How to End Bad Faith Social Media Disputes
They don’t really want to argue with you, the random randomists that pop into comments on your Facebook posts, on your tweets and blog posts (hello!) Asking you to “discuss” you about the shit that we all already owe agree. You cannot discuss them meaningfully because they are mouths without ears. You can block them or make your account private, but that might leave you frustrated and powerless. How to get out of this situation, feeling at least some satisfaction?
Political strategist Aaron Huertas provides a comprehensive guide to these pseudo-debaters in The Field Guide to Arguments for Bad Faith. He explains the futility of arguing with these people about their terms and instead recommends a strategy for each type of unscrupulous arguer. For instance:
- “Cartoon Straw” presents counterarguments against what you never actually stated; they are being fought with, pointing out that no one claimed to do so.
- The Lie Detector, an evolved form of that straw behavior, insists that you mean what you don’t mean and should be ridiculed for acting like a psychic.
- The Purity Tester indicates that sometimes your point of view has acted hypocritically or looked hypocritical if you squinted, truly judgmental. They lie to you, they don’t care about ideological purity. Ask them whose authority they believe in.
Etc. Huertas’ recommended actions are not reliable; some of them mostly involve your debater. You may find it more enjoyable to just read this deletion and feel more correct and superior compared to your commenters. I mean the Facebook responders.
For a deeper look at the most ridiculous arguments of bad faith, their appeal and the dangers of good faith, read Fred Clarke ‘s essay False Witnesses. Clarke reveals rumors from the 1980s (and 90s) that the Procter & Gamble CEO literally worshiped Satan .
Christians throughout America are spreading this lie not in spite of a complete lack of evidence, but because of it. Clarke describes a P&G dossier full of counter-evidence and religious confirmation. Clarke said none of this worked because the people spreading the rumors did n’t really believe P&G was a Satanist, not on a rational, literal level. They believed in something more.
For the Amway sellers who encouraged these rumors, the motive was simple greed. But for everyone else, boycotting the Satanist P&G was just a way to prove that you are a true Christian and not a supporter of Satan. If anyone tried to challenge the facts with you, you were simply angry because your commitment to Jesus was at stake. So P&G kept losing until people found someone new to blame for satanic influence. They have not learned the lesson: do not engage unscrupulous panelists on their own terms.