Why, though? What are the arguments that make you support the conclusion, if the post was disappointing in its argumentation? If you mean that you’re convinced by other arguments in the post not addressed by Localdeity’s comment (e.g., the argument from military spending and foreign bases, or Kissinger’s articulation of the difference between missionary and cultural exceptionalism), it would be more informative to say which ones, because rationalists care about what arguments and evidence exist, not which conclusions to support: unless you can establish yourself as an authority whom people should defer to without evidence, there’s no reason anyone should care what conclusions you support, which means your comment is lowering the forum’s signal-to-noise ratio and is therefore a bad comment.
I found this post was pretty disappointing in its argumentation, for reasons you describe, and I fairly strongly support its conclusion.
Why, though? What are the arguments that make you support the conclusion, if the post was disappointing in its argumentation? If you mean that you’re convinced by other arguments in the post not addressed by Localdeity’s comment (e.g., the argument from military spending and foreign bases, or Kissinger’s articulation of the difference between missionary and cultural exceptionalism), it would be more informative to say which ones, because rationalists care about what arguments and evidence exist, not which conclusions to support: unless you can establish yourself as an authority whom people should defer to without evidence, there’s no reason anyone should care what conclusions you support, which means your comment is lowering the forum’s signal-to-noise ratio and is therefore a bad comment.