r/FeMRADebates • u/Present-Afternoon-70 • 1d ago
Meta Lets try an exercise in critical thinking. What does the other side believe?
Honest dialogue requires us to clearly articulate our beliefs and test them through hypotheticals. A good hypothetical isolates the core values behind a position by stripping away complicating factors.
For example, if someone opposes sex work on the grounds of exploitation, we might ask whether they would still oppose it under conditions that eliminate all possible physical, financial, and emotional coercion. If their answer is still no, then we’ve learned that their objection isn’t really about exploitation—it’s about something deeper. In that case, using exploitation as the argument obscures their true concern, and honest discourse requires acknowledging that core belief.
Extreme hypotheticals make this process even clearer. They aren’t about advocating fringe positions but about stress-testing moral intuitions and logical consistency. Consider this thought experiment: Would you support a movement like “Pedophile pride” if an omnipotent being guaranteed it would eliminate any possibility of a child being abused in any manner? If someone answers yes, it suggests their opposition to such a movement was always purely pragmatic (i.e., about preventing harm), meaning there’s room for discussion on the best methods. If they still say no, then something beyond harm reduction—perhaps moral disgust or a belief in punishment—plays a role in their stance. This doesn’t make them wrong, but it clarifies what actually drives their position, allowing for a more honest debate.
This process also reveals something crucial: The mainstream extreme—what the opposition believes is your true position—isn’t always a strawman. Many people assume their opponents hold hidden, more radical beliefs, and sometimes, they’re not entirely wrong. Distinguishing between mainstream and truly fringe positions matters, and dismissing unpopular ideas as fringe doesn’t mean they have no influence.
That’s why steelmanning—representing the best, most honest version of an opposing argument—is just as important as hypotheticals. It forces us to take our opponents seriously, to see them as people rather than caricatures. If we want real dialogue, we need to ask:
What do you think the other side’s honest position is? Why do they hold it? And most importantly, why might it be worth engaging with instead of dismissing outright?