> Except you're not being objective.

Of course "recognizing that there were aspects of him they didn’t like" is not going to be objective. And it's fine for it to not be objective.

> Accusing anyone of "falling off the far right cliffs of insanity" is a subjective and negative portrayal.

Yeah but it's right.

> I could say and get away with the former, but not the latter when critiquing a co-worker's idea.

You have to bite your tongue at work in a lot of ways that don't make sense outside work.

Of course! I agree there's no requirement to be objective and the "insanity" take is not unreasonable.

My issue comes someone says they "don't have a dog in the fight" and then proceeds to be highly subjective with paraphrasing.

Hmm, let me clarify what I was saying. Because I interpreted your use of "you" in a certain way that might not be how you meant it.

ryandvm, the person that was doing the "recognizing that there were aspects of him they didn’t like", was getting pretty subjective and personal.

hamburglar, the person that used the phrase "recognizing that there were aspects of him they didn’t like", was not doing that.

hamburglar was the one that said "not having a dog in this fight", and I see no reason to disagree with that.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Yes, it's an ATTEMPTED objective take (hamburglar) of a hot take (ryandvm).

I'm pointing out that the hot take was more provocative than the objective take was letting on. To me, objective means factual and facts can be determined independently,

e.g., if I were to show someone the language "recognizing aspects they didn't like" and ask "What was the preceding language?", then I'm guessing most people would assume something less personal than "falling off the cliffs of insanity".

Rest assured, many on the left have fallen off the cliffs of insanity too.

I think maybe you’re reading too much into it. I’ll happily acknowledge that I’ve fallen off my own cliffs of insanity at times. It’s hyperbole, not an attack.