconvincing compared to theirs.

You, meanwhile, by attacking this person specifically, definitely seem to "have a dog" in this fight, despite your claims to the contrary.

Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself.

Or, if you believe something that person said to be false, feel free to make a convincing case for it.

> Actually, I am the one asking YOU!

I am happy to answer any questions you pose to me - unless I am overlooking something, I have not missed anything you have asked of me.

However, you have missed some questions I asked of you. I would also enjoy reading any answers you may have to questions I have asked of others upthread.

And of course, you have no obligation to answer my questions, but I would prefer if we are explicit and accurate about how each of us conducts ourselves in the conversation (ie: if one of us does not answer specific questions, acknowledge that simply and unequivocally).

And if you were implicitly posing "Are things always as they seem?" to me, my answer is: no, things are not always as they seem. In fact, I argue that they are almost always not what they seem, and that this is necessarily the case due to the physical architecture of the mind/reality, plus a whole bunch of other scientifically uncontroversial reasons.

> As the third party here, I am actually the unbiased one in your disagreement with the other person...

We are discussing an object level matter - it is possible that you do not have bias on this matter, but that you personally perceive yourself to be unbiased is not convincing, and is certainly subject to a variety of possible well known phenomenon in psychology/etc.

At the very least, I think the most epistemically sound stance is that it is not known whether you or I have some bias, or the degree to which each of us is biased. After all, science has a fair amount of depth in this realm and if you take their findings even partially seriously, that there is at least some uncertainty seems highly certain.

> ...and I am simply saying that your position is unconvincing compared to theirs.

I am less interested in being persuasive than I am in being correct. Actually, I have enough experience in this domain that I believe it may not be possible to convince certain people of certain things, at least on current communication platforms like this one, in cultures like this one. I think this could change with more sophisticated platforms and cultures, but such things are not the purpose or goal of HN (dang has been explicit about this).

> You, meanwhile, by attacking this person specifically, definitely seem to "have a dog" in this fight, despite your claims to the contrary.

As I already asked you (and you did not answer): "Are things always as they seem?"

I respectfully challenge you to answer this question.

> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself.

Ah, "solipsism", color me not shocked at all that this idea manifested in the mind of someone I am having this type of conversation with.

Do you believe that I am a solipsist, or that the ideas I have written here are fundamentally and necessarily solipsistic?

> Or, if you believe something that person said to be false, feel free to make a convincing case for it.

The first burden of proof lies with the one making an assertion - I challenged the assertion above, no response has appeared thus far.

As for making a case, consider this assertion:

>> He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded.

Is this not mind reading? Or at the very least, stating one's opinions/inferences in the form of facts?

And if this is ok, then should Mr. Greenwald not get a free pass on the very same basis?

>I am happy to answer any questions you pose to me - unless I am overlooking something, I have not missed anything you have asked of me.

You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, with which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any, though, we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post.

>>He wanted to muddy waters precisedly at the time when is sounded like Ukraine has bioweapons precisedly when they were invaded.

>Is this not mind reading?

No, it's drawing conclusions based on the available data. I also independently drew the same conclusions, so that should make you introspect a little, and ask what it is you're doing which causes people to conclude that based on the available data of your behavior.

>Are things always as they seem?

Indeed, are they? Is it possible that you aren't actually asking this question at all, and you actually agree with the person to which you responded? And you just think something else happened? Do you think this is possible?

On a higher level, you believe you are engaged in meta-discussion, in response to the actual discussion started by the other person.

I am thus engaged in meta-meta-discussion: My new question to you is, can you make a convincing case that your meta-discussion increases understanding of the original topic, rather than deflecting from it? Thanks!

> You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, which which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any though....

I replied addressing that. If you are unsatisfied with my reply, please quote the text of the specific question you asked that you believe I did not answer.

Note also: I may not hold a position on object level matters - me pushing back on a claim should not be interpreted as a belief in the opposite (as is usually the case, in my experience).

> ...we can thus conclude that you agree with what was in that post.

You can certainly conclude that, and even assert it, but this does not make it true.

> On a higher level, you believe you are engaged in meta-discussion, in response to the actual discussion started by the other person.

This is my intent and desire, but whether this is a group undertaking in fact I cannot say, I can only hope.

> I am thus engaged in meta-meta-discussion: My new question to you is, can you make a convincing case that your meta-discussion increases understanding of the original topic, rather than deflecting from it? Thanks!

I would hope that it would help: the goal is be to highlight that perception and reality are similar but different, and that this is extremely important, but whether I am successful in the slightest I do not know - if forced, I would predict that I am not successful, based on hundreds if not thousands of similar conversations. This seems to be a very difficult nut to crack, but then I don't think that should be very surprising.

If you don't mind: could you state explicitly whether you will answer the questions I stated above (physically answer them, in this thread)?

>> You have indeed! I asked if there was any specific part of the post you responded to, which which you disagreed. Since you did not provide any though....

>I replied addressing that. If you are unsatisfied with my reply, please quote the text of the specific question you asked that you believe I did not answer.

and I replied to that reply, concluding from it that you had no substantive material disagreements. If you're unsatisfied with this conclusion, please reply with, for each disagreement, a quote of the claim, what you believe to be wrong about that claim, and your evidence for your assertion that the claim is wrong, and I'll evaluate your evidence to see whether it convincingly supports your doubts.

>perception and reality are similar but different, and that this is extremely important

Indeed, and, this is extremely important: isn't it possible that you only perceive yourself to be in disagreement with what the original poster said, but in reality, you are in total agreement, and have no complaints or criticisms whatsoever? Furthermore, isn't it possible that you only _perceived_ yourself asking the questions you think you asked, and in reality, you did not ask them? Is this a possibility?

> and I replied to that reply, concluding from it that you had no substantive material disagreements. If you're unsatisfied with this conclusion, please reply with, for each disagreement, a quote of the claim, what you believe to be wrong about that claim, and your evidence for your assertion that the claim is wrong, and I'll evaluate your evidence to see whether it convincingly supports your doubts.

My initial grievance is here:

>> (someone) The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons.

> (me) Who is it that's actually doing the confusing here? It's certainly possible that Greenwald is dog-whistling "bioresearch lab" into "bioweapons", but is he actually doing that, and to a large degree (mostly, etc)?

Here one human is accusing another human (or several), whom he doesn't know, of speaking deliberately deceivingly, making ~invalid associations between things, etc - a not abnormal interpretation of this might be something like "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, he's trying to tell a tall tale, he might even be a conspiracy theorist".

At the very least, there's little acknowledgement I see about the complexities and uncertainty involved. This is but one of my overall complaints about culture war arguments, people play so fast and loose with the truth. If there's a post about computing on HN, attention to detail and emphasis on correctness is bountiful and uncontroversial. But in a culture war conversation, I proclaim that the inverse is true - and, I also think this abstract phenomenon is a big deal in the big scheme of things.

> Indeed, and, this is extremely important: isn't it possible that you only perceive yourself to be in disagreement with what the original poster said, but in reality, you are in total agreement, and have no complaints or criticisms whatsoever? Furthermore, isn't it possible that you only _perceived_ yourself asking the questions you think you asked, and in reality, you did not ask them? Is this a possibility?

Of course, why not.

But you brought up solipsism earlier:

>> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself.

Perhaps you cannot (or will not) think in these terms without falling into a state of solipsism (or impotency due to indecision, another common complaint), but it's certainly not necessary. It is possible to address these ideas as they are, and take them seriously (as opposed to representing that they are silly, woo woo, bad faith, whatever). Perhaps it is not possible in the mainstream, in 2022, but it is possible.

>Here one human is accusing another human...

And one can presume you disagree with them.

The evidence supporting their position is convincing, you may now present your evidence to the contrary, and I'll determine whose position between the two of you is more tenable given the evidence.

You see, raising questions does not add to any position in particular -- if you have questions, feel free to find the answers, and hopefully they will be ones which make your case more convincing than the case you are arguing against.

>Perhaps you cannot...

I think it is a bit primitive to make assumptions about what I can or cannot do. Perhaps I address these ideas better than you can comprehend, and you just _PERCEIVE_ it to be biting satire that cuts any hypothetical similarly-structured dissembling to the bone

> And one can presume you disagree with them.

One can presume whatever one wants. Whether one's presumption is correct is another matter.

> The evidence supporting their position is convincing, you may now present your evidence to the contrary, and I'll determine whose position between the two of you is more tenable given the evidence.

Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)?

> You see, raising questions does not add to any position in particular...

I'm not trying to add to one position or the other, I have made this clear several times. You may not believe me, but that is my claim - let's mark it as a discrete difference of opinion and add it to The List.

> ...if you have questions, feel free to find the answers, and hopefully they will be ones which make your case more convincing than the case you are arguing against.

I've asked several of you above, I was hoping the answers would come from you! But alas....

> I think it is a bit primitive to make assumptions about what I can or cannot do.

"Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief. Now if you wer to say I might be engaging in a little provocative rhetoric, well now that would be a different matter. :)

> Perhaps I address these ideas better than you can comprehend, and you just _PERCEIVE_ it to be biting satire that cuts any hypothetical similarly-structured dissembling to the bone

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps you are not. Perhaps there is a complex, mysterious, paradoxical blend among all of us. I wonder what is true!

>I've asked several of you above, I was hoping the answers would come from you!

Feel free to ask them of yourself, if they help you arrive at a case more convincing than the one you are arguing against. As judge of your two's dispute, my own inputs shouldn't be necessary for you to make your case convincingly. If it is, your case is bad.

>>The evidence supporting their position is convincing, you may now present your evidence to the contrary, and I'll determine whose position between the two of you is more tenable given the evidence.

>Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)?

The points of contention you have with the original post are for you to clarify in some detail. If you have no point of contention with their post, IE you agree with it, then I guess there's no disagreement.

>"Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief

I don't recall arguing otherwise, so not sure what you're getting at here.

> I wonder what is true!

One heuristic is, whatever you think is true, even if multiple people speak to the contrary. It's not a great heuristic, but _some_people_ use it. Eye roll emoji.

> Feel free to ask them of yourself...

I am curious to know your thoughts on them. But that's fine, if you choose to ask questions of others but refuse to answer any asked of you, so be it.

> ...if they help you arrive at a case more convincing than the one you are arguing against.

I will repost this for fun:

>> Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)?

-

> As judge of your two's dispute, my own inputs shouldn't be necessary for you to make your case convincingly. If it is, your case is bad.

I will repost this again, for fun:

>> Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)?

-

> The points of contention you have with the original post are for you to clarify in some detail. If you have no point of contention with their post, IE you agree with it, then I guess there's no disagreement.

I've complied many times - you are welcome to read my reply, and I welcome you to point out what I haven't answered if you think that is the case. Or, we can continue with this approach, up to you.

>>>>> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself.

>>>> Perhaps you cannot (or will not) think in these terms without falling into a state of solipsism (or impotency due to indecision, another common complaint), but it's certainly not necessary. It is possible to address these ideas as they are, and take them seriously (as opposed to representing that they are silly, woo woo, bad faith, whatever). Perhaps it is not possible in the mainstream, in 2022, but it is possible.

>>> I think it is a bit primitive to make assumptions about what I can or cannot do.

>> "Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief.

> I don't recall arguing otherwise, so not sure what you're getting at here.

I am getting at the "broadly accepted (or not, as the case may be) meaning represented by particular words (and I guess: how different people interpret/use them, sometimes not caring whether they are doing so erroneously):

perhaps: used when one does not wish to be too definite or assertive in the expression of an opinion

assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Note also: are you not guilty of the very same thing you accuse me of?: "Perhaps I address these ideas better than you can comprehend, and you just _PERCEIVE_ it to be biting satire that cuts any hypothetical similarly-structured dissembling to the bone"

I have to say, this is one of the more interesting and enjoyable threads I've encountered on HN.

It seems that this ad infinitum gibberish posting deflecting from the topic at hand is somewhat of a pattern for you, which would explain why you felt the need to deny you engage in "gish gallop" and other such dissembling off the bat -- because you'd been informed so many times that you do.

Since you've been unable to articulate any substantive issues with the original post with quotes from it and your most convincing arguments against them, it seems we can assume you agree with it, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for the sake of personal learning.

> It seems that this ad infinitum gibberish posting deflecting from the topic at hand is somewhat of a pattern for you, which would explain why you felt the need to deny you engage in "gish gallop" and other such dissembling off the bat -- because you'd been informed so many times that you do.

This style of thinking seems to have become quite the cultural norm - if someone challenges the narrative, rather than address their words they're declared by fiat to be "gibberish". If a person writes too little, their explanation is insufficient, but if they write more, they're "gish galloping", "JAQing off", etc. Thinking in memes is standard and expected behavior in places like /r/politics, but I'd expect a bit more from HN. What a world it would be if HN'ers could apply the same attention to correctness that they do in threads on technical topics to non-technical topics...and if we could find a way to do it here, perhaps we could teach it to others.

But of course, this sort of thinking "is" surely gibberish.

> Since you've been unable to articulate any substantive issues with the original post

The success of communication is a function of both the sender and receiver. It is certainly possible that what I've written here is useless, but the notion that the opinion of one side in an internet argument is necessarily completely correct seems a bit foolish to me. I am more than happy to consider that my words and ideas contain at least some flaws, perhaps even substantial ones....might yours be of a similar nature? Is it possible?

> we can assume you agree with it, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for the sake of personal learning.

You can indeed - in fact, it is entirely possible to go through your entire life assuming that how things seem to you are how they are. In fact, I'd say that this is by far the most popular approach, and humanity is reaping what they sow.

If you think I'm "deflecting from the topic at hand", ask me a question about the topic, and I will answer it. And as a benefit: I do not expect the same in return - you are free to ignore every question I pose to you, and I will at most point out your behavior, but I will not engage in childish name calling or stating pejorative opinions in the form of facts.

It's totally normal and expected for biological research labs to have biological samples with which to do research.

What is being described is beyond that, with thinly veiled suggestions of covert maliciousness sprinkled in.

> What is being described is beyond that

Instead of describing it, why not provide a quote with a citation to its context?

I'm not doing either at the moment. Why do you ask?

As we see in Wuhan, a virus can be devastating no matter if it escapes from a research facility, a wet market or a deliberate bioweapon. That was the primary concern of Tulsi Gabbard.

In Ukraine, matters are exacerbated by the fact that these research facilities, according to the left wing newspaper The Guardian, were U.S. funded:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/russia-biologi...

Ukraine does operate biological laboratories that receive US funding. The US undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland affirmed those facts in a Senate foreign relations committee hearing this week, in which the Republican senator Marco Rubio asked directly if Ukraine had biological weapons.

Given the politically unstable situation in February 2022 and earlier, people like Greenwald and Gabbard simply point out that Putin will view this as a provocation, same as the Nuland/Graham involvement in the revolution in 2014.

Most people who are called Putin apologists are simply doing one thing: They know that Putin is a bully with 6,000 nuclear weapons, so they try to understand his thinking and possible reactions. As we see now, they were right in many ways.

> They know that Putin is a bully with 6,000 nuclear weapons, so they try to understand his thinking and possible reactions.

This would require reading what Putin wrote and commenting on it. This would require listening to his speeches in Russia. This would require close listening to Russian ideology and mythology disseminated in Russia itself and commenting on it. This would required reading Russian and Easter European politics and history - at least recent one.

It would require watching which of his statements are shifting, which are ignored the moment they are not useful, which are staying and which are supported by his actions. I dont see them ever mentioning Putins historical theories, his theories about Ukraine statehood, about Stalin.

And somehow, that concern exists only when Russia is trying to excuse invasion by bioweapons labs. Somehow, magically, this concern did not existed before, nor in other countries and stopped existing as it turned out not many people are buying it as excuse for invasion. There was no "maybe the war did not started due to that" consideration either.

This was not concern about "provocation" or concern about Putin being good-faith afraid of new covid from Ukraine. This was muddying waters, trying to build up new WMD-like narrative, because libs are at Ukrainien side.

>And somehow, that concern exists only when Russia is trying to excuse invasion by bioweapons labs. Somehow, magically, this concern did not existed before, nor in other countries and stopped existing as it turned out not many people are buying it as excuse for invasion.

Seriously, like are we supposed to believe Russia has no biological labs? Or that only Russia is allowed to, and not other countries like Ukraine?

To reiterate:

It's totally normal and expected for biological research labs to have biological samples with which to do research.

Ukraine, like any other country, has a vested interest in the health of its population, and so Ukraine, like many other countries, performs research on diseases that ail mankind.

Additionally, "receives US funding" is a better way to put it than "US funded", which is calculated to make it seem more like the US was the _only_ country funding them. Though one would expect that one of the largest economies in the world would help its allies research and treat their diseases.

The accusations and suppositions put forward are beyond that, with thinly veiled suggestions of covert maliciousness sprinkled in.

As for Putin, he views the existence of a free Ukraine that isn't part of Russia, as a provocation, thus the invasion, so it's pretty clear that what he viewed as provocation is not necessarily an actual provocation, but rather a pretext for further violence that he already planned anyways.

"thinly veiled suggestions of covert maliciousness sprinkled in."

This could be your bad-faith reading of the stories, though. You are "reading between the lines" and seeing statements that aren't actually there, then claiming bad-faith communication on others.

Finally, saying what you think another is thinking or going to say, as in Putin's actions and motives, is very far from SUPPORTING those actions and motives.

> You are "reading between the lines" and seeing statements that aren't actually there, then claiming bad-faith communication on others

You simply claiming that does not make it so.

>Finally, saying what you think another is thinking or going to say, as in Putin's actions and motives, is very far from SUPPORTING those actions and motives.

Yes, there was no disagreement on this point. The point is that "Putin will view X as a provocation, so we shouldn't do X" is an unconvincing argument, because Putin has already claimed his own actions were provocations against him. There is no world in which Putin will not either find or invent a pretext to do what he wants, and call it a "provocation".

No matter what anyone says or does, as long as Ukraine still exists as an independent country, Putin will say, it is engaged in "provocation" which necessitates eliminating Ukraine as an independent country.

Nah, Glenn Greenwald is not arguing in good faith and was not for a long time. And I did not needed to "smear campaign" against him to figure that out. All I needed was was to read his twitter feed regularly - as I was. He is good at strong words and insults, but not at good faith discussion at all.

> His beliefs and ideas are clearly left wing and he has remained consistent,

Kinda yes and no, not really. He has some lefty opinions, but that is it.

I mean, I don't think colordrops/gkaly is defending Greenwald in good faith either.

What did I say that was underhanded or otherwise indicated bad faith? Your direct ad hominem labeling without any context or explanation is the most bad faith thing in this thread.

Cycomanic pointed it out thoroughly enough that I'd only be repeating what they said.

One of your bigger tells however is how you never actually defend your positions. You only attack the others' opinions. You constantly require everyone else to be on the defense while never actually defending your positions yourself.

You're not here to engage in debate, you're here to rant.

Are you not aware that you are doing everything you are accusing me of?

I'm not and you know it.

I notice you also didn't engage with Cycomanic after he deconstructed your post and called out all of your bad faith tactics. I also pointed out another.

You also like to sneak in hyperbole. You claim I said you were underhanded, when I did no such thing. It's an effort to get me to argue something I never said.

This isn't so much an accusation as just pointing out what you're doing here.

Anyone reading this thread sees that you aren't even discussing the topic, labeling me, and criticizing with vague generalizations, then accusing others of exactly what you are doing, which is bad faith argument. Your response here is not worth further comment.

It is true anyone reading this thread can see exactly what's happening here.

However, I don't think it will have the outcome you think it will.

I think it's not quite so simple. I previously believed in some of the strong ad honimems against him (and I have revised that position). However, I am very critical of some of his behaviour, he himself has used bad faith communication (often adopted from right wing pundits) strategies to criticise "his side/the left" and had the same time goes onto shows like Tucker Carlsson and does not use it to engage in critical dialogue with him, or call out his constant bad faith arguments, but instead "bash the left".

Of course he goes on Tucker Carlson's show, because stories like the Hunter Biden laptop were suppressed by CNN, Facebook, Twitter and others. In fact they were called "Russian disinformation".

Now in 2022, many of the same outlets suddenly acknowledge the authenticity of the story. CNN has James Clapper as its own security analyst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper#CNN_national_sec...), why would Greenwald appear there after all that has happened in 2013?

Many of Greenwald's "conspiracy theories" are facts two years later.

Attacking him for going on Tucker Carlson is a typical bad faith smear used against him and many others. CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. Why must people only go on shows that are on "their side"? That's propaganda, not journalism.

Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side". This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left. To attack the right would be singing to the choir, and also be part of the choir, because 99% of the rest of left wing media already focus all their effort on "the other side". Do you not think it's a waste of time to convince the left that trump and fox are bad?

The fact is that most media are just cheerleaders for team red or team blue. Glenn is not a cheerleader, and thus not an establishment mouthpiece, and so he gets smeared by people like you.

> Attacking him for going on Tucker Carlson is a typical bad faith smear used against him and many others. CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. Why must people only go on shows that are on "their side"? That's propaganda, not journalism.

Hold on, I did not say he shouldn't be going on Fox news or TC. However going to Fox news and calling NYT biased left wing media of the "rich elite", without any criticism towards Fox news, their ownership and agenda is not engaging in a good faith debate.

> Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side". This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left.

So do you believe that going to Fox news and essentially repeating their talking points is a good way of "waking up the left"? I mean the audience he is trying to address is not really listening there is it? Also why not take the opportunity to also engage critically with Fox?

>To attack the right would be singing to the choir, and also be part of the choir, because 99% of the rest of left wing media already focus all their effort on "the other side". Do you not think it's a waste of time to convince the left that trump and fox are bad?

I find the notion that any media in the US is left completely alien. I mean the NYT would maybe considered centre right in most of Europe.

> The fact is that most media are just cheerleaders for team red or team blue. Glenn is not a cheerleader, and thus not an establishment mouthpiece, and so he gets smeared by people like you.

I find it ironic that in a discussion about bad faith communication, you call my criticising Glenn as smearing? Where did I attack his character? I think what he is doing is not constructive, and I explained why I think that is the case.

> CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview.

The majority of journalists and opinion writers wont ever be on CNN and MSNBC. Overwhelming majority of them, in fact.

> Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side".

Well, in that case, he is massive failure. Probably because he argues in bad faith and also because hate is dripping out of him.

> This topic is almost completely unaddressed amongst the left.

The left is constantly engaged in in-fighting.

Glenn Greenwald is worthy of being on CNN and MSNBC, and has been on before, but mysteriously was no longer invited once he started criticizing the liberal establishment. Hmm..

And in-fighting is not the same as calling out the corrupt elite that maintain the Overton window of what most blue journalists and politicians speak about.

Overwhelming majority of journalists is "worthy" of that. But, Glenn Greenwald seemed to be mostly emotional bundle last years as I was watching him. And completely unable to handle any pushback or criticism back - responding with pure insults and anger half the time.

I used to like him and respect him, which is why I was following him. It was not other peoples criticism of Greenwald that made me loose respect to him. People I normally follow dont comment on Greenwald. It was him.