Is it possible to have an honest opinion?

[furtech]

Via a twit from doronjosama, I got to see this train wreck.

In this age of near-total-accessibility, is it possible to have honest opinions anymore?

When a celebrity goes on national television (news, the daily show, whatever) and expresses a controversial opinion, they pretty much get what they deserve, whether or not they are "right". That's the nature of opinions-- there will always be those who disagree. If you offer your opinion to the world then the world has a right to react.

Things get dicier when those opinions are expressed in more specialized venues -- from speeches made to specialized groups all the way down to a personal blog or facebook posting.

Scott Adams is right to take down his post (IMO). He wrote in a reply:

In this case, the content of the piece inspires so much emotion in some readers that they literally can’t understand it. The same would be true if the topic were about gun ownership or a dozen other topics. As emotion increases, reading comprehension decreases.

Once emotion becomes a driving force of a discussion, reason goes out the window. The more emotion, the less reason and vice versa. The marysue link above pretty much bears this out: in her own post and in the ensuing comment-storm, there is little interest in a rational discussion-- just baiting and snarling and screaming.

I'm even more eyebrow-raising at the site that re-posted the Adams entry :

Wow.
Just…wow.
You were a childhood hero of mine dude, and all my respect for you just died.
Not only because you wrote this load of shit, but then you deleted it like a coward when it made people angry.
Well done.

Really? Guy says something you disagree with and suddenly he's a non-person? Geez-- can you imagine having this person as a friend? Talk about high-maintenance. Like having a case of sweaty dynamite as a pal.

You'd think Adams advocated genocide or kicking puppies. What I got out of his original post was two things: first, don't waste your time and energy fighting battles that you have no interest in or which have no resolution. Second, Adams essentially says (and this is what shows me that most of the screaming is from emotional reaction, not reasonable thought): Guys whining over "male rights"? Get over yourselves. Life's not fair.

Adams -did- use bad analogies (bad=inflammatory). And he isn't a great communicator-- but that's kind of what he is (a admitted nerd). But, if you put his blog post in word balloons and had Dilbert saying them, most of these people would be laughing.

Personally, I -like- interesting people who share their opinions and thoughts. This gives me insight into their creative processes and I like that. I may disagree, or over time I may decide that I -don't- want to know more and stop following them-- but I would hate that they stop expressing themselves*. I consider them sharing their thoughts a privilege and something valuable. It would be bad if reactions like the one Adams received to cause them to self-censor or withdraw entirely. Who wants a world of carbon-copy, politically correct people?




*The same doesn't go for the thoughts and opinions of stupid people (though "stupid" is a subjective measure): the net makes it possible for anyone-- however idiotic-- to show their true selves to the world.

Comments

[kynekh-amagire.livejournal.com]

Once emotion becomes a driving force of a discussion, reason goes out the window. The more emotion, the less reason and vice versa.

Not true. It is certainly possible to be emotionally invested in an argument and still argue one's position logically. (One can also be detached emotionally and employ shaky, irrational arguments: for example, "calm down, MRAs, women are basically whiny children so there's no harm in indulging them sometimes to avoid their womanly tantrums" with a side order of "sexism against men".) It is, in fact, totally unnecessary and thoroughly counterintuitive to be "unemotional" when making an argument: who argues about topics they honestly don't give a shit about? (Aside from trolls.) "You're emotional and therefore irrational" is a tactic for shutting down opposition, one which happens to be employed very consistently by men against women in, oh, every discussion about sexism ever since time began. Not cool.

Anyway. This doesn't actually change my opinion of Scott Adams at all: I've found Dilbert to be sexist, racist and obnoxious more often than I've found it funny, so Scott Adams saying sexist, obnoxious things on his personal blog fails to come as a surprise. However, I don't actually think his opinion is inrinsically more valuable than the opinions expressed by the people who pointed out that what he said was misogynist and ableist and awful -- see, I can support the right of people to express their shitty opinions while also supporting the rights of less clueless people to tell them their opinions are shitty. Maybe Scott Adams will think twice about posting hateful language in the future, and that's okay. "Political correctness" is about treating everyone with respect, and I think we'll have better discourse in general if there's more of that around, not less.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

Not true. It is certainly possible to be emotionally invested in an argument and still argue one's position logically.

I agree-- but you are talking about a middle ground, somewhere in the middle of that slider that has pure emotion on one end and pure reason on the other. Most good discussions are made of this. If someone is in the throes of pure emotion-- grief, rage, whatever-- you cannot reaon with them or even get through to them sometimes. They're in an almost animal-state (primal). On the other end, someone who is coming from pure reason cannot be swayed by any argument that involves emotion-- like mercy or hatred, etc.

who argues about topics they honestly don't give a shit about?

Oh, I've known many people who just like to argue. And win. I steer clear of most people like that. Most often observed near a big election. Some of the most vocal arguers before an election never even bother to vote!?!

I disagree with your comment about political correctness. Respect is about treating people with respect and sensitivity; political correctness is about appearing to be sensitive (usually to an excessive degree) so that you are lauded for being a "sensitive person".

[kynekh-amagire.livejournal.com]

No, that's completely the opposite of what I'm saying. "Emotion" and "logic" are not on opposite ends of a slider. They're on totally different sliders. Knowing the emotional context of someone's viewpoint will not tell you whether or not their argument is reasonable; only reason will tell you that.

Some people do use the language of social justice movements as a way to elevate their own personal views at the expense of others, especially on the Internet -- I definitely won't argue with that. But the problem there is "some people", not the idea of political correctness of speech, which really is just about recognizing slurs and not using them casually.