Take for example the comments here, if all of them are assumed to have been made not in ‘good faith’, why would you ever substantially engage with them?
And vice versa, if they all start not assuming ‘good faith’ with future posts by ‘Zack_M_Davis’, doesn’t that imply a negation of any built up credibility?
And if so, why would they care at all about what is written by this account?
Sorry if the title was confusing. (It was too punchy to resist.) I think if you read the full text of the post and pretend it was titled something else, it will make more sense: I’m appealing to the definition of “bad faith” as being about non-overt motives, and explicitly denying that this precludes value in reading or engaging, precisely because non-overt motives are pretty ordinary.
Isn’t this self-defeating?
Take for example the comments here, if all of them are assumed to have been made not in ‘good faith’, why would you ever substantially engage with them?
And vice versa, if they all start not assuming ‘good faith’ with future posts by ‘Zack_M_Davis’, doesn’t that imply a negation of any built up credibility?
And if so, why would they care at all about what is written by this account?
Sorry if the title was confusing. (It was too punchy to resist.) I think if you read the full text of the post and pretend it was titled something else, it will make more sense: I’m appealing to the definition of “bad faith” as being about non-overt motives, and explicitly denying that this precludes value in reading or engaging, precisely because non-overt motives are pretty ordinary.
Ah, so the title was in bad faith. Nicely recursive!