by 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.