i dont agree with the self-indemnifying approach. let us apply this concept to itself - what could go wrong with not shooting down ideas? a lot of time could be wasted giving credence to that which is invalid. for example, ive just donated my energy debating the merits of an article that was probably written by a large language model (this is a judgement based on overt presence of negative parallelism, punchy prose, tripartite sentence structure, AI generated image, ...) - on a personal basis id prefer to have spent my time otherwise, as this entire argument can be summed as "be curious, not judgemental". therefore shooting this one down was probably a good idea?