The post you are reporting:
I find the blog by Iain Dale rather muddled. The words superficially look good, but he's conflating like crazy. I think what he's trying to say is that we can debate issues, and learn from others. This would presumably be the humility he's talking about. Yet at the same time he talks about a freedom to be rude, and adds that this is a freedom not to conform. Where is the humility in that, and the listening to and learning from others?
Furthermore, this freedom he's claiming occurs, it would seem, on the back of other people who "conform". Exactly what kind of freedom is this? It sounds rather more to me like use, even exploitation, of other people, with a hint of disparagement, and that, I would suggest, is not humility at all - but downright arrogance.
I don't find this article persuasive. If he is trying to advocate debate as a means for furthering "knowledge" there are perfectly valid - and more productive - ways of debating without insulting other people. Indeed, if he is trying to promote objectivity (which I think he is, but can't be sure, owing to his conflations), then he might first like to consider that there is little more subjective than being rude.
