That’s a fair consideration, but I don’t think it really affects whether or not we should open-mindedly consider points raised by others who could be said to have an “agenda” we disagree with.
Following the example, let’s say someone replied to Brian’s comment, “Some useful context is that Brian wrote this post advocating for opposing rainforest preservation”. That’s true, and Brian could indeed be (uncharitably) said to “have an agenda trying to disempower environmentalism”.
If someone else read that reply, they could be forgiven for concluding “whew, glad someone pointed out that grifter’s nefarious true purpose!” I think that conclusion would undermine anything valuable Brian actually has to say.
That’s a fair consideration, but I don’t think it really affects whether or not we should open-mindedly consider points raised by others who could be said to have an “agenda” we disagree with.
Following the example, let’s say someone replied to Brian’s comment, “Some useful context is that Brian wrote this post advocating for opposing rainforest preservation”. That’s true, and Brian could indeed be (uncharitably) said to “have an agenda trying to disempower environmentalism”.
If someone else read that reply, they could be forgiven for concluding “whew, glad someone pointed out that grifter’s nefarious true purpose!” I think that conclusion would undermine anything valuable Brian actually has to say.
I didn’t downvote you, by the way :)