My criticism of our other interlocutor is certainly not that they are stupid. It is precisely that their rhetoric is dishonest, sabotaging precisely the dialectical process you claim to be concerned with fostering. If that's your concern, shouldn't you be criticizing them for their dishonest framing, not me?

Moreover, what they are attacking is that Sussman is enabling his students to study the software the course is run on, so they can understand its tradeoffs and guide human progress by logical reasoning, rather than treating the software as impenetrable black boxes they are forbidden to investigate and powerless to change; and they are attacking MIT's adherence to the ideology of academic freedom, one of the most effective ways to explore radical voices, get out of local optima, and seek truth.

I notice that you still haven't posted a response to their comment, whether criticizing their dishonesty as your stance implies you should, or attempting to understand their point of view as you are urging me to do. If you think it's important to find out why that person is thinking this way, then why are you making no effort to do so, instead attempting to influence me?

My best guess is that you're just feeding me a line of bullshit that you think will persuade me, rather than saying anything you sincerely believe, since your behavior in this thread is precisely the opposite of the behavior you are advocating.

Or, more briefly: "Yeah? Try it, then."