There’s also people who think that taking nuances into consideration is a bad thing altogether, because the only reason why someone might want to drill down into a topic is to drag a discussion into the mud and stop progress, obviously. We can ignore the fact that complexity hides in the details, while agreeing on something at a surface level is as easy as it is pointless. But maybe that’s the goal sometimes: to agree on something at a surface level, feel all good about ourselves and achieve absolutely nothing in the process.

The overwhelming majority of ideas and opinions exist on a spectrum. ==And I am of the belief that sharing and debating where we should position ourselves, on that spectrum, is important. And if you disagree, you’re wrong.==

Source: Nuances – Manu

😅 Manu up-leveling the hot-take argument is funny.

Manu brings up an important point. It feels like over the course of time, the web became a place where you shared your opinion as just that. The internet then evolved naturally into your opinion receiving counter opinions as more and more people entered the same arena.

Initially those led to expansive articles where people agreed on some points and countered others while still accepting counter opinions to exist.

Then we started getting “meta” opinions on which argument was presented better, which turned the presentation and the writing and the personality to form tribes.

The tribes started warring and what started as a way to “state my stance” became a “take,” that morphed into a “hot take” as the cycle time started crunching down and we became more and more online.

I am going to state what’s now a cliche online - the ability to hold multiple thoughts at once and not having to agree with one opinion completely.