Sure, but how does this work in todays era where feelings/opinion are considered by many to be the same as fact or at least valid support for an argument?
Vast majority of people are utterly incapable of debate (this is not new). What is new is that it became normal not be embarrassed by that, in fact being incapable of debate is considered a plus.
I treasure few friends I have that I can debate things with, so rare.
Perhaps this happens on a larger scale now but I don't think this is anything new, just look at presidential debates, the "winner" is typically the better orator, not the person who cites sources and is factually correct. Go back just a few decades more and "demonstrably true" is a concept largely confined to mathematics.
The only times feelings/opinion don't matter are if you are making a strictly is/fact based argument/conclusion.
Take, for example, the following slogan:
> Facts don't care about your feelings.
To me, that reads as a straw man. The enemy is defined to be in opposition to fact, when a more generous reading might be the inclusion of feelings among the facts. After all, we are being sensitive to our environment, and the internal impact of that environment actually matters. I find it funny to think that a person would design any system that impacts humans without considering the feelings it might engender. Without consideration of feelings, we may as well design systems for lifeless rocks.
At some level, someone’s accomplishments uniquely identify them.
Not saying this exact implementation is ideal, only that it's a more accurate representation of a pseudonymizing solution.
I’m trying to be charitable; I’m just not able to be creative enough to find how to expansively evaluate track record of relevant experience.
1. Global warming is not untrue because someone feels a certain way about it. 2. I might have offended someone based on how they feel. Or a system might be oppressive based on how someone feels
That's as far as I'm willing to let feelings serve as proof anyhow.