I am not entirely sure what you mean, what I am trying to say is that if someone believe he was transphobic, then it would be enriching of the conversation if they took care not to use the fact that he is making that distinction as an argument for that statement.
Specifically I think it is in the interest of the side challenging the status quo to keep their arguments as precise as possible.
Otherwise conversations become extremely difficult and layered, like a relationship fight that stem from a resentment decades old. There are so many branches and so many directions that even if the core problem might be easy it requires a monumental effort just to get close to it.
Intrinsically examples of where I think this happened would be flamebait topics :)
> what I am trying to say is that if someone believe he was transphobic, then it would be enriching of the conversation if they took care not to use the fact that he is making that distinction as an argument for that statement
Yes, I think I'm definitely not understanding you correctly. It seems like you're objectively stating that conversation would be of higher quality if people would construct arguments more like you do. But what if people do want to use that argument for their statement that they find JR transphobic?
"Don't use this argument; it's wrong and devalues the conversation" reads very strange to me when discussing something as fuzzy as "does this person exhibit transphobic behaviour?"
This is close to what I am saying. If people want to use that argument they are free to do so, I intend to keep butting and try to steel man the opposing position without strawmanning their argument.
Also I need to confess that, no, I do not actually want people to argue like I do, I argue this way because otherwise I would make terrible, inconsistent, and vague arguments. Many other people are better than me and they do not need a whole paragraph where they preemptively state their intentions.
Overall I believe that there is great value in trying to find a common ground we can agree on and base the discussion. In my perception arguments in forums like this one should be the complete opposite of a debate. If I believe A is true and you believe B is true and they are mutually exclusive, I believe that the "proper" way to argue my position by exposing the basis of my opinion so that you can both understand why I believe A and explain me your interpretation of those positions.
Now I am devolving into rambling, but I think that shaping conversations as debate is indeed damaging. As an example if I am convinced of A by some internal reasoning and you prove not A to me then only half the job is done. We (or I) need to also resolve the conflict between my internal reasoning and what you are saying. Or at the very least take note of the fact that there is an internal conflict to be resolved.
There is no foundation in anything for this opinion, but I believe that the lack of this second step in the popular sciences made the scientific community elitist and was fertilizer for things like antivaxxers.
Specifically I think it is in the interest of the side challenging the status quo to keep their arguments as precise as possible.
Otherwise conversations become extremely difficult and layered, like a relationship fight that stem from a resentment decades old. There are so many branches and so many directions that even if the core problem might be easy it requires a monumental effort just to get close to it.
Intrinsically examples of where I think this happened would be flamebait topics :)