Hmmmm. Principle of charity is absolutely right & proper if one's aim is to get at the truth of things. But not convinced it should govern all our political interventions (online or otherwise). One concedes the terrain of rhetoric to one's opponents at peril, I reckon.
-
-
Replying to @jonnnybest @Docstockk
Well, politics is a battle. People die as a result of political decisions. Groups of people lose their rights. Winning is important. I wouldn't hesitate to misrepresent the arguments of the pro-death penalty side if I thought it'd further the case of abolition.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm sorry but that's terrible argument. If politics becomes "who is the best liar" ( which increasingly looks like it is) then liberals (in a general sense) will be the biggest losers
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But if politics is de facto about being the best liar - how are liberals going to win if they don't lie? (I don't agree with your formulation of my position - principle of charity not sufficiently employed!
- but even accepting your formulation...).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Slavery abolitionists weren't better liars than slave owners.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
My argument is that if you fail to recognise that politics is sometimes - often - dirty, then you're more likely to lose. And winning is important (as in the case of slavery, for example).
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Okay, so concrete example - John Major's back to basics campaign. Deliberately misrepresented by Labour Party with good results (as far as I'm concerned). Certainly not treated with principle of charity. Is that allowed? I have no problem with it at all.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.