Then defend your position. "Not all opinions are equal" is a lazy line that does nothing to further any cause and if anything just makes you and your cause feel dismissive and devoid of critical thinking.
>"Not all opinions are equal" is a lazy line that does nothing to further any cause
My primary wish for this comment about not all positions being equal wasn't to "further a cause", but to stop the bad argument that amounted to "people just have different preferences" as if that made all of them ok.
If we agree that "not all opinions/preferences are equally good" is a better idea than "all preferences are equally ok" my work is done!
As for the specifics, others (and me, elsewhere in this post's threads) have argued several reasons why this tight integration is worse. In fact I gave six of them.
People's different preferences all being equally valid should be the default position, with evidence required to say otherwise. Simply stating that not all preferences are equal does not contribute to the conversation as much as reminding everyone that different preferences exist does.
That there are good ideas and bad ideas, good plans and bad plans, good things and bad things, beneficial things and detrimental things, and if you like the former your preference is a good one, and if you like the latter your preference is a bad one is controversial in 2024, and shouldn't be the default position?
I too like to argue by claiming that my opinion is the default position that doesn't need to be backed up with reason while everyone who thinks otherwise better come up with an irontight proof that theirs is better. Checkmate.
Of course, it's better for other reasons, not because it's mine.
>it's a toxic, elitist mindset.
I'm all for elitism, it means celebrating and promoting higher standards.