Once you move an argument to be about someone's understanding of their motivations and beliefs, it risks violating well-grounded rationalist discourse norms and becoming a fully general counterargument (in a similar way to "you're lying".) Whilst it's obviously possible for people to engage with that meta-level of argument, it makes continued discussion of the original subject impossible without defending against these more thorny claims, which most people are understandably reticent about.
My understanding of the claim is more that:
Once you move an argument to be about someone's understanding of their motivations and beliefs, it risks violating well-grounded rationalist discourse norms and becoming a fully general counterargument (in a similar way to "you're lying".) Whilst it's obviously possible for people to engage with that meta-level of argument, it makes continued discussion of the original subject impossible without defending against these more thorny claims, which most people are understandably reticent about.
Until the matter of the ... (read more)