Episode 6: Good Faith, Bad Faith, and the Post-Truth Survival Guide

Episode 6: Good Faith, Bad Faith, and the Post-Truth Survival Guide

In this episode of The Drunken Philosophers, hosts Scott Jenkins and Ben Cohn sit down in Minneapolis to unpack the mechanics of modern discourse. If you’ve ever found yourself trapped in an exhausting argument that felt less like a conversation and more like a battlefield, this episode is your survival guide.

The guys dive deep into why people talk past each other, how language is being weaponized for power, and what it actually means to navigate a “post-truth” society.

Key Takeaways

• The “Yes, And” vs. “Yeah, But” Dynamic: Scott and Ben break down the fundamental difference between constructive and destructive dialogue. Good faith conversations rely on “co-creation”—even when stress-testing an idea, the goal is to strengthen it. Bad faith actors, on the other hand, are just looking to throw rocks, relying on logical fallacies and edge cases to score points without offering solutions.
• The Mott-and-Bailey Tactic: Ben highlights a classic intellectual sleight-of-hand. Bad-faith arguers will make an aggressive, expansive claim (the Mott), but the second they get challenged, they retreat to a safe, narrow definition (the Bailey), claiming that’s what they meant all along.
• The Power Play of Redefining Words: The hosts tackle how everyday terms are being co-opted and redefined by ideological extremes to gain systemic power rather than change minds. They point to shifting definitions around anti-racism and gender as prime examples of an era where no words have stable meanings anymore.
• Where Do You Invest Your Ego? Referencing a lecture series by philosopher Peter Boghossian, the guys discuss a major reasoning trap: investing your identity into being right or belonging to a specific “intellectual tribe.” When you shift your ego toward being a good reasoner who is open to changing their mind, a challenge becomes an opportunity to grow rather than an existential attack.
• The Irony of Political Extremes: Scott argues that extreme progressivism has abandoned its liberal roots, taking on a dogmatic rigidity that mirrors the MAGA right. Both extremes demand strict adherence to a specific “liturgy” and view any lack of compliance as an adversarial threat. Scott shares a personal story of being completely ostracized at a Democratic delegates’ house party simply for failing to repeat the expected political echoes.
• Local Chaos & Conspiracy Theories: Operating out of Minnesota’s 5th district, the conversation takes a turn into local drama—specifically, the bizarre “apple cider vinegar syringe attack” on Representative Ilhan Omar. Ben confesses his immediate reaction was that the event looked entirely staged for clout, while Scott plays devil’s advocate, noting that high-stress situations are rarely handled perfectly by rapid-response teams. Either way, they agree that public consumers rarely follow up on the facts once an initial impression is made.

The Verdict

When you’re dealing with truly intractable people who are unwilling to confront new ideas, what’s the best real-life skill? Pivot. Save your energy, skip the deep philosophical debates, and stick to safe territory—like the weather or the Minnesota Twins. Ultimately, Scott and Ben advocate for a mindset that is inclusive of people, inviting them into a shared space to build a better, more expansive perspective together.

Want to join the conversation or test your own reasoning skills? Check out the Drunken Philosophy meetup group next time you’re in the Twin Cities!