Reply To: Things that annoy you, (non-political)

[Siderite]

Veering slightly towards controversial territory, but trite phrases and self-declarations of belief that seem to make them sound more reasoable than the opponent. Even though it isn’t backed by evidence.

Examples include:

“I am entitled to my opinion” – Everyone is, but not all opinions are equal. If your opinion isn’t backed by evidence, then it isn’t as strong as one with evidence and clinging to this to try and make it sound like it is on a par is illogical and damaging for it to be accepted as some legitimate debating point.

“the right side of history” – How does anyone know what the ‘right side of history’ is? Events are usually morally complex and this trite phrase serves to shut off any self-reflection as whether their beliefs are correct. They can use this to assure themselves that they are to be remembered as the ‘heroes’ of today and everyone else as the villain, when it’s far more healthy to give benefit of the doubt to opponents, unless there is sufficient reason, and when their understanding may be proven to be wrong. Plenty of people in history thought they were on the ‘right side of history’ and were wrong. Just look at the eugenecists.

“Contrarian” – Thinking for yourself is valuable, but this often means “I will believe any old crap because it’s not mainstream and this makes me smart for not following the crowd.” Except there are plenty of beliefs that aren’t mainstream, and just because some people might just accept what they read as true, it doesn’t make opposite views right, nor does believing in fringe views make you some genius. What matters is whether your argument can be backed by evidence, which does often correlate with mainstream beliefs.