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.