I feel like it’s always the lazy resort to “comic book villain” strawmanning.
If you always think your political enemies think what they think because “they’re evil, they want to inflict pain and be monstrous,” then it’s blatantly obvious you’ve never been good faith or probably even read the foundational reasoning of the opponent.
And that’s a shame generally, but also rhetorically. Is this supposed to convince the other side to change their mind when you completely butcher their position and call them names?
I get that politics is becoming more intertwined with identity, but I feel like good discussions are always a give and take. I take the good parts of your reasoning and weigh it into my own beliefs, even if we disagree broadly.
Chankston t1_j0ut6kz wrote
Reply to comment by wilde_man in Our stated political beliefs are irrational when taken as a package – the don’t appear to form coherent wholes. But we should be skeptical about whether these irrational political beliefs are really beliefs by IAI_Admin
I feel like it’s always the lazy resort to “comic book villain” strawmanning.
If you always think your political enemies think what they think because “they’re evil, they want to inflict pain and be monstrous,” then it’s blatantly obvious you’ve never been good faith or probably even read the foundational reasoning of the opponent.
And that’s a shame generally, but also rhetorically. Is this supposed to convince the other side to change their mind when you completely butcher their position and call them names?
I get that politics is becoming more intertwined with identity, but I feel like good discussions are always a give and take. I take the good parts of your reasoning and weigh it into my own beliefs, even if we disagree broadly.