Good Faith Communication

The Consilience Project posted an informative article; can honest communication survive the culture wars?

The situation has degraded to the point where it is widely believed that calls to good faith (such as this paper) are themselves acts of bad faith, undertaken only by those interested in controlling the discourse. Calls for good faith communication are understood at best as naive requests to calm the outrage and conflict that now runs rife in political discourse. Both ends of the political spectrum (the far left and the far right) express this view. Both sides believe that “the other side” simply can’t be trusted and therefore cannot be engaged in good faith. To do so would be to fall into a trap, serving only to validate the dangerous views of groups known to be acting in bad faith.

Bad-faith communication is essentially employing any one of the logical fallacies to manipulate discourse for ulterior goals.

It seems undeniable that mis-information, inflammatory assertions, and misleading facts, are overwhelmingly more effective at achieving engagement and reactions.

In our social-media driven culture, that rewards engagement over meaningful content, how can earnest communication survive?

I don’t think it’s changed since the dawn of time.

Speak the truth, say what you mean, mean what you say, and be transparent about your motives.

It’s what we call “Integrity”.

Integrity is a long game.

Conversation Link Politics Rhetoric