Yliaster

Given they banned Palestine action/slogans (18-year old girl jailed for 2 years for wearing a shirt saying “from the river to the sea”).

It’s a joint failure. Israel is also to blame, as is often the case with US interventionism.

Good, fuck AWS. We shouldn’t be that dependent on Amazon. Fuck Amazon.

Not the original commenter, but you seem to know a bit about communism (I’m currently looking into it)

Would you be up for a discussion on communism?

Samson Option.

How does Taiwan fit into all of this?

How the heck does the world “negate” or oppose Israel with the Samson Option running around?

makes sense.

Do you extend this reasoning to corrupt institutions? Eg: people saying, “fuck ice”.

How do you respond to verbal abuse without assuming bad faith?

someone says “we should torture indigenous people” how can one glean that they don’t truly believe that?

It’s generally safe to assume they mean it, unless proven otherwise. People make hateful and racist remarks all the time, sadly, and it’s almost invariably a consistent pattern of behaviour that goes beyond plausible deniability. The line of reasoning you’ve provided me reads as strangely apologetic and bordering solipsistic.

I would assume it’s satire

Even if the hateful remarks are understood to be ‘‘a joke’’, I don’t think that’s any less damning. These are not the type of things to joke about, and most reasonable and/or decent people realize that.

It’s been my experience they eventually do. If someone is telling me I look nice and I take it as a genuine compliment, but they’re acting in bad faith, that’s going to drive them up the fucking wall that I’m so dumb that I don’t assume bad faith like they do.

Can you give me an example of something like that playing out on a serious real-life topic such as politics/race/genocide etc?

This is still a fallacious analogy because it’s clearly exaggerated/fictitious and nobody argues like this. If it was instead:

A: We should torture indigenous people by killing their offspring in front of them.

B: You are acting in bad faith

Is totally acceptable - anyone arguing something like point A is most certainly not engaging in a ‘‘good faith’’ discussion, it’s plain common sense that they aren’t.

If you want to argue in terms of strict ‘‘logic’’, ‘‘faith’’ isn’t even something that would ever ‘‘follow’’ from a statement anyway, so to say that following a statement with ‘‘you’re acting in bad faith’’ is a ‘‘non-sequitur’’ is a meaningless statement. Unless you’re reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ‘‘hey everyone, I’m acting in bad faith!’’ (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.

The analogy you’re providing is fallacious because unlike nonsensical singular statements about ducks (an ethically neutral statement), what we’re actually getting is people consistently defending various forms of hate that endangers minorities and marginalized people. They rarely, if ever - and it is my opinion that this almost never occurs - respond to reason. People being purposefully obtuse and heartless within discussions do not really deserve logical vigour or effort. You could try, but it’s a waste of time and energy, and it’ll just put one in a bad mood.

I think it’s fair to assume those when people openly support a movement that visibly takes away the rights of marginalized groups and kills innocent people.

Fair.

Even with MAGAts and the wave of red that’s ever-present online?

How do you determine what’s not in good faith?

I would imagine this would tie to values, but do those become the unquestionable object, then?

You say should, but that’s a judgment; judgments are subjective.

What changed you? If I may ask

People who can’t engage with logical reasoning or evidence without resorting to intellectual cop-outs to defend their positions can’t be helped.