I like these disclaimers. If someone comes out and states their opinion or bias on a topic, it gives you more context to understand their thought processes and how they came to the conclusion that they came to. It helps you understand the value system that underpins someone's argument.
Ethical arguments can't be made on their own merits, they can only be made in the context of shared value systems. By communicating more about your values, you give someone more insight to understand your ethical argument. If I know where our values differ, I can try to account for those differences. Ripping an ethical argument out of context and putting it in a social vacuum makes it alien and difficult to understand.
I think it's less about partisianship and more about keeping conversation on topic.
An easy way to not let it devolve into a conversation about how he's an ass is to initially concede that he is.
I think so, yes. I find myself doing it. You can't critique anyone or anything these days without whoever you're talking to automatically assuming you're a diehard fan of the other side.
I don't think so, no. Not on mainstream forums. They certainly have a lot of their own special forums, but on Reddit, and Facebook, and HackerNews, I find that most commenters are pretty much who you'd expect - random, middle of the road people.
> it's necessary to distance yourself or be assumed one of them
Have you considered the possibility that you only think these people are overrepresented because you assume anybody without a disclaimer is one of them?
You'll find similar unnecessary disclaimers before any serious discussion of Pres. Trump these days (such as "I'm no fan of Trump but...") as if a black-and-white ('for us or against us', remember that?) view is right and proper and must be dismissed before any serious discussion can begin. Even when what they're about to describe is a continuation across US administrations. Majoritarian issues don't get that kind of framing. I rarely hear anyone say anything resembling "I'm no fan of mass surveillance, but...", or "I don't like extrajudicial murder like what the US does with the drone war, but...".
Why has this blase paragraph become so common? Want to defend Trump's actions on X as consistent with a past president? Include a paragraph on how you don't like him. Want to attack academia for being too much of an echo chamber ("grievance studies")? Make sure to have two paragraph digression on how you're a liberal, not one of those icky conservatives.
Why is it necessary to explain that defending an ethical norm in the case of a certain individual does not imply endorsement for all of that individual's actions? Can't we consider ethical arguments on their own merits, without regard to the underlying ideology of the speaker? Is it a garlic clove to ward off American hyperpartisanship?
It's my perception that such garlic cloves have become ubiquitous, where only a decade ago they were much rarer.