I think he's confusing accepting a conclusion with accepting a premise. Which is what steelmanning is supposed to be, granting your opposition a premise and the

I think he's confusing accepting a conclusion with accepting a premise. Which is what steelmanning is supposed to be, granting your opposition a premise and then pointing out why even in that scenario, why their conclusion is still wrong. Or maybe it's not. In which case, you need to investigate/challenge the premise. And then there's the issue that for some people, they just don't want to be reached. They want to believe a specific way on a specific issue for whatever personal reasons. You can't steelman crazy. And let's not forget, steelmanning isn't about others, it's about yourself. It's about trying to find out if you are wrong.