What does "Deny Ignorance" mean?

[Maxmars]

What does it mean to "Deny Ignorance"?

Does it mean telling people what the truth is? Evangelizing rejection of untruth? What is truth, anyway? That's a big question, from 30 thousand feet, and I doubt we're going to answer it on any forum.
...

And let's have fun doing it! If there's no fun, if anyone is feeling suppressed or if flame wars loom, let's step back and reconsider. That's the real touchstone.

Thanks for listening to my drivel!

I believe I might understand, to some degree, the root of this question... 

Casting aside the titular synchronicity of the web site name, I would embark on an explanation that is more personal, than institutional... which is to say, this is just what I think.

The act of the 'denial of ignorance' need not be overt, but overt or not, the end result is the same.  I liken it to removing the obfuscation that presumption imposes on words.  

The idea, to me, represents a commitment towards a singular approach to dialog, namely that we as speakers can embrace the reality that 'ignorance' is a condition, a circumstance. 
Denying it might occasionally be as simple as pointing it out.  Other times it needs dissection, or deconstruction. 

But "ignoring" ignorance is ignorant... 

Ignorance must somehow be purged from the foundation of a discussion, if the dialog is to have prima facia value outside of mere time-killing entertainment.

In fact, many comedians sometimes craft their humorous material by actually denying ignorance themselves... sometimes 'backlighting' it's existence... other times rendering a verbal hyperbole which makes their audience evaluate the ignorance itself.  Of course, that's just one way to deal with denying ignorance, there are as many way to cope with ignorance as there are forms of ignorance to express.

The idea that denying ignorance can't be funny is hilarious to me...  It's right up there with thinking what any of us understands is in any real way 'complete.'
Truthfully, the only thing anyone can know completely is themselves... and so few have ever been said to have reached that height of cognition, it seems almost an impossibility to achieve, for a regular person like me.

Embedded ignorance makes it so words are just noise, and ultimately unrewarding to anyone who favors discernment over chatter.  (Although there is a time for everything... we are not robots.)

To address what was likely a rhetorical question...

Yes, we can serve each other by comparing notes, by offering inquiries, by restating our understanding of each other, by engaging in deconstruction and synthesis, by offering questions to be answered, challenges to be shared.  It matters not one bit that it's all theoretical, or isn't fully plumbed into existential reality, because in each speaker the truth is being distilled and crystalized... made both accessible and digestible.  There is a noble end in denying ignorance.

There can be no one formula for denying ignorance; it must manifest spontaneously and with diversity of form... with a full understanding of the depth and breadth of any ignorance, and a sincere effort shared between all those rising to the discussion.

Denying Ignorance isn't a casual pleasantry, but it's not an angst-filled weapon either. 
It may lend itself to a virtuous claim, but there is no virtue in removing the wheat from the chaff.  It has to be done for the wheat to have value...
The hammer has no virtue over the nail... because it's not about the parts, it's about the whole. 
Ignorance is just like a missing nail.

(How's that for an obtuse answer?) 

Yup... it better be fun!  Otherwise we get the nasty affectation of 'nose in the air' self-importance, or 'sniffing your own farts' kind of behaviors...