nostr:npub1fpe7wvhfdaf0q5hakpq3ynvmwxk9wmmnvljc45x63yck7yjmhxdsez75rh First, it is good to see that someone who is interested in good faith discussion is not simply defederating people from blocklists. I think that's a good thing, and it's definitely the type of thing that suggests an interest in sincere discourse.

I am someone who tries to do this type of thing. I will admit that the environment here on fedi has put me in extreme situations, as this is where the people who got kicked off of other social media are now.

Oh, also, on Pleroma we get more than 500 characters. Posts like this one are why.

I read this wanting, very badly, to agree with the author. Discussions in good faith are good, building consensus among friends is good, and reaching across the aisle on occasion helps us develop new solutions with people we would not normally cooperate with. I think that people who are "roughly friends" should be able to talk to each other and not hate each other at the end of the day. I think that when such people make mistakes or go on a bad path for a while, then we should work to keep them from making these mistakes.

This is in fact why I have to call this what it is - it is an attempt to frame the discussion in a manner favorable to the author. Yes, they said that this sort of thing would happen - I fully recognize that they address it, but I will say that not every call for more good faith communication is such an attempt to frame discussions in a particular manner.

The first hint that this is what's happening is the given definition of "bad faith communication." It is "discourse that is intended to achieve behavioral outcomes...irrespective of achieving true mutual understanding." This is obviously wrong - there are obvious counterexamples, such as urging a stubborn parent to go to the doctor. A real life example of this is the following conversation:

"Bro, why are you moaning and clutching your stomach?"

"BRUUUUUUUUUUUUH I DRANK TWO BOTTLES OF WHISKEY."

"OK we're going to the hospital."

"I don't haffffsh the mooooni"

"OK. We're going to go get you ice cream now."

*Drive to the hospital*

You can think of similar situations where an individual was about to cause harm, and you had to subvert their understanding temporarily to prevent harm. Or situations where someone is upset, and you calm them down for a moment only to hold fast to your original point later.

The next few hints are the following claims:

>All sides agree that in the absence of good faith communication the last resort is some form of violence.

>today’s culture war cannot be won by any side.

>it is common to hear that “you can’t engage in good faith with Nazis!” A generous interpretation of this statement is that there are truly unreasonable people who must not be trusted because they have proven themselves to be dangerous and unethical.

People on the right routinely talk about withdrawing labor and simply letting the system rot - there are clearly nonviolent solutions, even if there are not political solutions. The culture war can clearly be won, as people who were present for Gamergate are very aware. You can engage in good faith with National Socialists without being one, I routinely do so.

The last of the very big hints, though, is this one:

>This must stop if there is to be any future for open societies...If the desired outcome is sustainable uncoerced social cooperation...then willingness and interest must be found.

This ignores the key point that a lot of people on the right want willing social cooperation *without* an open society. Democracies that are open societies are vulnerable to one party importing voters. Before mass immigration, people on the right tended to favor a closed society which was still a democracy - one with minimal immigration, similar to Japan.

Their solution?

>Avoiding social catastrophe will require the deployment of highly skilled, non-naive good faith communication.

It sounds like they want to flood the internet with shills. Which is what they do anyway - it just sounds like this particular group is selling their farm of internet shills.