Spidertalk podcast interview with Tom Brevoort

[Prof. Warren]

How exactly? I mean how are Reed Richards and Tony Stark diminished if Peter grows up? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

It also doesn't make a lick of sense if Peter were to age past Reed or Tony. Do you get it? You can't have one character in the MU aging in a semi-natural progression while no one else does. Either they all age or none of them do.

Peter can be - and was - allowed to age up to a certain point but to continue to let him progress into his 30s and 40s and so on would not work. He has to remain at the correct approximate distance age wise from characters that we know to be older than him.

[Mister Mets]

Three posts about someone's bad joke have been deleted.

[Spider-Tiger]

Honestly, debating the intent of creators on these boards is not productive and brings about a lot of toxicity. The focus of these discussions should be on the stories, and why we personally agree or disagree with a particular view. Not on the character, credentials, or experience of the person holding said view.

Again...people choosing ethics isn't a form of self-sabotage.

I mean is Alan Moore self-sabotaging himself for turning down doubloons of cash from Hollywood by divesting his names off movie adaptations?

This boils down to a debate of "how does one define success." In our society, we tend to define success in monetary terms, but if someone turns down wads of cash to do something that is morally or ethically pleasing, then it gives them utility in the form of feeling good. In psychological terms, "self-sabotage" is really only a behavior that causes significant emotional distress. Without emotional distress there is no harm as long as one is able to meet the basic needs of survival. For some, ethical behavior can be more personally rewarding than financial gain. For Peter, who has a high degree of empathy (and consequently guilt/remorse) it is.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

No, not at all.

Good. Glad that a simple yes/no question got an answer straight out. You said that my perception was false about Peter growing but since these events happened in the books, my perception is based on the fact that Peter did grow up in those stories and these events happened.

You may not give as much weight to these events happening but others are free to do so. So my perception isn't false at all. Nice of you to confirm that.

But at a certain point, Peter had to "level off" age wise to keep on track with the rest of the MU.

To reiterate what I said to Mister Mets...the question of how much Peter should age and so on, is a separate question requiring a separate thread and is quite off-topic. What we are discussing is whether "Spider-Man is about youth".

The debate began when Brevoort made a false claim that Ditko was against Peter going to college as his defense for claiming that Peter is about youth. I pointed out some obvious facts belying that claim which you took affront for merely pointing them out. I pointed out that the character in his classic period did grow and change, I also pointed out that for a long time Spider-Man wasn't portrayed as especially youthful in the comics or in the adaptations.

And I have to say, that the cycle of defenses for why Spider-Man should stay young is quite baffling and inconsistent in its leaps. -- It's easier to forgive mistakes in a young man than in an older one. Which I countered by pointing out that Peter doesn't make mistakes of any kind that are that serious or a long-term issue since his story is about being poor rather than being young and dumb.
-- Then it was about whether Peter was a screwup, about which there was no agreement, since it seems that what people mean by screwup is being selfless, while some took issue with my argument that it carried a connotation that implied it meant being poor.
-- Then it was about "what is unique about Spider-Man within the MU itself" to which I pointed out many things that made and kept Spider-Man unique in the MU when he was married. Now you retort and claim that Peter can't grow up because he will put Iron Man and Reed out to pasture. This is honestly the most baffling thing anyone has said to defend this. I'll give it points for originality but again it's also quite off-topic.

What it comes down to is this. I pointed out quite succinctly that Tom Brevoort's argument is specious and based on poor research. Rather than admit or allow that Brevoort may have made a mistake, and one can't say definitively if Ditko would be for/against Peter growing up, it's still the right thing...which is the logical case for you to make. You simply take issue with me bringing this up. Maybe if someone else other than me said this, you would not be so hostile.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Honestly, debating the intent of creators on these boards is not productive and brings about a lot of toxicity. The focus of these discussions should be on the stories, and why we personally agree or disagree with a particular view. Not on the character, credentials, or experience of the person holding said view.

I agree with that. It was wrong for Brevoort to claim authority on Ditko without any evidence to back his claim up. That was my point. If Brevoort acknowledged or qualified by saying, words to the effect "Obviously Spider-Man did grow up from high school to college, which I think was a mistake in retrospect, and there are great stories with him after that, in fact the best stories - Master Planner, KLH - feature a more grown-up Spider-Man than I am comfortable with, but as an editor I think that it would be better if we fence him in, even if there's a trade-off". I mean if he said that, I would still disagree but it would at least be on the level of a real debate where Brevoort accepts how other people see things. Instead he says, "Spider-Man is about youth" and goes from there blithely.

This boils down to a debate of "how does one define success." In our society, we tend to define success in monetary terms, but if someone turns down wads of cash to do something that is morally or ethically pleasing, then it gives them utility in the form of feeling good. In psychological terms, "self-sabotage" is really only a behavior that causes significant emotional distress. Without emotional distress there is no harm as long as one is able to meet the basic needs of survival. For some, ethical behavior can be more personally rewarding than financial gain. For Peter, who has a high degree of empathy (and consequently guilt/remorse) it is.

I mean basically people who say that Spider-Man shouldn't be selfless or that being selfless is a form of self-sabotage are saying that Peter was right in letting the burglar go, and he was a whiny crybaby for being so sensitive about it. This idea of Spider-Man being some form of self-sabotage absolutely goes against the point of AF#15, i.e. that being Spider-Man allowed Peter to be the best version of himself.

[Spider-Tiger]

I agree with that. It was wrong for Brevoort to claim authority on Ditko without any evidence to back his claim up. That was my point. If Brevoort acknowledged or qualified by saying, words to the effect "Obviously Spider-Man did grow up from high school to college, which I think was a mistake in retrospect, and there are great stories with him after that, in fact the best stories - Master Planner, KLH - feature a more grown-up Spider-Man than I am comfortable with, but as an editor I think that it would be better if we fence him in, even if there's a trade-off". I mean if he said that, I would still disagree but it would at least be on the level of a real debate where Brevoort accepts how other people see things. Instead he says, "Spider-Man is about youth" and goes from there blithely.

I understand those points, but you also suggested that Brevoort and other individuals involved in OMD intentionally lied to readers, were acting in bad faith and being self-centered, and that Brevoort's opinions (based on his experiences at Marvel) shouldn't be given much credence in the realm of Spider-man. I agree that people shouldn't just dismiss opposing viewpoints on the basis of authority, but those comments started to cross over into attacking the person rather than addressing the opinion.

I mean basically people who say that Spider-Man shouldn't be selfless or that being selfless is a form of self-sabotage are saying that Peter was right in letting the burglar go, and he was a whiny crybaby for being so sensitive about it. This idea of Spider-Man being some form of self-sabotage absolutely goes against the point of AF#15, i.e. that being Spider-Man allowed Peter to be the best version of himself.

I don't know that I would take it that far, but I do agree that characterizing Peter as someone who self-sabotages runs contrary to AF 15.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I understand those points, but you also suggested that Brevoort and other individuals involved in OMD intentionally lied to readers, were acting in bad faith and being self-centered, and that Brevoort's opinions (based on his experiences at Marvel) shouldn't be given much credence in the realm of Spider-man. I agree that people shouldn't just dismiss opposing viewpoints on the basis of authority, but those comments started to cross over into attacking the person rather than addressing the opinion.

Fair.

I don't know that I would take it that far, but I do agree that characterizing Peter as someone who self-sabotages runs contrary to AF 15.

Agreed.

[Prof. Warren]

Good. Glad that a simple yes/no question got an answer straight out. You said that my perception was false about Peter growing but since these events happened in the books, my perception is based on the fact that Peter did grow up in those stories and these events happened.

You may not give as much weight to these events happening but others are free to do so. So my perception isn't false at all. Nice of you to confirm that.

I said that the perception about Peter growing up was related to the fact that, being younger than other Marvel characters, it was easier to pull off the illusion of change with Peter than with other characters, not that events that seemed to mark the passage of time never happened.

As I said...

No, not at all. Once again, you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding what was said. I said the illusion of change was easier to have with Peter because of his youth. That means we could see him hit milestones, like HS or college graduation that other characters would have already been past.

What you don't want to grasp or admit is that Peter was able to more visibly change throughout the first couple of decades of his existence because he was younger than the majority of his counterparts. We're never going to see, say, Tony Stark graduate from high school or meet his first love. Those kind of stories were uniquely suited to Peter in his early years.

To reiterate what I said to Mister Mets...the question of how much Peter should age and so on, is a separate question requiring a separate thread and is quite off-topic. What we are discussing is whether "Spider-Man is about youth".

The question of whether Peter should age or how much he should age is still very pertinent to the question of youth.

The debate began when Brevoort made a false claim that Ditko was against Peter going to college as his defense for claiming that Peter is about youth. I pointed out some obvious facts belying that claim which you took affront for merely pointing them out. I pointed out that the character in his classic period did grow and change, I also pointed out that for a long time Spider-Man wasn't portrayed as especially youthful in the comics or in the adaptations.

Not a "false claim." It may be unproven in your eyes and you may not believe it, but that is not the same as a "false claim."

And I have to say, that the cycle of defenses for why Spider-Man should stay young is quite baffling and inconsistent in its leaps. -- It's easier to forgive mistakes in a young man than in an older one. Which I countered by pointing out that Peter doesn't make mistakes of any kind that are that serious or a long-term issue since his story is about being poor rather than being young and dumb.

His story is not "about being poor." And no one has ever called Peter "dumb." That's you putting words in people's mouths for the sake of creating an argument.

-- Then it was about whether Peter was a screwup, about which there was no agreement, since it seems that what people mean by screwup is being selfless, while some took issue with my argument that it carried a connotation that implied it meant being poor.

No, being a screw-up is not about being selfless. That was not the point.

-- Then it was about "what is unique about Spider-Man within the MU itself" to which I pointed out many things that made and kept Spider-Man unique in the MU when he was married. Now you retort and claim that Peter can't grow up because he will put Iron Man and Reed out to pasture. This is honestly the most baffling thing anyone has said to defend this. I'll give it points for originality but again it's also quite off-topic.

You're distorting a very clear statement in order to purposely miss the point entirely.

In the Marvel Universe, Peter is established as a younger man in relation to the likes of Tony Stark or Reed Richards.

That means that for awhile there was room for Peter to grow up but yet he can never be allowed to fully catch up to the likes of Tony or Reed.

As those characters will never be allowed to grow past the middle aged limbo they are locked into, Peter must forever hover at an appropriate age behind them.

Just in the same way that Dick Grayson was allowed to age but yet can never be an adult in quite the same way that Bruce Wayne is.

Dick started as a teen and grew up but is always going to be a guy in his 20s while Bruce started in his mid-to-late 30s, maybe early 40s at best, and has just always remained there.

What it comes down to is this. I pointed out quite succinctly that Tom Brevoort's argument is specious and based on poor research.

What it comes down to this: you accused Brevoort of lying, among other things.

Saying that you "pointed out quite succinctly that (Brevoort's) argument is specious and based on poor research," as rude as that already sounds, still glosses over the fact that you essentially called him scheming, dishonest, and selfish and someone who practices low level cunning to settle scores with the readership.

I think that sums it up well.

Rather than admit or allow that Brevoort may have made a mistake, and one can't say definitively if Ditko would be for/against Peter growing up, it's still the right thing...which is the logical case for you to make. You simply take issue with me bringing this up. Maybe if someone else other than me said this, you would not be so hostile.

I never said that I believed Brevoort's claim was wholly factual, only that it well could be and that it would be wrong to automatically assume that it wasn't.

As I said, the truth is often murky. It's wrong to presume absolute authoritative knowledge.

But rather than simply concede that, yeah, Brevoort could be correct or that, even if you think he isn't, that there isn't enough actual evidence to decisively prove or disprove his point, you continued to insist that, no, he must be wrong, that he is only repeating unfounded rumors and hearsay, and that somehow this comic professional with decades to his credit and an encyclopedic knowledge of the field, lacks your own ability as a researcher to discern the truth.

And yet you don't see the gross arrogance of that and instead simply continue to accuse Brevoort and others of being vindictive, bad people rather than just people who happen have different ideas about Spider-Man.

So with that, I'm done with this particular thread.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

What you don't want to grasp or admit is that Peter was able to more visibly change throughout the first couple of decades of his existence because he was younger than the majority of his counterparts. We're never going to see, say, Tony Stark graduate from high school or meet his first love.

That's a function of the fact that Tony Stark didn't get his origin story until his mid-30s, where before he was a selfish amoral a--hole. As such, it's irrelevant to what we are talking about. Peter Parker got his origin story when he was 15 and in publication terms Spider-Man is Iron Man's senior since he was an active superhero when Iron Man first showed up (though maybe they retconned that?). The story of Spider-Man is that he had to grow up fast and that didn't get to really enjoy his youth whereas the story of Iron Man is that he grew up too late and is in permanent mid-life crisis mode to make up for lost time (which explains his constant self-destructive over-corrective urges).

So this just doesn't make any sense as an argument.

As those characters will never be allowed to grow past the middle aged limbo they are locked into, Peter must forever hover at an appropriate age behind them.

You are aware that applies to Miles Morales, Spider-Gwen and Kamala Khan too, right? Peter must always hover a significant age above them. I mean those characters are here to stay, Miles above all. The more you make Spider-Man about youth, the less Miles and others get to embody that. It makes sense to slot Peter in that niche of adult between Reed and Tony on one side, and Miles on the side below him. So that way you get a multi-generational layer.

I never said that I believed Brevoort's claim was wholly factual, only that it well could be and that it would be wrong to automatically assume that it wasn't.

The burden of proof is always on the ones making new claims. Based on the substantive available evidence of the publication history and general logistics, as well as Ditko's own opinions, it is inaccurate. It's up to Brevoort and others to bear the burden of proof, and it has to be based on a substantial bit of hard data rather than assumptions that he might know something we don't.

I admit I was too zealous and strident in pointing that out, and that contributed to escalating this, and for that I apologize.

[Mister Mets]

Honestly, debating the intent of creators on these boards is not productive and brings about a lot of toxicity. The focus of these discussions should be on the stories, and why we personally agree or disagree with a particular view. Not on the character, credentials, or experience of the person holding said view.

That's a fair point. If you prefer an older Spider-Man, it really doesn't matter whether Brevoort is right about Ditko.

This boils down to a debate of "how does one define success." In our society, we tend to define success in monetary terms, but if someone turns down wads of cash to do something that is morally or ethically pleasing, then it gives them utility in the form of feeling good. In psychological terms, "self-sabotage" is really only a behavior that causes significant emotional distress. Without emotional distress there is no harm as long as one is able to meet the basic needs of survival. For some, ethical behavior can be more personally rewarding than financial gain. For Peter, who has a high degree of empathy (and consequently guilt/remorse) it is.

There is also the potential to be distracted by nitpicking. Two people may easily end up talking past one another discussing the same behavior and outcomes

To reiterate what I said to Mister Mets...the question of how much Peter should age and so on, is a separate question requiring a separate thread and is quite off-topic. What we are discussing is whether "Spider-Man is about youth".

The debate began when Brevoort made a false claim that Ditko was against Peter going to college as his defense for claiming that Peter is about youth. I pointed out some obvious facts belying that claim which you took affront for merely pointing them out. I pointed out that the character in his classic period did grow and change, I also pointed out that for a long time Spider-Man wasn't portrayed as especially youthful in the comics or in the adaptations.

And I have to say, that the cycle of defenses for why Spider-Man should stay young is quite baffling and inconsistent in its leaps. -- It's easier to forgive mistakes in a young man than in an older one. Which I countered by pointing out that Peter doesn't make mistakes of any kind that are that serious or a long-term issue since his story is about being poor rather than being young and dumb.
-- Then it was about whether Peter was a screwup, about which there was no agreement, since it seems that what people mean by screwup is being selfless, while some took issue with my argument that it carried a connotation that implied it meant being poor.
-- Then it was about "what is unique about Spider-Man within the MU itself" to which I pointed out many things that made and kept Spider-Man unique in the MU when he was married. Now you retort and claim that Peter can't grow up because he will put Iron Man and Reed out to pasture. This is honestly the most baffling thing anyone has said to defend this. I'll give it points for originality but again it's also quite off-topic.

What it comes down to is this. I pointed out quite succinctly that Tom Brevoort's argument is specious and based on poor research. Rather than admit or allow that Brevoort may have made a mistake, and one can't say definitively if Ditko would be for/against Peter growing up, it's still the right thing...which is the logical case for you to make. You simply take issue with me bringing this up. Maybe if someone else other than me said this, you would not be so hostile.

There have been earlier discussions about youth VS growth.

The thread is about Brevoort's entire interview, and he had more comments about whether Peter Parker should age with the fans, so the question of how much he should age can be a pertinent one in this context.

Well when I said that I pointed out specific factual errors that he made in this podcast, which also rephrases factual errors he made in the manifesto. The replies to that was about Brevoort's authority and years occupying a position which automatically allows people to assume that whatever he says is accurate. Brevoort has a right to an opinion, of course but that doesn't mean what he says can't be questioned or corrected or refuted.



A good question but one that's too big and off-topic to go into here.



Couldn't resist low-hanging fruit, I'm afraid.



Again...people choosing ethics isn't a form of self-sabotage.

I mean is Alan Moore self-sabotaging himself for turning down doubloons of cash from Hollywood by divesting his names off movie adaptations?

It really depends on what you mean by self-sabotage. Self-sabotage doesn't exclusively refer to situations in which someone does something indefensible. They may have a very good reason for a decision that may appear to not be advantageous.

You are aware that applies to Miles Morales, Spider-Gwen and Kamala Khan too, right? Peter must always hover a significant age above them. I mean those characters are here to stay, Miles above all. The more you make Spider-Man about youth, the less Miles and others get to embody that. It makes sense to slot Peter in that niche of adult between Reed and Tony on one side, and Miles on the side below him. So that way you get a multi-generational layer.

That niche can still makes youth a key distinguishing feature about Peter.

So Peter's not in high school. But he's also not at the stage when the average person has made the majority of critical life decisions (IE- what career to follow, who to marry, whether to have children.)

The burden of proof is always on the ones making new claims. Based on the substantive available evidence of the publication history and general logistics, as well as Ditko's own opinions, it is inaccurate. It's up to Brevoort and others to bear the burden of proof, and it has to be based on a substantial bit of hard data rather than assumptions that he might know something we don't.

I admit I was too zealous and strident in pointing that out, and that contributed to escalating this, and for that I apologize.

The burden of proof comment makes sense in an argument, but this was a friendly interview. There's no reason to assume that if Brevoort had been asked, he wouldn't be able to cite his sources.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That's a fair point. If you prefer an older Spider-Man, it really doesn't matter whether Brevoort is right about Ditko.

Same applies in reverse. If you believe "Spider-Man is about youth" then the opinions of the creators shouldn't factor in that as well. Again, if OMD was a great story, then there would be no need for this. But since it wasn't there was obviously a crisis of legitimacy so Brevoort needed to use the whole "in line with creator's intentions" stuff to make it serviceable.

The thread is about Brevoort's entire interview, and he had more comments about whether Peter Parker should age with the fans, so the question of how much he should age can be a pertinent one in this context.

The question of how much Peter should age or continue to age was worth having when the marriage was still around (where this question was debated and had comments back then) or if and when it comes back. Right now the question is "if Spider-Man is about youth" and if that's a valid judgment on the publication history of Spider-Man. Taking the debate outside that, well there needs to be a separate thread because that opens a broad array of questions. I said that a Spider-Man who is married, who is grown up is more interesting than the one we have since BND, what that also means is that he's so interesting that there's far too much to talk about even in a single thread.

It really depends on what you mean by self-sabotage.

When that word is thrown around without context, it can only be considered at face-value and the general meaning as deployed by dictionaries and social norms. To reiterate an earlier comment, words can take on a specific context related meaning depending of course on the verisimilitude and emotional texture of that context. I don't think Spider-Man helping people is self-sabotage, and certainly not the case that Spider-Man specifically helping someone is far more distinctly self-sabotage than any other Marvel hero or superhero across all lines. To demonstrate and make the case...you would need to do a story that tackles that, something as weird and outside continuity as Peter S. Bagge's The Megalomanical Spider-Man. For that matter, Mark Waid's AU House of M-- Spider-Man where a successful douchy version of Peter clearly has a breakdown and destroys his "happy life" as a form of rebellion because he knows it's false. But normal 616 Peter isn't self-sabotage.

In general saving people cannot be considered self-sabotage by most norms of current society. And it doesn't make sense in Spider-Man's superhero career. Because most of Spider-Man's villains would still be villains. Most of Spider-Man's villains arrived and originated independently of him. With and without Peter getting the Spider-Bite -- Vulture would be Vulture, Doctor Octavius would be Doctor Octopus, Norman Osborn would be Green Goblin, Max Dillon would be Electro, Marko would be Sandman, and so on and so forth. There are exceptions like maybe Kraven wouldn't be so fixated on being a villain without a Spider-Man to hunt, Gargan wouldn't be Scorpion without Jameson's shenanigans, the Spider-Slayers wouldn't exist. But that's a minority.

The burden of proof comment makes sense in an argument, but this was a friendly interview.

I get that. I have corresponded with the podcast hosts and mentioned that some of their previous interviewees weren't asked for qualification on their comments, they replied saying that they were aware but they didn't feel it was right to mention it, and they just want to record the views of the participants. Which is fair, I mean what they do is like archival work and collecting oral histories.

There's no reason to assume that if Brevoort had been asked, he wouldn't be able to cite his sources.

Brevoort has mentioned this nostrum before, in the manifesto most notably and also in various other forums. And he's not the only one who has repeated this story. It's a common rumor. Not as well known as the "Ditko had issues with Norman being Goblin" (well known enough that Steve debunked it himself) but cut from the same cloth, and like the Norman=Goblin one, it's a rumor that originated decades after the fact and made public during the '90s and '2000s. Fact is people who are smart and "comics nerds" can make mistakes. Mark Waid for instance repeated the debunked Ditko had issues with Norman being Goblin story and he knows a lot about comics too. That's the problem, if you research stuff long enough you don't bother updating your information when new evidence comes in. I am pretty sure that the stuff I know about Spider-Man will be updated by someone who comes after me, and they'll correct and check me in turn.

[Lee]

I don't think Brevoort said anything controversial here. I reckon most comic writers would agree with him.

If youth and growing pains were never a part of the series then they wouldn't have made him a teenager and put him in situations young people go through.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I don't think Brevoort said anything controversial here. I reckon most comic writers would agree with him.

Some would, others wouldn't, most writers, being professionals, would be okay either way and work with what they have. With the major exception of Mark Waid, every writer on BND has made it clear that they would have worked on Spider-Man even if he was married, and some of them, such as Marc Guggenheim has said that he would be perfectly fine if the marriage came back.

The question of whether Spider-Man should age is genuinely polarizing. There are people who have said that he works as a grown-up and should age and grow (Jim Salicrup, Jim Shooter himself, J. M. DeMatteis, Matt Singer, PAD, JMS, Matt Fraction, Ta-Nehisi Coates) among others. And there are people who have argued against it of course. Then there's the likes of Roger Stern who is okay with it in theory, but would prefer it not be with any of the classic love interests (Gwen, Felicia, MJ). Stan Lee of course has said that he's more than okay with the idea.

If youth and growing pains were never a part of the series then they wouldn't have made him a teenager and put him in situations young people go through.

If Spider-Man was intended as just about being "youth" or about teenager they wouldn't call him "Spider-Man" (you know the "man" in the title). They could call him "Itsy-Bitsy-Spider" or "Spider-Boy" or "Spider-Bite" (which as Tom Taylor demonstrated conveys a child-like sensibility inherently). The whole point of Spider-Man in the early stories is that he was a teenager from a poor background who was growing up fast and who was taking on adult responsibilities. I mean this theme was so in-your-face that Green Goblin couldn't believe that Spider-Man was that young when he learned his identity.

ASM #39 - Norman finds ID.jpg

It's unlikely that if Spider-Man had never grown up back then, he wouldn't be a major character today. It's a fact that the sales of the title increased significantly when Spider-Man went to college far moreso than when he was in high school.

[Lee]

The Spiderman name was in place back when the idea was a teenager who would turn into an adult hero via a magic ring.

When Ditko designed his Spider-Man costume, he gave him a full face mask to hide "an obviously boyish face".

In both versions, Spider-Man is assumed to be an adult, with only the reader privy to the fact that he's a teenager. It's part of the secret identity, part of the theme of a character on the cusp of adulthood.

[Spider-Tiger]

That's a fair point. If you prefer an older Spider-Man, it really doesn't matter whether Brevoort is right about Ditko.

That comment was more about suggesting that Brevoort (or anyone with a deferring opinion for that matter) is a bad person. People in general have a tendency to demonize those that disagree with them. That's what I was referring to.

There is some worth in fact-checking authority figures. This discussion was specifically about Brevoort's statements so it does make sense to do so to some degree.

There is also the potential to be distracted by nitpicking. Two people may easily end up talking past one another discussing the same behavior and outcomes

One argues that the outcomes are generally negative (ie: self-harming) where the other argues that the outcomes are generally positive (ie: self-actualizing). It's a fundamental difference of opinion that's tethered to how we individually view success. But honestly, it seems to just be going in circles so it's probably not worth discussing further.