Agree. It can be difficult, still. Not just avoiding the temptation to dunk (forget imperialism, the key contradiction of our times is whether to dunk or educate). But because the other person might never have been challenged from an ML perspective before. If they have, they might not be used to it; sometimes it seems that they simply cannot get their head around what’s being said.

For instance, challenging one point is interpreted as meaning support for the only contrary point they’ve ever heard (e.g. challenging the narrative that Russian invaded ‘unprovoked’ is taken as support for Putin because they’re the only two options that are ever presented in the (western) public discourse.

Being polite is only half the battle when trying not to be hostile. Even the mere pointing at counter-evidence, or asking questions for clarity, are taken as hostility.

Feel free to point it out if you think I am ever needlessly hostile. I’ll try to correct it.