> many still assert that it is actually unethical to engage "the other side" in good faith.
Not everybody on "the other side" is communicating in bad faith, but some are. (Same with "your own side".) When someone is communicating in bad faith, I don't think it's "unethical" to engage them in good faith, I think it's foolhardy.
Don't feed the trolls. For dog's sake don't assume you can change the trolls.
One of the HN guidelines is "assume good faith". But many arguments presented here are made in bad faith. There are certain topics which in my view, cannot be intelligently discussed on HN because you are not allowed to assume bad faith.
What's missing from this article is how to protect yourself from bad faith actors.
(I've deliberately written this so that it could apply to "either side". Take that as an attempt to engage in good faith.)
Not everybody on "the other side" is communicating in bad faith, but some are. (Same with "your own side".) When someone is communicating in bad faith, I don't think it's "unethical" to engage them in good faith, I think it's foolhardy.
Don't feed the trolls. For dog's sake don't assume you can change the trolls.
One of the HN guidelines is "assume good faith". But many arguments presented here are made in bad faith. There are certain topics which in my view, cannot be intelligently discussed on HN because you are not allowed to assume bad faith.
What's missing from this article is how to protect yourself from bad faith actors.
(I've deliberately written this so that it could apply to "either side". Take that as an attempt to engage in good faith.)