I liked the fact that the author didn't use cognitive bias as an excuse to give up on talking about politics altogether (which seems to be LWian consensus), but instead made demonstrable claims about politics.
EDIT: in response to the previous version of Michaelos' post, I said:
It makes me uncomfortable when LWers say things like:
"Politics is the Mindkiller" appears to be acknowledged as early as the second sentence.
It smacks of, "Oh, look at the unenlightened people finally catching on." Lesswrong didn't invent cognitive science, and "politics is the mindkiller" is just our term for a well-established result of cognitive science. The article is about motivated reasoning, and the author isn't "acknowledging" it, but explaining it.
but it makes me uncomfortable when LWers say things like:
Edited! If that's poor phrasing, I want to fix it. My intended goal was "I need to reference the topic of this article in some manner, so that people will know why to read it." and from your post that wasn't getting across.
However, that is not the first critique I have gotten about phrasing, and in retrospect, I am concerned that I am more of a rationality pretender than an actual rationalist. I mean, I approve of rationality, and I try to follow the math (and can't when it starts gettin...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, even in Discussion, it goes here.