Short form and heavily edited to fit short attention media platforms are biased towards this style of interaction because breaking down bad faith debating is a much longer and detailed process than the initial statement.
These are our thought leaders in 2022.
Another name for a logical fallacy is "something that your brain prefers over strict logical constructions" or "a shortcut that the human brain is wired for".
My personal take: his "takedowns" are pretty fun entertainment, but doesn't really have anything to do with which political position is correct or not. A lot of contemporary political ideas have a "nuanced, difficult to explain, strong" version, and a "flawed, weak, easy to explain" version. For most people, when asked to explain their political views, have trouble formulating the strongest version of their argument. Many people believe what they believe purely on emotional or tribal grounds rather than based on the facts of the matter. Ben's personal style is to find the weak version of an argument, and to (correctly) point out the obvious flaws in it. Of course, just because X argument for Y is fallacious, doesn't make Y false.
Edit: Nothing confirms ideological blindness more than downvoting a comment without any rebuttals.
Most bad faith argumentation is a pretty straightforward combination of misdirection, cherry picking, outright lying, "proof" by repeated assertion, and a huge dose of personal insults and ridicule.
There's no need to stick to facts or logic if your opponent has made it clear it's not a good faith exchange.
The challenge is knowing how to calibrate responses for maximum effect on the audience - who are usually the real target - balanced between keeping credibility and staying relatable instead of dislikable.
The problem with pointing out logical fallacies is that it erodes both of those.
So you can end up being 100% right while appearing 100% wrong.
Emotion wins every single time.
This is where you see a lot of really smart people trip up. They think that being right matters. It doesn't.
> The challenge is knowing how to calibrate responses for maximum effect on the audience - who are usually the real target - balanced between keeping credibility and staying relatable instead of dislikable.
100%
Certainly, some are not. When running for office, it's dangerous. When talking to family, it's dangerous. But I sustain losses with a simple "fair enough" and walk away quite often having lost nothing. To people with slightly more good faith, a quick "I'm not quite convinced, but I can't nail down my disagreement" is sufficient to gracefully take the L.
AFAIK I'm quite well-respected in my peer group so it isn't causing me any harm.
This leads to disaster.
"OK, now that we've seen that what you are saying is bullshit, let's talk real" (you turn away form that person and start to talk even if they do as well)
Oh man, I hate politics.
You're not playing that game, you're going to play this other, better one instead. It requires some eloquence, charisma, and social intelligence to pull off such a redirection, though.
In defining the played game, the other person is expressing social power. Either playing along or refusing still allows them that power, whereas changing the game is addressing that expression of superiority directly.
"Ask HN: Higher order derivatives in everyday life?"
https//news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32257887
Unfortunately real life is more complex than Calculus I. The analogy is simultaneously valid and useless.
Speaking of today's submissions, Wikipedia might need some discussion of its own about what to do with these articles all about pretty much the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadiscourse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-communication
(meta: username checks out)