hi! i have a Q: i'm seeing 'not every opinion is valid' on your twitter (i dont have a twitter, so i'm asking here) and that is something that i want to drill into people's minds, esp when it comes to misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc. but - i'm horrible with words and i either get really angry and practically start shouting and lose my focus or just kind of shut down b/c i cant explain why sth is wrong. so, could you give me an explanation why every opinion is NOT valid? thank you.
Hey :D
(That’s cool, ask away.)
Not every opinion is valid in some spheres because for every opinion to be valid it would mean that nobody’s opinion is actually valid, because opinions by nature are contradictory of other opinions, for one. (See, if you’re in SPN fandom, 10x05 excitement that everybody’s headcanons are valid, judged by Chuck. You know what that means? Nobody’s are valid. If there is no actual provable validity because it could be this thing, or the opposite, nobody was validated. “Everybody’s interpretation is equally valid” is just a way of lying to us all and not having to commit to anything that might alienate anybody–and by not committing, they haven’t validated any interpretation within the text.)
Not every opinion is valid because for every opinion to be valid, they would all have to be supported by the same reality, which is usually impossible, for two.
Not every opinion is valid because, and here’s the kicker, validation of opinions requires evidence, for three. You can think anything about anything, yes, but is it valid? That depends upon whatever you are opinionated about. Your thoughts are not validated by how things exist in reality by nature of them being your thoughts; they require an ability to connect them to the thing, to experience or text or what have you.
Not every opinion is valid because, in large part of this recurring debate, we are not talking about opinions in the sense people are thinking. We’re not talking about just feelings, just reactions, that are intangible and subjective and difficult to disprove (such as: Coke tastes bad, which is an opinion I’ve had challenged repeatedly and don’t care to defend because that would be pointless.)
When you say something like, to use the example I was talking about on Twitter, “this makes perfect sense (as depicted within the rules of the text)” or “this is a perfectly valid ship (within the text)”****you are not just talking about your feelings, you are making a statement of how the text presents things, and if the text doesn’t present those things, in any provable way beyond “uwu OTP” and “but that’s my favorite part!” that’s not an opinion validated. It’s not valid.
“I like this ship.” or “I hate this ship.” are opinions that are equally valid (though, ones that say more about you than you might realize). “This ship is validated by the text.” is a theory that must be proven to be given any validity. “This part is awesome.” or “This part is awful.” are opinions that are equally valid (though, again, ones that say more about you than you might realize). “This part makes complete sense.” or “This part makes no sense at all.” are theories that must be proven in the context of the text’s logic. The difference is that you’re not making a statement about just you, you’re making a statement about how things exist, and things don’t exist in thirty different and opposing ways, most of the time. (And it’s really egocentric to act like because you think things, they are reality beyond your own thoughts when there’s no verifiable reason they seem to be except your own biases/prejudices. Also, lmfao, take it from someone mentally ill, it’s dangerous to think that at times.)
Ditto with racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. Those are proven by the way things exist in reality. They’re not subjective, they have tangible, provable evidence: in these cases, centuries of it. The fact that whoever is arguing that their opinion against it is “valid” has not sought this evidence does not make their opinion valid just because they thought a thing. They have to be supported by reality, and in this case they are not.
(****It’s been a while since you sent this Ask, so I don’t remember exactly the wording I used [I might check it and add it to this later], but I remember it had something to do with the combination of ship portrayals in S10 and the ret-con nonsense of Castiel being the one to blame for Sam being brought back soulless from the fucking Cage of all places, on top of all the other shit they pinned on him during S6 and S7, and I was probably complaining about people using the latter for Sastiel purposes and also suggesting [again] it should’ve been written as Raphael doing that instead because he’s way more powerful and more likely to have done it and then kept Sam soulless, guiltlessly? And someone was trying to argue that it’s not nonsense because they like Sastiel or whatever, which A) made no sense to me because the Cas part of the Soulless Sam arc, if anything, validates how much Cas values Sam’s well-being for Sam reasons–and thus Sastiel as valid, presented by canon–less, and B) is irrelevant to whether the text’s logic was ignored and horribly ripped asunder for the convenient precariously heaped vilification of Castiel.)
