I wish more people online were like this. I've basically given up on Reddit because the discussions in many of the major subs devolve very rapidly to a "you are an X, therefore your argument is junk because you are stupid/evil, here is why". Pretty much all sides do it (and all sides say they don't).
For those who've not read the article and are thinking "but what about <insert political scumbag here>", the article starts by saying you should be charitable "as long as it’s reasonable" to do so. It is reasonable to assume that a political operative of almost any persuasion will attempt to bend things and miss-represent, so you should be on the look out for that and treat it accordingly.
I like the idea of the "steel man" argument, as a more effective alternative to the "straw man", you end up with a better argument that way, and are far more likely to "win" the argument than if you present something that the other person sees as BS. Even if your opponent is talking BS, the counter-argument you come up with will be more effective in countering it, a weak argument predicated on the weakest interpretation gives them wriggle-room.
I feel like the whole idea is the debate equivalent of the idea "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetance". Sometimes it is malice, but usually it's just a mistake. Assuming the worst in people as the default is very isolating, and understanding that made a big difference to my state of mind as I got older.
Most of my comments on reddit are replies to borderline insensitive arguments because I believe that it is very easy sound more aggressive than intended.
Generally I found that if you explain to someone how their comment might have been out of place, or maybe they just did not consider a nicer interpretation you get a nice response back.
> "you are an X, therefore your argument is junk because you are stupid/evil, here is why"
The problem with this type of comments is that generally people are not very good at complaining about them, or at suggesting better way to frame criticism. This is especially relevant in internet forums where too many personalities interact to be able to generalize and it is hard to gauge how much criticism is warranted.
I really applaud your efforts, I'm afraid I just ran out of energy trying to be positive on reddit. The world needs more people like you.
I do feel like it's going to be realy important to teach my kids as they grow up, how to have good conversations online,and how these sort of mediums often twist the perseption of what they say without them realising.
I think it's easier to be a jerk online so it's more prevalent here but, in my opinion, the ways in which people weasel out of their conversational responsibilities are no different than most in-person encounters of the same nature. If I care enough about the person or the cause, it might make sense to stick around and hold their hand. It does get tiresome.
This just reminded me of Reagan's mantra of "trust but verify" during the period of nuclear disarmament (which seems like another world now). If you want to cooperate, even with your biggest enemy, you both have to operate with trust, but that doesn't mean you don't keep an eye open to other possibilities.
That's actually a Russian proverb, afaik. In German the equivalent typically is attributed to Lenin ("trust is good but supervision is better"), but I think without source.
Why would anyone go looking for substantive debate by making a statement and letting anyone on earth reply? You wouldn't let most of these people into your home; why would you expect an arbitrary one of them to be a good conversation partner on an important controversial topic.
Checkout the weekly Culture War thread on /r/TheMotte - it might not be perfect, but IMO they at least try to steel man arguments. (IIRC the term "steel man" came from a lesswrong post, and the subreddit is at least moderately related to that community)
Of course, this also means that a lot of "unacceptable in normal discourse but supportable via evidence" positions get pushed. Which quite a few people seem to find disagreeable. (you see, only MY outside-the-overton-window ideas are worthy of discussion - everything else is horrible and you're a Nazi/Commie/Racist/Sexist/etc for even listening to it or allowing it to be discussed by others. How dare you!)
For those who've not read the article and are thinking "but what about <insert political scumbag here>", the article starts by saying you should be charitable "as long as it’s reasonable" to do so. It is reasonable to assume that a political operative of almost any persuasion will attempt to bend things and miss-represent, so you should be on the look out for that and treat it accordingly.
I like the idea of the "steel man" argument, as a more effective alternative to the "straw man", you end up with a better argument that way, and are far more likely to "win" the argument than if you present something that the other person sees as BS. Even if your opponent is talking BS, the counter-argument you come up with will be more effective in countering it, a weak argument predicated on the weakest interpretation gives them wriggle-room.
I feel like the whole idea is the debate equivalent of the idea "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetance". Sometimes it is malice, but usually it's just a mistake. Assuming the worst in people as the default is very isolating, and understanding that made a big difference to my state of mind as I got older.