For those that don’t know, steelmanning is the opposite of strawmanning.

It means re-stating your opponent’s view in a manner that they agree “yes, that is my view” and only then you express why you disagree with it.

Failure to do so means one of two things: either you don’t actually understand the stance you claim to oppose or you’re not even in the business of finding truth and changing minds to begin with.

Not sure if this is actually unpopular, but it didn’t feel like a showerthought either.

  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    6·
    2 months ago

    I agree with the title, but what you described seems more just like establishing agreed upon definitions.

    Steelmanning is when you try to find the strongest possible framing/argument for a position you disagree with, and then arguing against that. That’s why it’s the opposite of strawmanning (i.e. arguing against a weak/inaccurate version of the opponent’s view). One is an argument against a particularly generous framing, the other an argument against a particularly harsh framing.

    Just restating a view in a way your opponent agrees with isn’t quite that. That’s not generous or harsh, it’s just neutral.

    • chloroken@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      You appear to be the only person in this entire thread who understands what ‘steel manning’ is. Mildly amusing.

    • Iconoclast@feddit.ukOPEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      I don’t see much conflict between that and what I said. The point is to make sure we’re talking about the same thing rather than talking past each other. If the person you’re arguing against can sign off on your “stronger version” of their argument, then that’s fine. There you just again run the risk of twisting their words to the point that you’re again no longer arguing against what they actually said even if your intentions were good.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        It’s not a matter of conflict, it’s just not what the word means. The point of steelmanning is not to make sure you’re talking about the same thing, it’s to argue against the strongest version of the argument. Technically they don’t even have to sign off on it, it’s possible that they might not actually support the steelman version of their argument.

        Yes, making sure you’re talking about the same thing and not talking past each other is important in a debate, but that’s not what steelmanning is.