Coli breh calls out most of these coli contrarians

[Remote]

 

[Apprentice]

Conscious nikkas the worst man

He playing devil’s advocate to devil’s advocate

 

[Remote]

Conscious nikkas the worst man

He playing devil’s advocate to devil’s advocate

What?

 

[MischievousMonkey]

I absolutely disagree and I hate contrarians myself. But it's a little bit different than advocating for the devil.

Being a devil's advocate is useful contrary to what ol' boy is saying. It breaks up circle jerks and forces folks in their own bubbles to be critical of their own ideas. Without that trial by fire, you are bound to build opinions and make decisions based on brittle principles. Not only you become food in the real world where the real devil is, you might realize that the devil was right all along.

Rigorous in-house criticism is the best way to build strong principles and advocating for the devil within a group is a great way of doing it.

 

[Bryan Danielson]

Conscious nikkas the worst man

He playing devil’s advocate to devil’s advocate

So is he @The Devil's Advocate or is he the devil’s advocate to @The Devil's Advocate ???

 

[Kiyoshi-Dono]

Yeah a known pandering bytch nikka with more Asian hair in his head than a bytch
Is really spitting facts
You been showingnaked ass all day
I knew you were suspect as shyt

 

[Amerikan Melanin]

This dude believes trans women are natural women. Posting him on this site makes you a faq by association.

 

[Remote]

Yeah a known pandering bytch nikka with more Asian hair in his head than a bytch
Is really spitting facts
You been showingnaked ass all day
I knew you were suspect as shyt

The only thing you suspect about me is that I'm smarter than you.

And I am.

 

[Still Benefited]

Being a contrarian is apart of my astrology.we are merely people who feel we should have the right to think outloud after being introduced to a question/topic. Whether i have truly thought it through or not. People who are empaths often see both sides of an issue.


For those of you triggered,just say you prefer your brainwashing and we will digress

 

[Amo Husserl]

I absolutely disagree and I hate contrarians myself. But it's a little bit different than advocating for the devil.

Being a devil's advocate is useful contrary to what ol' boy is saying. It breaks up circle jerks and forces folks in their own bubbles to be critical of their own ideas. Without that trial by fire, you are bound to build opinions and make decisions based on brittle principles. Not only you become food in the real world where the real devil is, you might realize that the devil was right all along.

Rigorous in-house criticism is the best way to build strong principles and advocating for the devil within a group is a great way of doing it.

You can do that without playin' devil's advocate. Just bring ya position with facts and analysis.

devil's advocate

1. someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or…

dictionary.cambridge.org

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:

It's more constructive ways to test somebody position.
Discuss what you say without contriving contention in the conversation.

 

[parallax]

what makes him a coli breh?

 

[get these nets]

I absolutely disagree and I hate contrarians myself. But it's a little bit different than advocating for the devil.

Being a devil's advocate is useful contrary to what ol' boy is saying. It breaks up circle jerks and forces folks in their own bubbles to be critical of their own ideas. Without that trial by fire, you are bound to build opinions and make decisions based on brittle principles. Not only you become food in the real world where the real devil is, you might realize that the devil was right all along.

Rigorous in-house criticism is the best way to build strong principles and advocating for the devil within a group is a great way of doing it.

If people are looking at issues from their own perspectives and challenging other people's takes, that's healthy. I agree with you on that.

Unfortunately, many people don't hold personal opinions. They listen to their thought leaders and get told what to think. Can't defend their stance when questioned or challenged because they didn't arrive at the conclusion themselves.

Fox News' entire viewership is based on this, and as we've seen firsthand, the parroting of YTer's/columnists takes infected a few sub-forums a long time ago.

"Rigorous criticism?" In places where people respond to serious questions with smilies/emojis.

 

[TEH]

Watch enough of his content and see that he’s too far left sometimes

But his takes on race are always on point

 

[MischievousMonkey]

You can do that without playin' devil's advocate. Just bring ya position with facts and analysis.

devil's advocate

1. someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or…

dictionary.cambridge.org

It's more constructive ways to test somebody position.
Discuss what you say without contriving contention in the conversation.

No, I don't think you can, but I also think it might just be semantics.

Testing an argument/position you believe in by confronting it with counterarguments is "pretending to be against that argument". And that's just part of critical thinking.

For example, if we are both vegan and believe veganism is a perfectly viable diet, and have arguments to support that stance, there is no way to test or reinforce those arguments without confronting them with possible counterarguments that we don't necessarily believe in.
Such as "well, is it true that protein coming from vegetables has poor nutritional value compared to animal protein?".

That's not an argument we believe in, but if we want to be thorough about our stance, somebody has to bring it up, ie play devil's advocate.

Playing devil's advocate is sparring.

 

[Amo Husserl]

No, I don't think you can, but I also think it might just be semantics.

Testing an argument/position you believe in by confronting it with counterarguments is "pretending to be against that argument". And that's just part of critical thinking.

For example, if we are both vegan and believe veganism is a perfectly viable diet, and have arguments to support that stance, there is no way to test or reinforce those arguments without confronting them with possible counterarguments that we don't necessarily believe in.
Such as "well, is it true that protein coming from vegetables has poor nutritional value compared to animal protein?".

That's not an argument we believe in, but if we want to be thorough about our stance, somebody has to bring it up, ie play devil's advocate.

Playing devil's advocate is sparring.

All I'm saying is you can spar without playing devil's advocate simply disagreeing and offering counterargument.
Seriously testing the argument doesn't require playing devil's advocate "hypothetically speaking", no one is pretending to know or not know.

The intention of playing devil's advocate is the contention. Instead of using counterarguments we don't necessarily believe in, give serious rebuttal from genuine curiosity or knowing something different than what is given in the argument to develop mutual understanding in less time than it would if playing devil's advocate. What I'm really saying is, playing devil's advocate is superfluous and a waste of time.

Example: If we're trying to figure out how to fix our communities, there's no time to play devil's advocate because time will be wasted debating a point both parties don't necessarily believe in.

Spoiler: Making the details plain and worth pursuing through constructive argument allows a firm basis for critical thinking once in the minds of both parties.