zlacker

In this thread I saw how a petition to show an example of bogus claims of discrimination, followed by a clear cut answer to which not even the asker could argue against, devolved into nebulous musings on what certain organizations should or should not consider unfair advantages.

This is probably the main reason why I hate these discussions whenever they appear in HN. It's not because of whether I consider that initiatives for "inclusivity" are "baseless, performative and counterproductive at worst" or "the right step into promoting a more dynamic exchange of ideas", but because one side of the discussion never stops moving the goalposts.

The conversation only stops when one side has successfully shouted out dissenters, and not out of any actual solid argument made in their favor.

>>luord+(OP)
This is something that really strikes me as interesting.

When one side of the debate is clearly completely operating in bad faith what do you do? I think by now anyone who's joined these debates is familiar with the tactics seen.

- The attempt to exhaust the opposition by wasting debate asking for clarification/examples of things that are common knowledge and to try and drown out core arguments with word salads and getting side tracked in arguments over semantics.

- The tendency for every argument to effectively follow the narcissists prayer.

- The tactic of spamming the same illogical arguments over and over despite the fact these have been refuted before; seemingly in the hope that if enough of their own side pile on with enough logical fallacies it will get too exhausting for the opposition to repeatedly tear down the same arguments over and over again while having to remain civil.

Ironically it's the one thing I can think of that even comes close to aligning with the tolerance of intolerance argument.