Did I say I want that? I just said you can’t defend your positions on the merits. I was simply describing the situation, which explains the odd “rules.”
You think anyone who argues with you doesn’t believe what they themselves are putting forward? Because that’s what “bad faith” means; it’s not just a buzzword that is synonymous with “wrong.” That’s a pretty self-serving view. One that would be easily demolished if you ever allowed the real world to penetrate your bubble, even once, much less ten thousand times.
Arguing with the goal of frustrating the other person and punishing them for sincerely engaging with your arguments. Just look at what right wing pundits like Ben Shapiro or (formally) Charlie Kirk do.
If you really want a com where rule breaking comments aren’t removed, you’ll have to make it yourself.
Did I say I want that? I just said you can’t defend your positions on the merits. I was simply describing the situation, which explains the odd “rules.”
God forbid we want a com where we don’t have to refute the same bad faith liberal bullshit ten thousand times over.
You think anyone who argues with you doesn’t believe what they themselves are putting forward? Because that’s what “bad faith” means; it’s not just a buzzword that is synonymous with “wrong.” That’s a pretty self-serving view. One that would be easily demolished if you ever allowed the real world to penetrate your bubble, even once, much less ten thousand times.
No, that isn’t what bad faith means.
Given that I have engaged with it extensively, no it wouldn’t.
If arguing points you don’t believe in isn’t arguing in bad faith, then what is? Making points you don’t agree with?
Arguing with the goal of frustrating the other person and punishing them for sincerely engaging with your arguments. Just look at what right wing pundits like Ben Shapiro or (formally) Charlie Kirk do.