Well, I guess that depends on how one defines “rich.” To me, it means someone whose passive income exceeds their spending. What you’re describing, I’d call “wealthy - which is one or two steps above that.

Exactly. Millionaires aren’t the problem. That’s why I can’t stand these thought-terminating clichés like “eat the rich.”

Someone with even several hundred million to their name is dirt poor compared to billionaires.

As far as I know, many of the judges Trump appointed during his first term are now making rulings against his interests - despite having been seen as “aligned” when appointed. So in other words: you can’t know. Just make sure they’re competent and fit for the task.

Because I have no issues with YouTube. I’d much rather use American spyware than Chinese one.

I don’t think actually believing the views you defend is relevant here. Playing devil’s advocate can be done in good faith. It’s about your intentions. In fact, I’d argue that being able to clearly articulate a view you don’t hold is a sign that you’ve genuinely understood your opposition’s arguments. You don’t need to be convinced by them yourself.

What does make it bad faith is if you put those arguments forward but then refuse to engage with the counterarguments - that’s where the line gets crossed.

For example, I don’t agree with the reasons Russia has given for attacking Ukraine, but I can still lay out those arguments in a way a pro-Russian person would recognize as accurate. That, on its own, isn’t bad faith. But if someone responds by calling me a delusional Nazi or something similar, that is bad faith - an ad hominem, specifically - even if that person genuinely believes people who argue that position deserve such a label.

they don’t believe in the argument they are presenting

I don’t think that’s the case here. While people might lie when there’s something to gain from it, we generally don’t hold views we don’t believe in - because that creates cognitive dissonance.

More often, I think it’s that people hold views they feel are true on an intuitive level, but these beliefs usually aren’t something they’ve arrived at independently from first principles. Instead, they’ve adopted them from somewhere else - social groups, media, culture - and haven’t really thought them through.

The belief becomes part of their identity, and they accept it at face value. They know they’re right, so anyone who disagrees must automatically be wrong. That makes it easy to dismiss or ridicule opposing views rather than trying to understand where that “false belief” comes from. After all, why waste time listening to someone who just doesn’t get what you already know to be true?

What people need is humility. There’s no way one can be right about literally everything - we just don’t know what we’re wrong about. It might be something trivial but it also might be one of our core beliefs. The truth is not always intuitive or something that we like. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable.

So you think twisting people’s words, lying, cherry-picking information, and attacking them personally - rather than addressing their actual point - is a good way to make them change their minds?

I don’t think you really believe that either, but if I were to engage with you in bad faith, that’s what it would look like.

Good faith doesn’t mean you have to be polite - it means you make a genuine effort to understand what someone is actually saying and engage with that, rather than a cartoon version of their argument. That cartoon version might get you cheers from the audience, but it’s not going to change anyone’s mind. And if minds aren’t being changed - and no serious effort is even made to try - then what’s the point of the debate in the first place?

I’d argue that if someone is genuinely trying to persuade another person, it’s virtually impossible to debate in bad faith. Acting in bad faith means you don’t care whether the other person changes their mind - you just want to dunk on them, be mean, pretend they said something they didn’t, and rally a mob to dogpile on them. Then you tell yourself you’ve “won” the debate because you’re getting upvotes and they’re not - even though all you’ve really done is push them further into their corner.

Name for this kind of slogan is a “Thought-terminating clishé”

A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language—often passing as folk wisdom—intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance with a cliché rather than a point.

I don’t see why it would be a bad thing. There’s probably more to gain there than to lose if you want to think it that way.

I go discgolfing with one of my customer regularly.

Lighter fluid works great as well

But I’m not criticizing them for failing to summarize the entire article in the headline. I’m criticizing them for being biased - and for clearly showing that bias in how they chose to write the headline. This isn’t neutral reporting on what’s happening.

So they didn’t…

The title should quote what they actually said rather than putting their own bias on it. You’d call them out for twisting your words like that. Hold yourself to the same standards.

I don’t even need to read the article to know that they didn’t actually say that.

Is chassis manufacturing more difficult than it seems

Yes, I remember watching a video explaining how the bend on the side of an Audi differs between cheaper and more expensive models due to ease of manufacturing. That makes intuitive sense too: a nicely carved stick is more valuable and takes more time to make than one that’s simply had the bark removed. The body design of a Lamborghini is orders of magnitude more elaborate than that of a VW Golf so ofcourse it’s going to also cost much more.

No, it doesn’t. If I watch a 15-second funny video from nine years ago, my feed gets flooded with other short clips like that - that’s just how the algorithm works. My personal experience doesn’t support the claim that right-wing media is being disproportionately pushed to people who aren’t interested in it. If I click on that kind of video, it means I’m interested in it - so of course I get recommended more.

Well yeah, isn’t that the whole point of the recommendation algorithm? To suggest content people might find engaging. If a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video doesn’t break any rules, then what’s the issue with it being monetized? What I’m doubting here is the claim that this kind of content is somehow disproportionately pushed to people who have no interest in it.

Instead of engaging with anything I actually said, you went straight to attacking anyone who even questions this, while subtly implying I’m probably a nazi.

This just sounds so strange to me because, in my case, it works exactly the way you said you wish it did.

Since the right wing stuff still gets pushed to the front page

I find this hard to believe since it goes against my decades long personal experience using YouTube. The moment I click on a “Ben Shapiro destroys” video, sure - I get plenty more in my feed. But they also go away when I stop engaging. In my experience, YouTube does a great job of recommending me the kind of content I actually like to watch.

if you have the true conviction of your beliefs

I can sympathize with this.

My personal view is that when you silence speech, you leave people with no other means of influence but violence.