Bad Faith Arguments and Incongruent Realities

In philosophy class, I learned about the fallacy of creating a “straw man” argument. The basic idea is that you’re not fairly representing both sides of an argument.

On the flipside, you may hear someone say “Let’s steel man this argument” with the implication of fairly presenting both sides. Often, that’s not really the case but sometimes at least this is done in good faith.

An easier way to make your case is by simply presenting an idea and then explaining why your beliefs are correct. You could argue that this is “real talk”. It’s not a philosophical debate where you armchair philosophize, hem and haw, and decide that there’s no correct answer. Or, you take in a bunch of perspectives and then use critical thinking skills to synthesize information and, finally, share a nuanced perspective that finds a sort of middle ground. This excites few in a society fueled by outrage culture where conspiracy theories and fake news spread six times as fast as the truth.

Influencer types tend to go with the “authentic” spit balling style of simply “saying it like it is”— which is, of course, the easy way out, the way that is not logically sound.

There’s good reason why we’re so susceptible to this “authentic” approach.

I went to school during post-modernism at its finest. (I’m thinking specifically about literary theory though this really does apply to the greater society.)

What do I mean? Well, we had torn down all the meaning and failed to replace it with anything of substance. No new scaffolding was erected. The result is a feeling of aimlessness. This leaves space for bad faith people to capitalize on. As the saying goes, “Nature abhors a vacuum.”

You might remember a time when people used to just say things— concrete statements about “the way it is”. (Not the way it’s done in our time, I mean in past decades.)

Younger generations and culture pushed back on this as is always the case. It’s cyclical. History rhymes.

People wanted explanations.

In 2006, you couldn’t just be like, “This is the way it is because it’s also been this way.” Not if you were a progressively minded person at least.

That being said, there is a charm in someone making a bold statement about taste. Statements that make it sound like a person has everything all figured out. This kind of certainty comes from charisma (and sometimes narcissism or personality disorders) and sometimes it can be basically chalked up to someone’s real deal personality.

Some people just seem wired to be “down to earth” and direct.

Call me a bit of an idealist. I live up in my head and love thinking about big ideas and the theoretical and so I am charmed, at times, when someone shares something in a matter-of-fact way. Or was.

Trump, MAGA (radicals), Conservative “Traditionalists”— these are people who don’t want to change. They are rigid. They are fixed in their ways. They are likely not very interested in self-discovery and deep introspection. Like everyone, they probably believe they are very self-aware. They may or may not be more or less self-aware than those on the Left. I’m tempted to speculate less though that is entirely anecdotal.

In any case, it’s a lot easier for people who are fixed in their belief/value systems to make grand statements as if they are obvious.

Those who are more flexible in their stances can easily appear a bit inconsistent, which they are, because they are open/receptive and willing to have their minds changed.

Here, we get into trouble.

Only certain people in the political/societal spectrum are willing to have their minds changed.

Another issue is that social media (and other Big Tech products) silo us (by way of personalized algorithmic feeds) in a way that we are quite literally experiencing different realities as normative. This is a recipe for disaster. And that’s where we find ourselves in 2025. That’s why there are real concerns about U.S. democracy breaking down. We don’t share the same reality and so large percentages of people on opposite ends of the political spectrum think (understandably) that the other side is out of their mind.

What are they reading that I’m not? The answer is that their news diet and exposure to the information that creates a sense of reality is entirely different. This breakdown in reality has led to a breakdown in communication. And it’s only getting worse.

One way to sidestep all this madness is to start having engagements with people, people that you do not entirely agree with, in real life— sidestepping the algorithmic feeds.

We need to bring back shared public spaces that allow for dialogue with people who are perceived as not like us.