This is my opinion - Marcus J Ranum

[Mourning Star]

Taken from http://mjranum.deviantart.com/journal/17352963/#journal

Having an opinion is not an art-form.

It's pretty easy, really. All you need to do is think about something for a little while and your opinion will form. But - did you catch the important word in that sentence - you have to think. If you're capable of thinking, you're instantly qualified to hold an opinion. Conversely, if you're incapable of thinking, all you can do is hold someone else's.

How to Have an Opinion
There are some rules to having an opinion. First off, your opinion shouldn't just fall out of the sky. Secondly, your opinion should be based on something. Lastly, you should be honest with yourself about where your opinion came from, and what it's based on. Knowing what your opinion is based on is absolutely crucial to being able to defend it, as well as being honest with yourself about its value.

Let me give you an example: you turn on the TV and some talking head is ranting about how such-and-such is a huge crisis. Now, there are several things you can do - first off, you can turn off your brain and simply accept his opinion as yours: "uh, OK. it's a huge crisis." Or, you can think about it and maybe you'll get inspired to do a little research, gain a little knowledge, and form your opinion based on your own thoughts. Of course, your research could still be bad - or you might just be a fool - but you're now able to support your opinion with some ideas and knowledge of your own. It doesn't make you more or less right it just makes your opinion more or less strongly held.

So, if you're intellectually honest, and you're standing around at a cocktail party, and someone says "such-and-such is a huge crisis" you've got an opinion. At that point, you can either hold your silence, agree, disagree - whatever you like. But here's where it gets fun: if you want to torture someone whose opinion you disagree with you can simply cut to the chase and ask them: "how did you form your opinion?" If you're like me, and conversation is a blood-sport, this is a devastating strategy; it doesn't sound like an attack although, in effect, it's like an underwater shark-bite: the pain just builds and builds. What's nice is that, if the "victim" actually has an opinion, they won't be bothered - they'll be able to rattle on and hold forth about how they got there. But, oh, the poor chumps whose "opinion" is really just that they're blindly repeating something they heard on television!!! All they can do is thrash around in circles in the water, leaking tasty blood, trying to avoid saying, "well, it's what Oprah says..."

Carrying around someone else's opinion is like walking around with an empty .44 magnum. It's a big heavy-looking gun - but if it's empty you're just asking for someone to take it from you and pistol whip your teeth out with it. Someone like me, who'll do it for fun and smile the whole time.

Being Wrong
If you're able to explain where your opinion came from, then you're also going to have at least some idea of the underlying set of beliefs or facts that you based it on. That way, when someone challenges your opinion, you're not defenseless - you can quickly outline how you got there and one of two things will happen:
a) They'll shut up and slink off because they got their opinion from a television show or someone else. Be gracious as your broken foe abandons the battlefield.
b) They'll attempt to challenge your underlying knowledge, or adjust your beliefs. Maybe that'll succeed or maybe it will fail, but you're in great shape either way. Because if one of your underlying pieces of data is wrong, you can say, "Oh, fooey! I misunderstood X, Y, Z - and that's what I formed my opinion on. So let's just say I've got to go back and do more fact-checking."

That's how to be wrong with style. It's intellectually honest, and there's really nothing anyone can do to you once you've explained how you got from A to Z based on your underlying assumptions, if they were wrong. By the way, this is the core of Science - being wrong with style. One of the most moving stories I've ever read was an account of one scientist who had formulated an important theory in Physics, who happened to be present in a colloquium in which a younger scientist thoroughly demolished his life's work. The senior scientist stood up, walked quickly to the front of the room, and shook the young scientist's hand and thanked him for clearing things up so nicely. I tell you no lie: I get all choked up whenever I think about it. That's style!

But WTF Marcus?
How did I get on this topic? It's a bit far from photography, or talking about pretty girl's butts, or cool artists, isn't it?

Well, it's been bothering me for a while, because of a couple of interactions that have happened here on DA. First, there was little miss cupcake, who I crushed like an ant with my iron fist of contempt (here: [link] ). And then there were a couple of people who made silly comments about art-versus-porn when one of my pictures (eek! a nude!) was on the "popular" page one day. I'm not going to resurrect those discussions, I promise, but what really struck me was the reaction that I got when I engaged ( you might say 'counterattacked' or even 'attacked' ) their ideas. Did I get a return argument? No. Did I get people pointing out flaws in my opinion? No. What I got, over and over again was this:
"It's just my opinion"

There are so many things wrong with that, it's hard to know where to start!!

First off, my opinion is never just my opinion. It's not merely what I think. It's something I crafted, polished, carried around with me (sometimes for decades!) - sometimes in my heart, and other times in my pocket. Or, maybe, down the front of my pants. But it's my opinion not "just."
It's. My. Damn. Opinion.

When someone says "it's just my opinion" they may as well be saying "This is just an opinion I picked up from some VJ on MTV, didn't really think about, and have been carrying around with me. So I don't mind just dropping it if you're gonna give me push-back."

Excuse me, but if you're not willing to defend your opinion, then just drop it right now. You're not worth talking to because you don't apparently believe in anything. Get back on the couch and watch some TV and keep quiet when the adults are talking.

The Tyranny of Balance
Here's my opinion: we're dealing with left-over political correctness. The main tenet of the political correctness ideology was, basically, moral relativism applied broadly to culture. We weren't allowed to say that someone was smarter, or stronger than someone else - they were "differently abled." We weren't allowed to say that one idea was better than another; they all had to be considered equally. Consequently, we're dealing with a whole generation of young people who grew up with the idea that "my opinion is just as good as yours" - simply by virtue that it exists. This attitude was particularly prevalent among post-modernist intellectuals - to the point where some of them tried to argue that The Laws Of Physics were a cultural phenomenon. As if, somehow, western thought and science were victimizing the more touchy-feely laws of not-quite-physics - laws which would be equally valuable in a different social and intellectual context.

Yeah, well, only if your social and intellectual context is "bullshit."

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. But simply having an opinion doesn't make it right. Being able to defend it is what makes it right. More importantly: truth is not a democratic process. Once upon a time Copernicus was the only person on Earth who knew that we orbit The Sun. If they'd taken a vote, the score would have been:
Against: (Earth's entire population - 1)
For: Copernicus
Winner: Copernicus

He had an opinion, and he could defend it. And he was right. Unfortunately, for him, the forces of orthodoxy had an ad hominem argument on their side called "The Inquisition."

As I write this, I am primarily thinking of religion as an example of the non-democratic nature of opinions. I listen to a lot of BBC radio and NPR in my car, and before the Republican nomination for president was sewed up by McCain there was considerable discussion about whether candidate X's religion mattered or whether candidate Y's religion mattered. Usually, that was in the context of "will the electorate care if this presidential candidate believes that Earth is only 6,000 years old and that the whole universe was snapped into existence by a supreme being with a bizarre sense of humor?" Or "will the electorate care that this candidate believes that if you do a good job here on Earth you get an afterlife in which you are given your own planet to be in charge of?" And everyone was very careful to dance around the obvious, huge, reeking, pile of poop on the floor - namely - that anyone who actually believed something so stupid is an idiot! The world should scream in outrage and terror at the very idea that they'd be given control over the United State's thermonuclear arsenal! Simply having an opinion - even if you're a president or a pope - doesn't make your opinion any good unless you can defend it in the battlefield of ideas. The usual defense of people with weak, flimsy, undefensible ideas is:
"It's just my opinion"
"Hey, you should respect my beliefs."

If we were still respecting the beliefs of the alchemists, you wouldn't be reading this journal entry on a computer. If we were still respecting the beliefs of Copernicus' tormentors, your GPS wouldn't work. If we were still respecting the beliefs of idiots who believe that "the rapture" could happen any day now so there's no need to worry about global warming, we'd, uh, ur, have a - global superpower that didn't care about global warming? Bad example. My point: just because you believe it doesn't make it true. If you want to sit at the grown up table, you've got to be able to back it up.

It's this easy:
Have opinions you can defend.
Have beliefs that are grounded in reality and are worthy of respect.

:heart: you all; especially those of you who disagree with me!
mjr.

[Golden Applesauce]

There's a lot of good stuff here - maybe someone should invite this Mr. Ranum to look at Discordja?

Just wanted to say that in my opinion (which is based on experience) conversations that aren't viewed as a battle tend to go better.  I (and presumably the other party) learn more in a discussion than a debate.

[Requia ☣]

There's a lot of good stuff here - maybe someone should invite this Mr. Ranum to look at Discordja?

A good idea I think, though how is one supposed to present it and not come off as a nutjob or a spammer?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

can't be done. all discordians are at the very least nutjobs, and recent polls show 10-20% are also spammers.

[Requia ☣]

Well, yes, but the idea is to not look like nutjobs until the target actually starts reading whatever bit of propaganda (probably the BIP for this person) we/I/you/HIMEOBS/they are trying to push.

Or for that matter, look like nutjobs, but don't look like you're trying to push dogma on to someone.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

"The 10 most frightening words in the English language are, 'Hello, I'm from the POEE and I'm here to help!'"
    \

[P3nT4gR4m]

If you're like me, and conversation is a blood-sport

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

As I recall, Marcus may already be familiar with Discordianism. Part of me is pretty sure he claimed to be a SubGenius the last time I had any kind of conversation with him. However, that was before my enlightenment so I didn't pay much attention   

[LMNO]

The bit about Copernicus was awesome.

[Reginald Ret]

I'm pretty sure that if i ever get into a discussion with this dude, ill want to kill him, then again that only happens when somebody destroys all my arguments and i have to use sheer willpower to keep my beliefs upright. I think it would be good for me if he joined.

but thats just my opinion.(and a selfcentered one at that)