[ethbr0]

> We should be extremely skeptical of any argument that serves solely to justify the positions those in power

Are you saying we should be extremely skeptical specifically of arguments that justify the positions of those in power, but not other arguments?

Or are you saying that we should be extremely skeptical of all arguments equally?

[notafraudster]

Given we have a fixed amount of effort to apply to scrutinizing superficially reasonable but deeply poor arguments, we should focus on those that -- if false -- have the most deleterious effect on utility, broadly defined. If social equity is a component of the utility function, and I think for many it is, then power-preserving arguments would be such a target.

This could really be articulated in any way you choose, but no it doesn't follow that "we should be more skeptical of arguments that facially seem to support the powerful at the expense of the weak" is an irrational or wrong position.

[ethbr0]

> If social equity is a component of the utility function, and I think for many it is, then power-preserving arguments would be such a target.

This is conflating two wildly different things.

Unless you're assuming that power is inherently unequal?