Here's a rewording: all of us should be very careful not to put words in others mouths, especially when doing so with little knowledge and understanding. That's it.
It just so happens that I know Richard's perspectives very well. I've not only read most of his writings, heard/watched several recordings of his, and heard him speak half a dozen times… I've also had several conversations with him directly and also with several people who know him well. So, I have a pretty good understanding of his views. It's only in that light that I'm able to see how rash and poorly-thought-out many of the other people's comments are when they make bold and quite inaccurate assertions about what and how Richard thinks.
It's not that you should accept my authority in some sort of logical way that would prove anything I'm saying as true. It's just incidental that I have knowledge in this case that allows me to recognize gross intellectual sloppiness in others in this topic. Asking you to blindly accept my claims about Richard would be closer to appeal-to-authority. But my point is that I want to be wary not to be sloppy the way I see others being. It's a commentary about being overconfident in general.
What I'm saying in my meta comment is that there's a risk that I could or even have done the same sloppiness in describing other people who I don't really understand as well. I could imagine writing some dismissive caricature of someone I have negative impression of, such as say Jeff Sessions, for example. And I would be better not to claim to know anything there. All I really know about Sessions is a few bits of impressions from a small number of places I've seen reference to him in the news… If I had to bet, I'd go with my impressions, but it would be careless of me to weigh in with some assertion about what he thinks in the context of some comment-section on some news. I have no real knowledge there, and at most should describe my impressions and ask questions rather than make bold claims about what Sessions believes.
It just so happens that I know Richard's perspectives very well. I've not only read most of his writings, heard/watched several recordings of his, and heard him speak half a dozen times… I've also had several conversations with him directly and also with several people who know him well. So, I have a pretty good understanding of his views. It's only in that light that I'm able to see how rash and poorly-thought-out many of the other people's comments are when they make bold and quite inaccurate assertions about what and how Richard thinks.
It's not that you should accept my authority in some sort of logical way that would prove anything I'm saying as true. It's just incidental that I have knowledge in this case that allows me to recognize gross intellectual sloppiness in others in this topic. Asking you to blindly accept my claims about Richard would be closer to appeal-to-authority. But my point is that I want to be wary not to be sloppy the way I see others being. It's a commentary about being overconfident in general.
What I'm saying in my meta comment is that there's a risk that I could or even have done the same sloppiness in describing other people who I don't really understand as well. I could imagine writing some dismissive caricature of someone I have negative impression of, such as say Jeff Sessions, for example. And I would be better not to claim to know anything there. All I really know about Sessions is a few bits of impressions from a small number of places I've seen reference to him in the news… If I had to bet, I'd go with my impressions, but it would be careless of me to weigh in with some assertion about what he thinks in the context of some comment-section on some news. I have no real knowledge there, and at most should describe my impressions and ask questions rather than make bold claims about what Sessions believes.