I've been called a devil's advocate.
So of course I had to find the actual definition according to Cambridge: "someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support, in order to make people discuss and consider it in more detail"Well, yeah. In annoyance to some of my acquaintances, friends and social media followers, I do that. I tend to counter a lot.
I think I prefer agent provocateur at times though: "someone who intentionally causes arguments or discussions, or intentionally makes other people feel angry, offended, or uncomfortable", because sometimes the debate needs that.
There's a method to the madness however.
Watching and listening over time I've found that arguments over everything from politics to theology to science to...just about anything...have become shall we say, way too superficial?
People tend to see something quick that they agree with and suddenly that's the story. Memes, forwards, copypasta, conspiracies, glurge and now AI slop are all way too easy.
I think my rebuttal posts aren't just for the sake of being contrary though. The idea at least in my mind is to try to make the arguee follow the line of thought they've put out to it's conclusion. You posted it, why? Something made you want to spread it around, what did you want to accomplish?
In other words, think about it. Take what you've said to the end of the line and see where it leads. Slow down. Be honest. Have some facts in your pocket instead of a YouTube video. Or at least have a video by someone who makes some logical arguments. Also, I'm really, really bad at responding to references to 'them' and what 'they' are up to so you might want to edit that out.
Maybe I'm not very good at it but thinking is a worthwhile enterprise. If you're going to put stuff out there, I'm probably going to try it.
No comments:
Post a Comment