Controversial opinions you hold

Discussion, in general

Re: Controversial opinions you hold

Postby DanteHoratio » Wed May 29, 2019 1:39 pm

The Beatles sucked. Or I think they do, at least. it's more they don't fit my interest in music. I'm more into Rock and Metal.

Also, Pepsi is better than Coke.

I am pro life.

I think the voting age should not be lowered. If anything, it could do with being alittle higher.
  • 1

"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself." -Mark Twain

"I couldn't live a week without a private library - indeed, I'd part with all my furniture and squat and sleep on the floor before I'd let go of the 1500 or so books I possess." -HP Lovecraft
User avatar
DanteHoratio
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:17 pm
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Show rep
Title: Let's get dangerous

Re: Controversial opinions you hold

Postby cmsellers » Wed May 29, 2019 3:55 pm

I think disagreeing is fine if the counter-opinion is also controversial, gis. But I did not see this thread as a debate thread, and that's the only reason I posted in it. I stopped making new threads in CASS on controversial subjects in CASS like a year ago, and a lot of my post was basically explaining why I did that. I posted here because this seemed like a place to say "OK, I believe this thing almost no one else does, and I'm not starting a thread because I don't want an argument where everyone tells me things I've already heard."

But even stating something that's "'obviously wrong" inspires everyone to correct. I think that we sort of have an instinct to try to keep people from expressing obviously wrong ideas. The problem is that this can apply to abolitionists as easily as it does to Nazis; it's not so much about shutting down bad opinions as ensuring that discourse stays within group-acceptable bounds.

I should probably mention that the day before this happened, something similar to me happened on Reddit. Someone asked for a definition. I gave a definition, which aligns with the historic use of the term, As it turns out, this is a topic which tends to attract SJWs, and members of that subreddit had apparently decided that the old definition was unnecessarily exclusive and reactionary, and several members rushed to "correct" me about the new definition.

I thought the new definition was so broad as to be nearly useless (imagine defining "gay" to mean "anyone who has every had any attraction to the person of the same sex," as an analogy), and got drawn into a debate I did not want to take part in, because I am very bad at letting things go when I say something, people make an argument which I think misses the point, makes points I already addressed, or is just plain stupid which gets more upvotes than my original argument.

Consciously, I know that this happens because people don't evaluate arguments starting from a place of neutrality, we favor arguments that support what we already believe, and not only nitpick arguments which disagree with us to pieces, but often find flaws that either aren't there, or are only there because of a premise the other person doesn't share. It's not a sign that my argument is bad, it's a defect in human nature, and I should just let it go. But I can't, and I hate, hate, hate being in the position where I say something well outside the pale and everyone else starts disagreeing and upvoting each other for it. Once that happens, I feel cornered, and like I need to fight back.

Like Jamish, I saw this thread as a place for posting opinions people have which are outside the pale. It's a bit cathartic, and it's interesting to read when other people do it. There have been a number of times recently where someone made a post I thought was wrong and my first impulse was to argue, but I told myself "no, that's not the point of the thread," so I upvoted if I thought they articulated their reasons well (even if I saw flaws in their reasoning, as long as they weren't glaringly obvious), and moved on.

However it seems clear to me that human nature is such that, with a sufficiently controversial position, half the forum is going to need to pile on to defend the conventional wisdom, and my nature is such that it is almost painful for me to leave it alone when people do it, but responding makes me miserable. So, in the future, I am going to try very hard avoid posting any opinion I have which I think might are too far removed from the conventional wisdom.
  • 5

User avatar
cmsellers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 8863
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Three miles from the bat bridge
Show rep
Title: The Bad Bart of Ruddigore

Re: Controversial opinions you hold

Postby NathanLoiselle » Wed May 29, 2019 6:24 pm

The authors of long posts should be shot.
  • 5

User avatar
NathanLoiselle
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:49 am
Location: You'll Never Know!
Show rep

Re: Controversial opinions you hold

Postby Australia » Wed May 29, 2019 10:54 pm

I disagree. Guillotines are far more humane.
  • 5

YamI JamesT Eyebrows Edgar Logan Eric Michael Tess Sunny Notch Kate Jamish Lao Carp Moo FaceCitizen Aquila Nisi Qinglong Chaise Nullbert NotCIAagent JackRoad Delta MURDA Bert Czar Ambi JulyJack Adric Marcuse SilverMaple Nudge 52xMax Damiana Doma Pumpkin Toy Fry Andro Carrie Snarky Royal RLG Pikajew Windy skooma Kleiner Java Sellers Piter Gisarmbards Grimstone Recluse Esteban Syrup Krashlia Twistappel MacReady Funkotron mcfooty Pseudoman Creepy Kivutar nerd Ladki Jim Youghurt satan GL Angler
Scari
User avatar
Australia
Resident Dickhead
Resident Dickhead
 
Posts: 4219
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:15 pm
Location: Take a wild guess
Show rep
Title: Kentucky Fried Colonel

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests