User:SMcCandlish/Don't pretend not to understand

A particularly infuriating and discussion-degrading debate tactic is the pretense that a simple argument cannot be understood (or is invalid or should just be ignored) because of a trivial flaw that anyone sensible would actually look right past, such as: a misspelling; using the wrong one of two very similar words; citing the wrong policy shortcut when the actually applicable similar one is obvious; use of a Wikipedia jargon term, that one can equivocate about as if another meaning used off-site was the intended sense; inclusion of an irrelevant aside-comment along with the actual argument; use of a tone that the responding editor doesn't like; etc.

This tactic is too often used dismissively to avoid addressing any of the concerns raised by another editor, and is a type of performative and fallacious hand-waving that does not actually fool anyone. Another abuse of this nonsense is as a form of filibustering the consensus process by repeatedly "failing to understand" the obvious and miring the discussion in repeated insistence that something was incomprehensible (often returning to this pretense even after explicit clarification has been provided).

Examples
Every experienced editor knows that WP:BLP1E was intended. And any inexperienced editor that if another editor raises a policy concern, that one should ask for clarification if something is unclear, because taking action against policy will still be against policy, with possible repercussions, even if one isn't clear about it yet.