Thatâs a fair consideration, but I donât think it really affects whether or not we should open-mindedly consider points raised by others who could be said to have an âagendaâ we disagree with.
Following the example, letâs say someone replied to Brianâs comment, âSome useful context is that Brian wrote this post advocating for opposing rainforest preservationâ. Thatâs true, and Brian could indeed be (uncharitably) said to âhave an agenda trying to disempower environmentalismâ.
If someone else read that reply, they could be forgiven for concluding âwhew, glad someone pointed out that grifterâs nefarious true purpose!â I think that conclusion would undermine anything valuable Brian actually has to say.
Thatâs a fair consideration, but I donât think it really affects whether or not we should open-mindedly consider points raised by others who could be said to have an âagendaâ we disagree with.
Following the example, letâs say someone replied to Brianâs comment, âSome useful context is that Brian wrote this post advocating for opposing rainforest preservationâ. Thatâs true, and Brian could indeed be (uncharitably) said to âhave an agenda trying to disempower environmentalismâ.
If someone else read that reply, they could be forgiven for concluding âwhew, glad someone pointed out that grifterâs nefarious true purpose!â I think that conclusion would undermine anything valuable Brian actually has to say.
I didnât downvote you, by the way :)