Read on Twitter
The invitation to explain yourself to somebody who has demonstrated a clear unwillingness to understand is not as attractive a proposition as many seem to think.
It’s an expression of contempt, and need not be honored or even acknowledged.
It’s an expression of contempt, and need not be honored or even acknowledged.
Returning to this, because, as previously stated, it’s such an intact specimen of deliberate bad-faith dialogue. It’s like a multifaceted gem of toxic privilege.
There’s a lot to learn about how evil-intentioned people behave, and how best to respond. https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1273933946506694658?s=20
There’s a lot to learn about how evil-intentioned people behave, and how best to respond. https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1273933946506694658?s=20
I’m going to use “evil” instead of “bad” here, because I think what’s being done in this case is evil.
Here’s my definition of “evil,” for clarity: Deliberate, knowing, mindful, and gleeful actions taken deliberately to make the world worse for others and better for oneself.
Here’s my definition of “evil,” for clarity: Deliberate, knowing, mindful, and gleeful actions taken deliberately to make the world worse for others and better for oneself.
Quick recap:
1) This fellow wrote a long and very detailed thread about how he recommends people use intellectually dishonest bad-faith tactics to disrupt corporate racial diversity training.
1) This fellow wrote a long and very detailed thread about how he recommends people use intellectually dishonest bad-faith tactics to disrupt corporate racial diversity training.
2) His overtly-stated purpose is to encourage people to by be dishonest about their intentions in order to sabotage racial awareness training and waste the time of trainers and learners both. He clearly takes pleasure in the idea.
3) I (among many others) commented on this. He quote-tweeted all of these with responses of his own, which flooded people's mentions for a couple days with rote invective from his troll army of aggrieved racists.
This was my observation, and his response to it.
End recap.
This was my observation, and his response to it.
End recap.
This is a pretty interesting response. I’ll give him this: it’s pretty smart. Evil, but smart.
There’s so many different ways to respond. So many inviting avenues to take. So many retorts come to mind.
None of them address my point. Which is EXACTLY the point.
There’s so many different ways to respond. So many inviting avenues to take. So many retorts come to mind.
None of them address my point. Which is EXACTLY the point.
Let’s repeat the point so we don’t forget.
His *overtly-stated purpose* is to encourage people to waste time of trainers and learners by being dishonest about their intentions, in order to sabotage racial awareness training.
His *overtly-stated purpose* is to encourage people to waste time of trainers and learners by being dishonest about their intentions, in order to sabotage racial awareness training.
So this is a person who is on record as being untrustworthy, who has done some very deep and deliberate thinking about how to lie in order to derail people’s intentions.
It's not rare to find somebody like this. It's only rare to find somebody so proud to admit it.
It's not rare to find somebody like this. It's only rare to find somebody so proud to admit it.
By his own admission, he is somebody not to be trusted. This is central.
He is proudly self-confessed as a person who takes pleasure in acting in bad faith to waste people's time.
We should expect him to use his tactics in all his dealings. Everything he says is suspect.
He is proudly self-confessed as a person who takes pleasure in acting in bad faith to waste people's time.
We should expect him to use his tactics in all his dealings. Everything he says is suspect.
We’ll know such a person not by what they say but what they do.
Example: We know he's opposed to anti-racism and diversity philosophy, particularly anti-racism training, particularly in corporate settings.
We know he profits from speaking for like-minded people.
Example: We know he's opposed to anti-racism and diversity philosophy, particularly anti-racism training, particularly in corporate settings.
We know he profits from speaking for like-minded people.
He gives reasons for his opposition. Those reasons shouldn’t be trusted, because, again, the central point is: this is a person who is by his own admission not to be believed.
(In fact, we can discern the real reasons, but that’s maybe another thread.)
(In fact, we can discern the real reasons, but that’s maybe another thread.)
So, back to his response. Look at the openings he’s given me!
•Falsely claims I used the term “alt-right”
•Claims to be liberal, which is possible but seems dubious
•Falsely implies I said he was right-wing, rather than that his tactics were common on the right
•And an insult
•Falsely claims I used the term “alt-right”
•Claims to be liberal, which is possible but seems dubious
•Falsely implies I said he was right-wing, rather than that his tactics were common on the right
•And an insult
Where to start? How about with none of it?
Remember: this is a person who has *already announced* he will deceive in order to derail.
He would love to argue along any of these lines, all of which deflect from the point, which is: https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1275042128532512774?s=20
Remember: this is a person who has *already announced* he will deceive in order to derail.
He would love to argue along any of these lines, all of which deflect from the point, which is: https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1275042128532512774?s=20
He knows that I didn’t say alt-right.
That it’s dubious (though possible and unfalsifiable) that he’s a liberal
That I didn’t say he was right-wing.
He’d love to trade insults.
He doesn't want to debate. He just wants to waste time and energy.
That it’s dubious (though possible and unfalsifiable) that he’s a liberal
That I didn’t say he was right-wing.
He’d love to trade insults.
He doesn't want to debate. He just wants to waste time and energy.
He is a self-confessed untrustworthy person who deliberately sabotages dialogue, is the point. He doesn’t want to talk about the point. He's committed to missing the point.
We know what he’ll do if there’s a topic he doesn’t want discussed.
We know what he’ll do if there’s a topic he doesn’t want discussed.
In this case, ironically enough, the point *is* that by his own admission he’s untrustworthy, but the tactic is everywhere.
The tactic: asking questions that want no answers, asked to waste your time and energy.
Bad faith.
The tactic: asking questions that want no answers, asked to waste your time and energy.
Bad faith.
This deflection is how you know you’re dealing with bad faith and/or evil intent.
That moment where you think “how could he even THINK that?” He doesn’t.
When you want to say “I didn’t even SAY that!” She knows you didn’t.
When they say “I’m sure you have evidence.”
Bad faith.
That moment where you think “how could he even THINK that?” He doesn’t.
When you want to say “I didn’t even SAY that!” She knows you didn’t.
When they say “I’m sure you have evidence.”
Bad faith.
I didn't say "right wing monster," and this person knows it.
And James Lindsay doesn't believe that the best way to address somebody's points is by engaging with them honestly, nor does anybody defending him. We know that.
We already KNOW that.
Bad faith.
And James Lindsay doesn't believe that the best way to address somebody's points is by engaging with them honestly, nor does anybody defending him. We know that.
We already KNOW that.
Bad faith.
If somebody actually wants to learn the answers to these questions, that is what a training is FOR.
But they don't want that. They want to derail the training so the learning can't even happen.
And we already know that. We already KNOW that.
Bad faith.
But they don't want that. They want to derail the training so the learning can't even happen.
And we already know that. We already KNOW that.
Bad faith.
There are so many ways to deflect. If the point is "the president is deliberately ignoring a national pandemic" the deflection can simply be to toss to a practiced confusion.
"Both sides are bad' is the most common of these.
Bad faith. https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/1274355082402955269?s=20
"Both sides are bad' is the most common of these.
Bad faith. https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/1274355082402955269?s=20
Every time the answer isn't to the point, every time it deflects, you know you're being invited to answer a question that wants no answer.
It's an invitation to waste your time. It's an expression of contempt.
It's an invitation to waste your time. It's an expression of contempt.
I didn't take the bait. The next answer he gave was another bad-faith misrepresentation.
I blocked him. I have nothing to gain by interacting with somebody of evil intent. But I did find it very edifying to think for a while about the example he'd given me.
I blocked him. I have nothing to gain by interacting with somebody of evil intent. But I did find it very edifying to think for a while about the example he'd given me.
The posture and the spreading and the picture are all doing exactly what he wants them to.
The images clearly expresses contempt. It indicates to us that this is all a game to him. That all spaces are his spaces.
He knows what he's doing.
Bad faith. https://twitter.com/BfloDude/status/1275045052813885442?s=20
The images clearly expresses contempt. It indicates to us that this is all a game to him. That all spaces are his spaces.
He knows what he's doing.
Bad faith. https://twitter.com/BfloDude/status/1275045052813885442?s=20
As a conclusion (I suppose; I may keep tagging examples to the end), my point isn't exactly to not engage with people of bad faith, but simply to refuse the terms they offer.
This can mean ignoring them, or blocking them, or muting them, or engaging. But refuse their terms.
This can mean ignoring them, or blocking them, or muting them, or engaging. But refuse their terms.
If you engage, return continually to the underlying point and refuse to leave it. Notice how they'll contort themselves to avoid it. Notice every deflection, and point it out as such, then return to the point.
It's bad faith. They live there. Don't join them in it.
It's bad faith. They live there. Don't join them in it.
Example: This is not a request for a definition of police brutality, but an attempt to deflect from the reality of it. https://twitter.com/Brandon43536635/status/1275302420411793408?s=20
Example: Notice how everything this person does to try to hijack the topic of an unrelated thread begins with some misrepresentation or deflect from the fact that's what he's doing. https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/1275179717277048832?s=20
Example: Introduce untruth by accusing the person to whom you're presenting them of being overly emotional—an accusation to which you can return if they engage, to deflect from their points.
The point isn't a debate. The point is to introduce lies. https://twitter.com/FilozofA/status/1275241595588272128?s=20
The point isn't a debate. The point is to introduce lies. https://twitter.com/FilozofA/status/1275241595588272128?s=20
Example: When asked a question, deflect by gesturing toward more important matters—which exist, but excises the fact you also refuse to discuss more important matters.
The point isn't establishing correct priority of questions, but avoiding all answers. https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1276197755845738497?s=20
The point isn't establishing correct priority of questions, but avoiding all answers. https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1276197755845738497?s=20
Example: Yesterday another disciple of James Lindsay's deliberate bad-faith sabotage strategy of anti-racism appeared.
And, again, the mission is to deliberately and contemptuously misunderstand the given arguments, to prevent the confession of uncomfortable truths.
And, again, the mission is to deliberately and contemptuously misunderstand the given arguments, to prevent the confession of uncomfortable truths.
Notice the deliberate intention is, as always, to waste time and energy.
And notice the weasel phrases—"They'll never produce real examples."
The desire isn't for examples to learn from, but to establish and maintain the right to determine what examples can be deemed 'real.'
And notice the weasel phrases—"They'll never produce real examples."
The desire isn't for examples to learn from, but to establish and maintain the right to determine what examples can be deemed 'real.'
The real objection to antiracism, is a desire, among those benefiting from a system optimized for abuse, to not discuss systems at all, in order to maintain personal individual blamelessness.
The core of a racist mission is to preserve ignorance about things already known.
The core of a racist mission is to preserve ignorance about things already known.
And, as always, the context for all activities from such people is that they have already deliberately and proudly confessed that they cannot be trusted, that they are knowingly acting to spread confusion and sow ignorance.
They are, to draw out an old phrase, people of the lie.
They are, to draw out an old phrase, people of the lie.
Once the racist mission was proclaiming that racism was a natural and obvious good part of any society's systems.
They've (mostly) lost that one. Now the racist mission is preserving ignorance that any system exists whatsoever; that racism is a matter of individual choice only.
They've (mostly) lost that one. Now the racist mission is preserving ignorance that any system exists whatsoever; that racism is a matter of individual choice only.
People bringing smart criticism of racism move people past a frame of seeing racism as a matter of personal individual intent, and into a frame of seeing it as structural—systemic, pervasive, inextricable.
They do this b/c it's true.
Truth is unacceptable to the racist mission.
They do this b/c it's true.
Truth is unacceptable to the racist mission.
This is why corporate trainings and academia are so threatening to people of ill intent and bad faith.
Corporations and academia represent power and influence. If power and influence start confessing reality, ignorance can't be maintained.
Unacceptable to the racist mission.
Corporations and academia represent power and influence. If power and influence start confessing reality, ignorance can't be maintained.
Unacceptable to the racist mission.
James Lindsay and his disciples don't want knowledge or proof or definitions. They only want to reject.
Which is their individual decision.
To flee into ignorance, rejecting proofs, is the personal decision, carrying moral implications, revealing deeper selfish intention.
Which is their individual decision.
To flee into ignorance, rejecting proofs, is the personal decision, carrying moral implications, revealing deeper selfish intention.
