When you disagree with someone, there are two paths forward. The first is to try to engage with what they’re saying: what their reasons are, whether their…
I don’t know I think looking critically at why someone has a rooting interest in claims IS valuable.
Yeah using it as a silver bullet to kill all discussion can suck, but outright removing that context is going to leave others trying to engage in good faith in the lurch.
It’s the thing Republicans have been exploiting about trans people in sports for the past few years. They ask you “don’t look at the people asking just ask yourself if this is fair to sports”. It leaves out a lot of malice in the claims like
the people asking about sports despise trans people as a whole and this issue is a stepping stone for them
the party as a whole doesn’t care but needs a boogeyman to distract from their dreadful policies and lunatics at the helm of things
I’m not accusing the author of going that far but I need to illustrate why separating the argument from the author just isn’t a great idea.
I don’t know I think looking critically at why someone has a rooting interest in claims IS valuable.
Yeah using it as a silver bullet to kill all discussion can suck, but outright removing that context is going to leave others trying to engage in good faith in the lurch.
It’s the thing Republicans have been exploiting about trans people in sports for the past few years. They ask you “don’t look at the people asking just ask yourself if this is fair to sports”. It leaves out a lot of malice in the claims like
I’m not accusing the author of going that far but I need to illustrate why separating the argument from the author just isn’t a great idea.