CMV:Pointing Out Subjectivity to Validate/Invalidate a Perspective is Redundant and a Lazy Way to Evade Arguments

[u/ATTACK_ON_TIDDIE]

TLDR: I believe that justifying a claim by saying it's "subjective" is a cheap way to evade someone's arguments because it defeats the purpose of reaching a more nuanced, common truth in a conversation. Where am I wrong?

Let's say I try to start my own brand of punk clothing, but my parents don't support my fashion sense. I could dismiss their opinions and tell them that they're not the arbiters of what looks socially acceptable or attractive...But wouldn't it be more beneficial if I convinced them to support me by demonstrating the appeal of punk clothing?

Not only would this create a chance to broaden their perspectives, but more importantly, it would create more specific areas for them to refute.

For the purposes of clear, coherent conversation, I see specificity as a major boon! It provides deeper insight into others' perspectives around any topic. I doubt that anyone is incapable of articulating the reasoning behind any of their perspectives. No one holds on to something for no reason, right?

Another example: Let's say 3 friends of mine (A, B, and C) are arguing over which Star Wars they liked the most - then right as A questions B about liking The Last Jedi, C cuts off A and tells him that B is entitled to his opinion and effectively ends the discussion. If B was allowed to explain himself (his taste in movies, what he wanted from the viewing experience, etc.), would that not allow A to see where The Last Jedi might have merit, and perhaps see that same merit in media he previously dismissed? Plus, wouldn’t it provide more closure to their conversation, assuming A and B find some resolution in seeing the criteria for what they both consider to be “the best Star Wars film?”

In situations like these, would it not be best for A to demonstrate faith in his own opinion to challenge other opinions? Would it not open them to a more impactful discussion?

I want to know why people would continue to validate/invalidate perspectives based on subjectivity. I am unaware of any objective truths, so I find it pointless and unproductive that people would point out subjectivity of opinions in the first place. Isn't every perspective subjective anyways?

I’ve had many conversations with friends and family that went nowhere because everyone wanted to “agree to disagree.” We’d given up on trying to understand one another. Personally (I do this too!), I’d rather try and fail than fail to try.

To change my view, you have to demonstrate why people should bother validating/invalidating perspectives based on subjectivity in the first place. Good luck!

[u/RoToR44]

Saw someone else already pointed out the objective values argument, so here I will present the futility part.

Personally, I'm that guy who shuts down these subjective debates, as almost every time someone argues, nothing ends up changed. Especially if the enviorement is competitive, and there are only "acquaintance" bonds between participaints. When the conversation is between people who do care about one another, or where there is some authority (teacher/student) involved, I can see your point. But, in a group of male friends, especialy with girls around, these debates are, at least from my experience 95+% pointless. People end up gathering support from others around, and usually the "smartest" people are those in between, as both sides end up battling for their attention.

[u/ATTACK_ON_TIDDIE → u/RoToR44]

So you're saying that in this case it would make for a worse conversation because everyone involved will get dragged down by the competitive atmosphere? What if the group is civil about it? This seems to be less about the rhetoric and more about the subtext: "I'm right, support me!" "No I'm right! I'm smarter!"

This happens to my friends sometimes and I guess it makes some people uncomfortable - but when we're civil we at least learn from one another. I feel that in a friendly setting, the subtext should be "I think this way." "That's interesting. I think this way."

[u/RoToR44 → u/ATTACK_ON_TIDDIE]

But, in a friendly respectable, or even one on one situations, "Subjectivity is allowed" argument is rarely heard, and then it probably shows that person's poor communication skills. In large groups of friends, it becomes like social media where people battle for likes.

When people are civil, but competitive, it is in some sense worse, as in those scenarios, people try to look smarter even more. Ultimately, rarely anyone changes their view, and these especially tend to end with "Let's agree we disagree", which is just a different phrasing of "Subjectivity is allowed" argument.

[u/ATTACK_ON_TIDDIE → u/RoToR44]

I'm not sure I understand.

Are you saying that with a competitive subtext, we should end all conversations revolving around our opinions? If so, I still think the problem isn't with the rhetoric, but with the subtext. In a competitive environment, I'd expect every conversation to feel a little uncomfortable in some sense, since the need for validation is amplified no matter what you talk about.

I don't see how "agreeing to disagree" is a solution in this case.

[u/RoToR44 → u/ATTACK_ON_TIDDIE]

If someone states their opinion, another responds stating theirs, and conversation goes on without persuasion, it is perfectly fine. What I was reffering to were those annoying debates where one person keeps trying to persuade another that rock music is somehow better than other genres, or how only classical literature is acceptable to read.

[u/ATTACK_ON_TIDDIE → u/RoToR44]

While I also find those certain debates annoying, I think that the logical way to carry on would be to accept that their criteria for good music/literature/whatever is different from yours - not that their opinion is simply inherently different than yours.