Good faith vs Bad faith

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

How do you define “good faith” vs “bad faith”? How do you identify when someone is acting/behaving/saying something “in good faith”? What triggers do you look for when deciding whether someone’s reaction should be taken at face-value or is not to be trusted? What does it take to make you believe someone who normally acts in good faith is now acting in bad faith, or vice versa?

shout-out to his family (DJP), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 13:29 (two weeks ago) link

in meatspace I generally assume good faith of people I encounter unless I have a good reason (like, idk, they're a cop or a CEO) or they give me a good reason. online? depends entirely on the community/medium tbh

in the context of online I guess my definition of "good faith" is "even if it seems like maybe you're being a dick about this particular subject you're probably a good egg overall and have your reasons" which is how I view the majority of ILXors. not all of course (thx killfile!). it id definitely conditional though, with the condition mainly being "be nice" tbh

the quar on drugs (Simon H.), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 13:35 (two weeks ago) link

What triggers do you look for when deciding whether someone’s reaction should be taken at face-value or is not to be trusted?

maybe it's my time spent in the tech "sector" but heavy use of jargon definitely makes me lean quickly towards distrust

the quar on drugs (Simon H.), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 13:38 (two weeks ago) link

for me, some prior knowledge of the person in question is usually a baseline requirement. it's hard for me to assume 'faith' of any type if I don't have any kind of prior history with them to know how they usually act, how what they say typically lines up with what they do, etc.

Not always "in-person" knowledge, obviously - we can 'know' a politician well enough to know if they're acting in good faith. but knowledge in general.

when it comes to people I know IRL, the usual tell for me with "bad faith" arguing is hearing someone heavily "devil's advocating" or sealioning when I already know their beliefs and know they believe in the thing they are "devil's advocating" for without actually admitting it. or seeing/hearing them say something not long after an argument that directly contradicts the point they were previously making.

otherwise, lacking any of that, I like to give benefit of the doubt, because one of the main thing that frustrates me nowadays is that "bad faith" seems to be a default assumption for some people, so everybody has to 'audition' for them and prove they're legitimate. i don't understand why it's not easier and better for society as a whole when, in absence of evidence otherwise, we shouldn't just assume "good faith" since we can pivot to "bad faith" later if we see the person is being less than genuine.

XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 15:45 (two weeks ago) link

not sure I make use of either of these concepts

all cats are beautiful (silby), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 21:15 (two weeks ago) link

This here nook is different enough from the rest of the internet that I almost always assume – perhaps wrongly, doubtless naïvely – that regular posters are well-intentioned and worthy of our collective attention, even at their most abrasive. Elsewhere, I tend to assume the opposite unless the topic at hand is innocuous.

pomenitul, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 21:15 (two weeks ago) link

Online is easy. Certain topics, you know from a certain point exactly how it’s going to go. When they start shifting the goalposts, when they throw in useless irrelevant shit - who has the time for that? I used to, but now I think, unless it’s very granular and easy to be mistaken, I don’t give the benefit of the doubt half so easily and if a post is bullshit, I’ll move on. Much better for all concerned.

You can really only judge people irl by actions, but that’s significantly harder as you are only privy to a certain amount of people - there are very few people that you will ever get to know well relative to how many you meet in a lifetime. So again you develop heuristics. Is this person lying about trivial things for no reason? Are they being weird about something I’m not comfortable with? All fairly obvious, I think.

I think people start off in good faith but as soon as something tips me off it’s bad faith - nah, not wasting time on it. It’s entirely possible I’ll be wrong - but that’s my problem.

let them microwave their rice (gyac), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 21:33 (two weeks ago) link

My default is to take on face value what was actually said rather than try and assume I know better about what the person might mean, but with the caveat that perhaps they might well be meaning something they're not saying, and maybe that should be drawn out. However if someone has historically been contradictory, phobic or Bad At Arguing it helps me to remember that in order to prioritise which discussions to spend my energies on.

kinder, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 21:38 (two weeks ago) link

The following goes for ILX only:

I think I'm pretty good at detecting sarcasm, most of the time. So if I don't think someone's being sarcastic/ironic, I assume that they mean what they say. That doesn't preclude them being WRONG, of course, and I'll happily try to engage them on the subject of their WRONGness. But I always presume good faith, and I always argue in good faith myself — I mean what I say. Sometimes I say things "wrong," and I hurt the feelings of ILX's more sensitive souls, because I'm old(er) and crude(r) and my rhetorical style was shaped in a coarser environment. But it doesn't come from a place of malice, and it does bother me when something I say legitimately bothers someone else, and I try not to make the same mistake twice.

Outside of ILX:

If I feel like someone's trolling or shitposting, I ignore them. Period. And the only IRL conversations I have outside my apartment anymore are transactional — literally transactional, with bank tellers, cashiers, etc. There, good faith is assumed because there's money involved.

but also fuck you (unperson), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 22:08 (two weeks ago) link

As far as sarcasm is concerned, this may sound weird but when it's obviously what poster x or y is aiming for, that still counts as 'good faith' in my book.

pomenitul, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 22:11 (two weeks ago) link

xp your dn is the real grace note

singular wolf erotica producer (Hadrian VIII), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 22:29 (two weeks ago) link

I was horrible to unperson so I understand why he will take posters in bad faith

Oor Neechy, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 22:30 (two weeks ago) link

Doubly so seeing as it's a quote drawn from an older beef iirc.

xp

pomenitul, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 22:31 (two weeks ago) link

xp your dn is the real grace note

Funnily enough (or not), it's a quote from Brad, directed at me.

but also fuck you (unperson), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 22:32 (two weeks ago) link

TS: George Michael Vs. Limp Bizkit

frogbs, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 22:40 (two weeks ago) link

no that def makes it funnier

singular wolf erotica producer (Hadrian VIII), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 22:42 (two weeks ago) link

is "meaning what you say" a virtue

all cats are beautiful (silby), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 22:54 (two weeks ago) link

is it the same thing as "good faith"

all cats are beautiful (silby), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 22:55 (two weeks ago) link

Over on ILM there's only True Faith.

Oor Neechy, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 22:57 (two weeks ago) link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG_0LUdM-X8

sarahell, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 22:58 (two weeks ago) link

🤍

A small but significant percentage of posts on ilx are completely mysterious to me and I think I would have to have more information about the poster to get the nuance. almost all seem in good faith though

Dan S, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 23:13 (two weeks ago) link

A small but significant percentage of posts on ilx are completely mysterious to me

Even since deems left?

pomenitul, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 23:14 (two weeks ago) link

in general I think there should be more farting and belching

rumpy riser (ogmor), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 23:18 (two weeks ago) link

Natural remedies for the bloat that is our lot.

pomenitul, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 23:19 (two weeks ago) link

xxp is deems darraghmac? his posts were often inscrutable but in a delightful way

Dan S, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 23:22 (two weeks ago) link

Indeed, indeed.

pomenitul, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 23:27 (two weeks ago) link

in general I think there should be more farting and belching


What if one could simply belch their argument?

let them microwave their rice (gyac), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 23:28 (two weeks ago) link

Then we'd have contests such as who can belch press the most shitposts in a single day. I'd be down.

pomenitul, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 23:30 (two weeks ago) link

You’d lose.

let them microwave their rice (gyac), Wednesday, 29 July 2020 23:33 (two weeks ago) link

Aw, thanks for the compliment. :) Don't think you'd win either fwiw.

pomenitul, Wednesday, 29 July 2020 23:34 (two weeks ago) link

also if it's a stranger on FB, usually I take 3 looks at profile pics and recent posts and that often gives away the game.

ie, if all of your posts are public cos u don't know how to set them to your friends list, and they're all poorly formatted pro-cop memes, im pretty much gonna know yr "just asking questions" on a BLM thread is not just asking questions.

XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Thursday, 30 July 2020 02:09 (one week ago) link

If we're talking in the political sense, then there's a lot of crossover with the brainworms thread. The main difference is that the BadFaith people are the people who put the brain worms in the BrainWormed people, so are less likely to be people you know and more likely to be people with positions of influence.

That being said, there are crossovers between the two groups, but much of it is unconscious (at which point is it really bad faith anymore?). Either way a crucial component is misrepresentation, so you have to spend time not only defending what you think but also clarifying about some other things that you don't think, or some conclusions that have been incorrectly extrapolated. BadFaith is really an attempt to trip you up, and as with brainworms the best approach is to try keep things specific and targetted and not let conversation skit around multiple areas uncontrollably

There's a deeper issue though, which is easy to fall into, and thats the need to 'win', which is the territory a BadFaith actor is most comfortable on, replacing substance with appearance

anvil, Thursday, 30 July 2020 02:33 (one week ago) link

But there are surely other scenarios that aren't this familiar one. A work scenario works in a different way, maybe the pretence that something is being considered when really its a charade. The mechanisms to force the showing of your hand. But perhaps this is mere chichanery, depends what is being asked here!

anvil, Thursday, 30 July 2020 02:35 (one week ago) link

If you were going to act in bad faith - how would you do it? I might enthusiastically agree with every point someone makes but use them to come to a different conclusion that they obviously don't agree with, then say hmm I'm not sure this makes sense after all, and use that to discredit their arguments. Depends on context? motives?

anvil, Thursday, 30 July 2020 02:40 (one week ago) link

bad faith = trolling/'just asking'/'debate me'/ppl who 'love arguing'

current ilx users may or may not be utter shitheads, but i feel like compared to the halcyon noize board days, there aren't as many people just shitposting to get a reaction? we have narcissists and automatons and people who resurface periodically to get their martyr on, but that isn't exactly 'bad faith' (okay maybe some of it is)

i don't read all the threads but like . . . andrew f unloaded on brad today, discovered he was wrong, and apologized. that's good faith, and i think there's a lot of it here now, relatively speaking

mookieproof, Thursday, 30 July 2020 02:58 (one week ago) link

mookieproof otm

sarahell, Thursday, 30 July 2020 03:01 (one week ago) link

probably more accusations of bad faith than actual bad faith rn. but usually only in politics threads

XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Thursday, 30 July 2020 03:04 (one week ago) link

more accusations of bad faith than actual bad faith

These are broadly the same thing? Or at least end up having the same effect? Once you get into this territory you're moving away from the topic at hand and into more existential territory around defeating an opponent, and thats a distraction and a dead end. Fighting a battle that actually an unstated other battle rather than the one ostensibly at hand is where things start to spiral!

anvil, Thursday, 30 July 2020 03:11 (one week ago) link

As tetchy as things have gotten on ilx the last many months...if you zoom out and think abt how insane our lives are right now...it could be a lot worse

singular wolf erotica producer (Hadrian VIII), Thursday, 30 July 2020 03:13 (one week ago) link

17 years ago, as no WMDs were found in iraq, a former friend of mine was all like 'so you're saying that the world would be a better place with saddam hussein still in charge there, right?'

i can only imagine the gymnastics he's performing these days

mookieproof, Thursday, 30 July 2020 03:14 (one week ago) link

I always try to make it clear when I'm trying to defeat someone, in case anyone is accusing me of bad faith

all cats are beautiful (silby), Thursday, 30 July 2020 03:14 (one week ago) link

This is touching on something else, which is the desire to be right, to win - which has some problems. Its not bridge building or consensus making, it focuses from a starting point of difference rather than agreement and can we build on that. Its difficult in a format which inherently rewards stridency, and we can all be guilty of that (and sometimes its merited)

If you think someone is genuinely coming from a place of bad faith, they most likely see you as the problem, rather than anything you are saying at that moment. Accusing them of bad faith (even if true) can't help in winding that down, that in itself is a trap and unproductive i think

anvil, Thursday, 30 July 2020 03:21 (one week ago) link

17 years ago, as no WMDs were found in iraq, a former friend of mine was all like 'so you're saying that the world would be a better place with saddam hussein still in charge there, right?'

A classic of the genre! Though actually isn't he right? Weren't you saying the world would be a better place with Saddam in charge? Phrasing it like that is obviously weird and designed to provoke an emotional response but the conclusion is actually correct?

anvil, Thursday, 30 July 2020 03:26 (one week ago) link

As tetchy as things have gotten on ilx the last many months...if you zoom out and think abt how insane our lives are right now...it could be a lot worse

― singular wolf erotica producer (Hadrian VIII), Wednesday, July 29, 2020 11:13 PM bookmarkflaglink

this is otm. i was expecting a coup, with LJ possibly usurping control of the borads

XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Thursday, 30 July 2020 03:42 (one week ago) link

you could occupy a very powerful role in my Council

imago, Thursday, 30 July 2020 08:25 (one week ago) link

Non internet it's easy because you can see when someone is playing devil's advocate and it's not smart so I just switch off.

And I think online and on a board where you get to know what matters or does not to a poster you can see how that plays out too. Although it might take a bit longer to figure out.

xyzzzz__, Thursday, 30 July 2020 12:54 (one week ago) link

Charlie Kirk has been tweeting about why he’s done watching the NBA for seven years. pic.twitter.com/iaNk2wOWYj

— Chris Jackson (@ChrisCJackson) July 31, 2020

mookieproof, Friday, 31 July 2020 16:01 (one week ago) link

xp is this you admitting the tools of your trade?

let them microwave their rice (gyac), Friday, 31 July 2020 16:22 (one week ago) link

I don't find "good faith" and "bad faith" to be particularly useful concepts in deciding whether to enter a discussion.

For me, there are two criteria for whether I enter a discussion. 1) do I genuinely think that there's a chance that *I* might learn something, through having the discussion? 2) is there a genuine chance that at least one of the people involved might be willing to change their mind? (And the person in criteria 2 might very well be me!)

Criteria 1 - I do often learn things from people I have (fairly minor, but important) differences from. Discussion, and teasing out the shape of those disagreements can be a very powerful way of learning. But there has to be a certain level of mutual respect, and mutual enjoyment for that to happen. (And a good way to discover whether you do have mutual respect, is to find out how each other handle small disagreements before you move on to the important ones.)

Criteria 2 - well, I have a pretty good understanding on the kinds of new information or new paradigms or new theory or different experiences I had not encountered, that could change my mind, so I'm learning to recognise whether other people display the capacity to provide me with those kind of things. In the other person, that's harder - have they shown the ability to learn and grasp new ideas before? Do they seem like *they* actually want to engage in a mutual learning process? Are they actually engaging with me, and the things I'm saying, or are they talking to some weird projection of their own issues somewhere six feet over my left shoulder? (I don't always manage that one myself, to be honest, so if I catch myself doing that, I generally find that it's a good sign that *I* am the one who should exit the conversation.)

Branwell with an N, Friday, 31 July 2020 17:16 (one week ago) link

I assume everyone is arguing in good faith unless they’re obviously trying to speak to/influence an audience - ie arguing with one person on Twitter but it’s actually for the benefit of 500k followers who will see it.

Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Friday, 31 July 2020 20:16 (one week ago) link

'bad faith' to me is when you really believe one thing, but you aren't comfortable admitting it, so you go for the plausible deniability of objecting on procedural grounds ("I don't have a dog in this fight, but I question the logic you're using here!") or sea-lioning ("I'm not against Black Lives Matter, but why not a more open-tent approach?") in an attempt to chip away at the opposition so that you can win the debate through attrition (the other person flipping out at you or retreating).

XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Friday, 31 July 2020 20:30 (one week ago) link

like that one Hendrix vs Van Halen thread when a few people were saying it was obviously Hendrix who was a better guitarist, and St3v3 Goldb3rg started arguing with these people, saying that it's fine to find Hendrix better, but you can't use bad logic and poorly constructed arguments like he alleged they were. but then after pushback he admitted he just thought Van Halen was better and that was his real M.O..

XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Friday, 31 July 2020 20:33 (one week ago) link

In my lexicon, arguing in "bad faith" does not equate to employing an indefensible argument, based in ignorance. Ignorance itself is not a form of bad faith. Rather, it means knowingly employing a weak or false argument and adhering to it in the face of contrary facts and a stronger argument structured around those facts. iow, at the point where your interlocutor begins to deny the relevance of a reality contrary to their position they've entered the wonderful world of bad faith arguing.

An example that comes easily to hand is when "death with dignity" laws are being opposed on specious and false grounds, such as the slippery slope argument that it is just a preliminary step to euthanasia of the old and disabled. Such laws have been in existence for decades now and no such slippery slope has appeared. Pointing out this reality should result in their rethinking and retracting the slippery slope. If they say "that proves nothing", then they are committing to asserting a non-existent reality, based on no facts observable anywhere. That's instant "bad faith".

the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Friday, 31 July 2020 20:35 (one week ago) link

'bad faith' to me is when you really believe one thing, but you aren't comfortable admitting it

Contra my boundless optimism in this regard, it does happen all the time on ILX, i.e.

The Official, 100% Anonymous ILX Self-Censorship Poll

pomenitul, Friday, 31 July 2020 20:35 (one week ago) link

Bad Faith is also Earth-2 George Michael's best album

XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Friday, 31 July 2020 20:40 (one week ago) link

Boolean faith vs Fuzzy faith

the burrito that defined a generation, Friday, 31 July 2020 20:49 (one week ago) link

For me, there are two criteria for whether I enter a discussion. 1) do I genuinely think that there's a chance that *I* might learn something, through having the discussion? 2) is there a genuine chance that at least one of the people involved might be willing to change their mind? (And the person in criteria 2 might very well be me!)


I think these are very good points that are well made, if it wasn’t abundantly clear that you do not in fact apply them to yourself.

let them microwave their rice (gyac), Friday, 31 July 2020 21:02 (one week ago) link

then after pushback he admitted he just thought Van Halen was better and that was his real M.O

for some reason this is really poignant to me rn -- like, it should become some sort of shorthand to deploy -- a la is this a "Van Halen was better" clusterfuck?

sarahell, Friday, 31 July 2020 23:07 (one week ago) link

good faith means you’re stating something you believe or are willing to posit while accepting people may disagree, may find disagreeable, or may question your basic assumptions. you don’t have to accept those disagreements, reply to them, or make assumptions about where they are coming from without reasonable discussion

bad faith isn’t necessarily a thing. it comes from dissembling, being unwilling to accept your wording or premises (or even their historical/institutional stance) may have been in error, or that you are posting something you don’t want to be questioned

our words have contexts, sometimes based on past interaction, and insisting that others interact in good faith when you’ve been guilty of any of the above in the past assumes a lot. be kind, perhaps even walk on quiet feet when you’re trying to speak to a group where your words have been unclear in the past. if someone seems unnecessarily aggrieved by your current words, do not take personal offense but consider the past.

tl;dr no knee-jerk reactions to the knee-jerk reactions to those you’ve quarreled with in the past unless they’re universally bad actors. it’s better in that case to play dumb or just ask, not assume

solo scampito (mh), Saturday, 1 August 2020 02:53 (one week ago) link

is making an argument that is obviously intended to refer to a specific set of circumstances or an individual person but without stating that -- is that good faith or bad faith? or just passive-aggressive? asking for a friend. ... not to be self-righteous about it, because I have done it as well, but it's uh, impressively self-referential here and now

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 06:19 (one week ago) link

Bad Faith is also Earth-2 George Michael's best album

my brain read this as Earth doing a George Michael cover album and if someone could get Dylan Carlson on the phone that would be great

Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Saturday, 1 August 2020 06:25 (one week ago) link

xp - I don't think it's either. "Bad faith" (in terms of debate/argument/conversation) is pretty simple, IMO - arguing what you know to be untrue, to serve your desired ends. Bush/Cheney/Powell leading up to Iraq were arguing for it in bad faith, knowing that there were no WMDs or links to al-Qaeda. Your dimwitted cousin who was pro-war was most likely acting in good faith because they believed their leaders were telling them the truth.

The line becomes blurry when you can't tell if someone is stupid or in on it. Joe Rogan is acting in good faith because he's a numbskull; Ben Shapiro is probably acting in bad faith because he either has a career to serve or he's an ideological true believer who's happy to get his followers riled up to serve those ends. But he might actually just be as much of a numbskull as Rogan.

Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Saturday, 1 August 2020 06:31 (one week ago) link

If we're going to accept the premise of 'bad faith' then some, most, or even all of this thread would now appear to qualify. It the 'obviously' in obviously intended is referring to this thread itself it definitely wasn't obvious to me!

If true then yes, soliciting opinions on a specific thing without stating it is a form of bad faith. The removal of specificity can be done with the idea of making something 'clearer' but it is a form of skullduggery. It makes an assumption that the specific is an example of the abstract and asks you to implicitly agree with the premise but without being told thats whats been done

anvil, Saturday, 1 August 2020 06:43 (one week ago) link

Rogan's position can change of its own accord. Shapiro's would only change by design.

I think a lot of this might actually be about how zoomed in or out you are. eg if your position is scousers are thieves and you use a particular example of a theft as evidence knowing it not to be true. Its bad faith in that you're arguing something you know not to be true - but you don't care because its handy evidence and it will do, and you think bigger picture 'all scousers are thieves' is true regardless of this one particular scouser, so it becomes true in the abstract even if not in the specific.

So whether its bad faith or not starts to depend on your stance (pointing out this particular case isn't a scouser becomes nitpicking)

anvil, Saturday, 1 August 2020 06:55 (one week ago) link

If true then yes, soliciting opinions on a specific thing without stating it is a form of bad faith. The removal of specificity can be done with the idea of making something 'clearer' but it is a form of skullduggery. It makes an assumption that the specific is an example of the abstract and asks you to implicitly agree with the premise but without being told thats whats been done
That's interesting; hadn't really considered that aspect before.
have just finished watching Mrs America which I guess could be a good example of good faith vs bad faith arguments particularly when used to win support for a "bigger" aim.

kinder, Saturday, 1 August 2020 07:32 (one week ago) link

Anvil, you're very perceptive. I get caught out by this a lot. It's a form of bait and switch.

I took the topic of the thread seriously, thought about specific examples in recent conversations I had decided to have or not have (and weirdly, none of them were conversations on ILX? One was a private twitter DM thread I decided to engage; the other was a set of private DMs on another messageboard where I noped out of the conversation when it became apparent in which direction it was going.) That I was using it as a place to think carefully about my own actions, without realising that others were using it as a soap box to give their opinions on others' actions!

I did not see that possibility, and I now feel foolish about that. It's always a shock to realise that I am seeing one set of contexts, while other people are working with a completely different set of contexts that did not occur to me. (And it's completely mutual, that my context is as obscure and inexplicable to them, as theirs are to me.) As an autistic person, grasping the contents of other people's minds can be *incredibly* difficult. It's like being inside a very specific kind of philosophical solipsism all the time. (Which some people choose to read as narcissism, which... you know, whatever.) But the blithe assumptions that others make about the contents of my own mind, and put forward as the truth - since diagnosis, I am at least aware that I have little grasp on other people's interior worlds - but they seem genuinely unaware that they don't have a grasp on mine, either.

When I am having an Actual Discussion, and not just ~messageboard chit-chat~ I really do try to discuss the background and context of each word in the original question, to make sure that that the actual argument under discussion is clear to both parties. ("Do you belive in god?" well, what does 'you' mean, what does 'believe' mean, what does 'god' mean? Once we are in agreement on those words, then I can answer the question.) That a discussion where two people are using the same words with different contexts and interpretations may not actually *be* bad faith, even though it sure can feel like it. But an argument where one person is deliberately using one word or context in a way that obscures other meanings or contexts they are still continuing to draw on (or deny) is bad faith from the start?

Branwell with an N, Saturday, 1 August 2020 08:38 (one week ago) link

This comes up a lot in litigation — I tend to think of a “good faith” argument as one that has some reasonable basis in the law or the facts even if it could be wrong, whereas a “bad faith” argument is one where you just willfully ignore contradictory facts or law. Like the other day I took a deposition and I asked the guy “Did CrookedCo ever have a policy against doing x?” And he said “Absolutely not, we never had any policy against that.” And then I showed him an email in which he wrote “We at CrookedCo do not do x, please keep this confidential.”

He was trying to claim that it wasn’t really a “policy” but that email made it a bad faith argument imo.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Saturday, 1 August 2020 13:02 (one week ago) link

This comes up a lot in litigation — I tend to think of a “good faith” argument as one that has some reasonable basis in the law or the facts even if it could be wrong, whereas a “bad faith” argument is one where you just willfully ignore contradictory facts or law.

This is consistent with U.S. tax practice as well -- though there are a bunch of different metrics about how "good" one's faith in based on percentages of likelihood that it would be accepted/accurate. ... Most of this w/r/t to the tax code is relevant to what type of citation and fine you can get if the IRS/tax court disagrees with your position. Basically the penalties for making a good faith mistake are much lower than those for making bad faith mistakes, which may/may not constitute "tax fraud" -- where the penalties for preparers / agents / attorneys are the equivalent often of being dis-barred from doing tax work.

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 18:20 (one week ago) link

example related to run-of-the-mill stuff:

tax pro: how many miles did you drive for your business?
client: 25,000
tax pro: that's a lot of miles! are you sure that's a good estimate of the total for the year 2019?
client: oh yeah
tax pro: *puts 25,000 business miles on client's return, which at the standard mileage rate is approximately a $13,000 deduction, and could save the client anywhere from $2k to $10k in taxes

tax pro is obligated to take what client reports in good faith, and assume that client is being honest ... unless there are facts and circumstances that indicate what the client is reporting isn't accurate, facts and circumstances the tax pro would be a complete idiot if they were to ignore. Like (these are common):
1. client told tax pro that they didn't own a car
2. client reported travel expenses with a lot of it being the cost of rental vehicles
3. client's business doesn't entail much driving, but they also have a job where they are paid as an employee and have a long commute
4. client tells tax pro their previous accountant used to help them make up numbers and invent expenses so they wouldn't owe taxes

If you were tax pro and got one or more of these answers from your client and still accepted that 25,000 miles number without digging further ... then that would probably be bad faith on the part of the tax pro

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 18:34 (one week ago) link

When I input everything into the Quicken nothing flashed red so... that's got to mean everything's OK, right?

kinder, Saturday, 1 August 2020 18:59 (one week ago) link

hahah -- ok sorry for day job-posting

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 19:06 (one week ago) link

xpost hai Skylar

XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Saturday, 1 August 2020 19:08 (one week ago) link

???

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 19:10 (one week ago) link

Kinder's quote is from Breaking Bad I think........or very similar

XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Saturday, 1 August 2020 19:13 (one week ago) link

yeah sorry sarah! In Breaking Bad {{{spoiler alert}}}

Skylar avoids getting done for tax fraud or something by acting the ditz

kinder, Saturday, 1 August 2020 19:19 (one week ago) link

ohhhhhhhh i need to rewatch that show

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 19:33 (one week ago) link

Getting threads locked where arguments are happening and genuine issues as to your behavior are being raised doesn’t seem like good faith imho

all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:22 (one week ago) link

I can see why someone who feels entitled to set the terms of every conversation they are involved in would feel entitled to end those conversations too

all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:23 (one week ago) link

There’s actually an easier way of ending the conversation though which is leaving

all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:24 (one week ago) link

Which is what I was gonna do until we went around asking mods to lock a thread as soon as someone points out that we are being a dick

all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:24 (one week ago) link

But as previously mentioned I’m a big idiot not earth’s most advanced thinker

all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:25 (one week ago) link

So... lock this one too?

XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:26 (one week ago) link

I dunno man!!!!

all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:26 (one week ago) link

You tell me, the notorious dumbass

all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:27 (one week ago) link

you could just move the argument to another thread if you want to continue discussing it ...

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:40 (one week ago) link

i mean, this is ILX, you can even appropriate a dormant sub-board for your purposes!

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:41 (one week ago) link

silbs, here ya go:
https://www.ilxor.com/ILX/NewAnswersControllerServlet?boardid=74

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:43 (one week ago) link

What’s wrong with this thread tbh

all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:44 (one week ago) link

i suppose, nothing, tbh -- just, y'know, I Love Computers could be yours if you have the ambition

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:45 (one week ago) link

I hate computers tho

all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:46 (one week ago) link

I was hoping for the summarise Cerebus thread tbh

braised cod, Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:47 (one week ago) link

aardvark, surrealism, misogyny, profit?

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 20:56 (one week ago) link

ugh I did not know about the misogyny. Led Zeppelin? ugh maybe we should just move to I Love Computers.

braised cod, Saturday, 1 August 2020 21:02 (one week ago) link

wasn't that a major critique of Dave Sim/Cerebus -- the misogyny? I haven't read it in like 25 years

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 21:05 (one week ago) link

tbf I am pretty sure the “I Love Computers” board was named as such in bad faith

sound of scampo talk to me (El Tomboto), Saturday, 1 August 2020 21:06 (one week ago) link

i realize i have an entrepreneurial spirit which is oft associated with capitalism and i apologize for suggesting silbs expand his domain to the dormant subboard of I Love Computers

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 21:09 (one week ago) link

the profit decreased sharply with the advent of the misogyny

Steppin' RZA (sic), Saturday, 1 August 2020 21:10 (one week ago) link

my brief googling seems to agree. I didn't know before. I was just making a joke which has obviously failed terribly.

braised cod, Saturday, 1 August 2020 21:11 (one week ago) link

ha joke was fine

sarahell, Saturday, 1 August 2020 21:27 (one week ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.