[xkemp]

I believe people arguing "politeness" are missing the point, though. What I most value is "dialectics" (not sure if that term is commonly used in English).

I. e. the willingness to entertain the best argument against your position in good faith. Two people who are excellent in doing so (and familiar to HN) would be Scott Alexander of slatestarcodex, and Matt Levine at Bloomberg.

(Someone rather bad at it, usually arguing against some caricature of what he imagines his opposition to be, and generally tending towards the "either unactionable, obvious, or wrong" end of the spectrum is, well, Paul Graham.)

[wozniacki]

Could you highlight a piece of writing by Matt that appealed to the part you alluded to:

  the willingness to entertain the best argument against
  your position in good faith.

For example someone quoted this article on Goldman Sachs in previous HN posts off late

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-05/goldma...

A clear and even-keeled accommodating of an argument - one very discordant from your own argument - is a rare find these days. People feign even-handedness but what seems a fair shake to them doesnt to others who happen to sit a little further, in the spectrum of opinions.

I want to see if Matt measures up.

[brianpan]

There's a fine line. PG's essay is about usefulness. An essay is probably more useful if a point can be made just as strongly but in a way that a greater number of readers will receive it well.