[rtpg]

Isn't this kind of the reasoning the article is talking about?

I mean, I assume you think your positions are reasonably thought out. Perhaps other people also think their positions are reasonably thought out?

My takeaway from this article is to give people this benefit of the doubt. Sometimes this means acknowledging that _I_ am the one who is parroting something I heard from someone I agree with generally.

On a practical level, Onion articles aren't going to stop people from Trump/Cruz/Le Pen/Farage(well nobody votes for Farage anyways ;)). Though sometimes there's good fun in circlejerking, if you're legitimately worried about the other side's positioning, not taking them seriously from the outset you won't be able to do much convincing/persuading.

[foxhedgehog]

I think that it's useful to distinguish between arguments that are, and are not, put forth in good faith.

[JackFr]

But I think the point is to assume good faith on the other's part -- that there should be a very high bar before you can assume an argument is not made in good faith.