8 ms·
Not the same commenter, but it seems like the lengthy protestations of disinterest are a reaction to the prevailing online climate of exactly the kind of parano
by rdiddly 7y ago
Not the same commenter, but it seems like the lengthy protestations of disinterest are a reaction to the prevailing online climate of exactly the kind of paranoid hysteria embodied in, for example, the assertion that anyone playing devil's advocate is probably on the devil's side so to speak. Being able to hold and consider multiple contrary or incompatible positions simultaneously is in fact a sign of a fairly sophisticated intellect in the process of doing a thorough inquiry.
- PavlovsCat 7y agoEven the devil's advocate [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate ] is supposed to cite facts and reason properly -- not claim a falsehood in support of the devil, which misrepresenting the article is. You can't just precede anything with "just playing devil's advocate for a moment" and make it immune from scrutiny, that's the intellectual equivalent of "just a prank". From the WP article, emphasis mine: > explore the thought further using a valid reasoning
- baddox 7y agoI welcome scrutiny, and I disagree with this particular scrutiny.
- PavlovsCat 7y agoI could have just done the same, and just say "I disagree" without making an argument, but that's not really much of a discussion is it.