3 ms·
Depends. In perfectly logical debate, you'd be right. But I think real world is more complex. What if "who someone is" a "someone who is easily manipulated and
by glogla 5y ago
Depends. In perfectly logical debate, you'd be right. But I think real world is more complex.
What if "who someone is" a "someone who is easily manipulated and used by bad actors to amplify dangerous misinformation"?
Or, someone being American person of color is pretty important when they talk about racism in US. As opposed to someone, who is not only not a person of color but has been to US like once for a week (like me).
Or perhaps more relevantly, what if "who someone is" is "a certified medical doctor" as opposed to "someone with no experience in medical field who gets their information from corporate social network who makes most money when people are angry because anger is very good for engagement"?
- 015a 5y agoOr, similarly: What if someone who isn't even an American amplifies their opinions on what direction America should take its public health policy in? But I am strongly in the camp that it doesn't matter. I welcome your opinion, and want to read it. No discussions are perfectly logical; that's not a relevant component in the application of critical thinking to look past who is speaking, and at what they are speaking about. A gag is a poor replacement for Reason, and more-over only serves to strengthen the bubbles we build for ourselves in both our offline and online lives. I would agree that credentialism is valuable; but that is very, very different from "once said something on the internet that I disagreed with."