An invitation for steelmanning isn't about setting aside equal consideration regardless of the quality of the arguments brought, it's about giving equal chance to even consider other ideas when one cannot seem to find any on their one. When the merits are poor, that leaves far less than equal consideration of them in the end. Making the consideration brought forth equal in total time spent regardless of quality has nothing to do with the steelmanning process. A weak steelman argument is precisely a confirmation the opposing view is not worth much consideration, if any.

> That's literally what I'm doing: Ridiculing the obviously weak arguments. > > And do you know what's happening? My ridicule and dismissiveness are being talked down, while you invite someone to "steelman" the argument instead. This pattern happens over and over again in spaces where steelmanning is held up as virtuous: It's supposed to be a tool for bringing weak arguments into the light so they can be dismissed, yet the people dismissing are told to shush so we can soak up the propaganda from the other side.

So far all I've seen in this chain is complaint of the possibility other arguments may be brought up for fear we'd have to consider them if they were. At no point is the goal supposed to be everyone ends up agreeing with how one particular person sees things, it's supposed to be that what everyone believes they understand is openly put on the table a given appropriate consideration for the merits of the points presented. There will always be someone upset their position receives ridicule, that's neither here nor there for those wanting to strengthen their understanding of the situation instead of demand any other discussion can only ever be propaganda and should not be given a single thought. Again, a lot of the time the steelman idea is still bad - and that's still a good signal which doesn't require one give that position equal weight in the end.