When I spend time with left-leaning people (like on Lemmy), they assume I’m much more right-wing than I actually am. Conversely, when I’m with my right-leaning friends, they think I’m much more left-wing than I really am. Even my closest friends and my SO frequently make assumptions about my views on certain topics, and more often than not, they’re completely wrong. My political views are such a mixed bag that they don’t fit neatly anywhere on the spectrum. However, the further you move in either direction from the center, the more I find myself disagreeing with the people there. Yet, many - often trapped in binary thinking - assume that if I’m not on their side, I must belong to the other.
I also enjoy playing Devil’s advocate, so even when I agree with someone 90% of the time, I might still bring up points that - at least to some - make it sound like I disagree. It’s just that there are very few positions I’m absolutely certain about, so even when there’s little actual disagreement, I like exploring the perspectives that highlight my own uncertainties.
Can relate to the devils advocate, though I tend to try to argue on points that I actually agree with so the other party actually has to reflect on their opinions
It’s not that I argue for points I don’t believe in - that wouldn’t make much sense to me. If I don’t think an argument holds up, I see no reason to bring it up. Rather, even when I clearly lean one way on an issue, there are often strong counterarguments to consider. Even if they don’t change my mind, they might still be points I don’t have a solid response to, and I find it valuable to engage with them. I think the ability to argue honestly against one’s own beliefs is a strong indicator that a person truly understands what they’re talking about, rather than simply echoing talking points to signal allegiance.
Would probably be helpful to give examples because most people I have seen that say that they play devils advocate ( including myself in the past) are actually just being argumentative for the sake of it.
I am being argumentative for the sake of it. What’s there to discuss if everyone is in complete agreement? I enjoy a challenge more than a circlejerk. I’m challenging your ideas with the expectation of the same being done to mine. I want people to try and poke holes into my ideas.
When I spend time with left-leaning people (like on Lemmy), they assume I’m much more right-wing than I actually am. Conversely, when I’m with my right-leaning friends, they think I’m much more left-wing than I really am. Even my closest friends and my SO frequently make assumptions about my views on certain topics, and more often than not, they’re completely wrong. My political views are such a mixed bag that they don’t fit neatly anywhere on the spectrum. However, the further you move in either direction from the center, the more I find myself disagreeing with the people there. Yet, many - often trapped in binary thinking - assume that if I’m not on their side, I must belong to the other.
I also enjoy playing Devil’s advocate, so even when I agree with someone 90% of the time, I might still bring up points that - at least to some - make it sound like I disagree. It’s just that there are very few positions I’m absolutely certain about, so even when there’s little actual disagreement, I like exploring the perspectives that highlight my own uncertainties.
Can relate to the devils advocate, though I tend to try to argue on points that I actually agree with so the other party actually has to reflect on their opinions
It’s not that I argue for points I don’t believe in - that wouldn’t make much sense to me. If I don’t think an argument holds up, I see no reason to bring it up. Rather, even when I clearly lean one way on an issue, there are often strong counterarguments to consider. Even if they don’t change my mind, they might still be points I don’t have a solid response to, and I find it valuable to engage with them. I think the ability to argue honestly against one’s own beliefs is a strong indicator that a person truly understands what they’re talking about, rather than simply echoing talking points to signal allegiance.
Would probably be helpful to give examples because most people I have seen that say that they play devils advocate ( including myself in the past) are actually just being argumentative for the sake of it.
I am being argumentative for the sake of it. What’s there to discuss if everyone is in complete agreement? I enjoy a challenge more than a circlejerk. I’m challenging your ideas with the expectation of the same being done to mine. I want people to try and poke holes into my ideas.