> It is less plausible to me that a caution towards "healthy" skepticism is advocating some kind of utter credulity, than that it is doing exactly what it calls for: cautioning towards skepticism.
Quoting someone who already explained why this interpretation is untenable:
> The OP specifically was condemning ignorant reactionaries. Responding with "but skepticism is good" is a defense of ignorant reactionaries. Otherwise, it's the responder's responsibility to enlist further clarification instead of what can only be interpreted as dismissal + "/s" snark.
I mean, we all can agree with "healthy skepticism is good." So was their post just an in-passing reminder unrelated to this thread? I charitably interpreted their post to be a response to the comment they replied to rather than an independent platitude.
I find it just as plausible a read of the thread that the root's take-away was "trust the government," as you seem to find "skepticism is good" to be "a defense of ignorant reactionaries."
If there's anything in the world that warrants some extra skepticism, it's the well-meaning-ness of government and its penchant for unintended consequences...
> I find it just as plausible a read of the thread that the root's take-away was "trust the government," as you seem to find "skepticism is good" to be "a defense of ignorant reactionaries."
Would you care to explain why?
> If there's anything in the world that warrants some extra skepticism, it's the well-meaning-ness of government and its penchant for unintended consequences...
I agree in general, but the root comment made a specific argument about why certain skeptics are not compelling. I don’t see how these hand wavy proclamations about how skepticism is good is in any way relevant to that.
It's implied by the context of the thread. The subject is "ignorant reactionaries". No one has challenged that characterization, so we're left assuming that the commenter is arguing that "ignorant reactionaries" are equivalent to "healthy skeptics".
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. [0]
It is less plausible to me that a caution towards "healthy" skepticism is advocating some kind of utter credulity, than that it is doing exactly what it calls for: cautioning towards skepticism.
The OP specifically was condemning ignorant reactionaries. Responding with "but skepticism is good" is a defense of ignorant reactionaries. Otherwise, it's the responder's responsibility to enlist further clarification instead of what can only be interpreted as dismissal + "/s" snark.
I mean, we all can agree with "healthy skepticism is good." So was their post just an in-passing reminder unrelated to this thread? I charitably interpreted their post to be a response to the comment they replied to rather than an independent platitude.
does not imply
> we should take ignorant reactionaries seriously