If you deploy your most defensible arguments in service of your least defensible intentions, you're in war mode.
If you haven't declared war, you're arguing in bad faith.
If you don't realize you're arguing in bad faith, you're some mix of stupid, ignorant, and in denial
Conversation
Example:
Most defensible argument: "Authoritarian trans activists on power trips labeling female professors TERFs and instigating twitter mobs to get them fired is a bad thing"
Least defensible intention: "Cops shooting unarmed black men should suffer no real consequences"
1
9
Since the same *kind* of person (broadly liberal/progressive) person is likely to be generally sympathetic to trans rights and black men not getting shot, attacking *either* will weaken resistance on *both* fronts. To attack the weakest front is to treat them as an enemy.
2
1
7
This is a partisanship tax. Though pro-TERF/anti-cops-killing-black-men is a philosophically coherent position, it is hard to meaningfully express it through things like voting. To exercise agency rather than merely express a pointless opinion, you have to pick a side.
2
7
So if you choose to seek agency rather than ineffectual truthiness, you have to ask: what positions are you willing to support, *at what cost* -- the cost being other positions that come along for the ride in your bundled options set.
1
14
The unethical way to do this is to support what you want the most, and then rationalize away whatever comes along for the ride. It is a de facto "war vote" (win at any cost)
The ethical way is to minimize the maximum worst thing you're supporting in the bundle (a peace vote)
2
8
A vote is a chain of linked positions. Your vote is only as good as the weakest link it supports. You're always voting for the worst thing that could happen if your side wins, not the average thing or the best thing.
1
7
18
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
