Are oakvale's views mostly based on the opposite of the forum consensus?

[Sol]

Increasingly so, I think.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, he has a tendency to take up random contrarian views to cement his position as the forum's leading "deadpan snarker" (to put it in TV Tropes terms). Most of the time, this is done well enough and results in some of the most epic posts in forum history. Sometimes it can get pretty annoying though.

[Torie]

On what policy matters, beyond perhaps more or less SSM, is there a "forum consensus?"  I want a list!

[Oakvale]

This is a trick question.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yeah, he has a tendency to take up random contrarian views to cement his position as the forum's leading "deadpan snarker" (to put it in TV Tropes terms). Most of the time, this is done well enough and results in some of the most epic posts in forum history. Sometimes it can get pretty annoying though.

This and the quality has been on the decline lately.  As a result, it has been both more noticeable and more annoying than in the past.

[free my dawg]

You haven't realized yet?

[Oakvale]

So this creates an interesting logic problem - if this poll (as I assume it will) indicates a consensus for "yes" I'll have to start basing my opinions on the forum consensus.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

HP

[afleitch]

Yes.

It's a shame because I like him, but he hurt me a little personally in how he expressed one of his new contrary views. I asked him twice to explain but he didn't so I'm tending to just gloss over most of his posts, even the good ones.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I was actually about to make a thread about this, bringing up "Contrarian Sage", sage that tries to be edgy by just taking contrarian views with no elaboration.

Here's a great example (in reference to the Bill of Rights):

They're all awful.

You think the First Amendment is terrible? What are you, some kind of fascist or troll?

The First is (maybe) even worse than the Second!

...that's at least something I'd expect some sort of explanation on. As it is, it's not much different than Snowstalker trying to aggravate the rest of the forum with his Putin apologism.

[Torie]

The word awful has more than one meaning, and indeed the secondary meaning, used to be its primary meaning circa 1800 or so. Washington and Adams I believe,  went to a high mass Catholic service in Philadelphia once, and one of them described the service as "awful," meaning awe inspiring. So there you have it. Oakvale is a man of the Enlightenment era.

[Oakvale]

@afleitch If you're referring to what I think you are - I'm glad you're happily married. The issue of your husband's immigration is a critique of tying immigration policy to marriage, not of marriage per se. As I've made clear several times, I do think same-sex marriage should be legal because, while I oppose the institution of marriage and am disappointed that people want to continue to support it, it's probably not going anywhere so it should, logically, be open to everyone. My distaste for the new witch hunts against people who expressed majority opinions just years ago is real and visceral, particularly when a similar attitude doesn't exist for almost any other important issue, but that doesn't mean I hold your happiness against you or anything.

@BRTD I think it was clear to anyone with a functioning brain cell that I was joking in the original post and, stunned that the worst poster on the forum took it seriously, responded similarly. He is an idiot. What else is new?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I really don't see it tbh. I just think his existing opinions have gotten more nuanced. In saying that, I agree with most of them

[DC Al Fine]

On what policy matters, beyond perhaps more or less SSM, is there a "forum consensus?"  I want a list!

Marijuana legalization?

[Nhoj]

On what policy matters, beyond perhaps more or less SSM, is there a "forum consensus?"  I want a list!

Marijuana legalization?

Incidentally that's a forum consensus oakvale supports, so the obvious answer to this silly poll is No.

[GaussLaw]

Isn't Oakvale a liberal though? 

Someone like Keystone Phil would be more of a true contrarian.

[Napoleon]

Surprisingly, my biggest problem with him was that he always seems to either join the bandwagon or act as some psychotic ringleader. Like why not just have your opinions? Do you really need to be aligned with others to validate your viewpoints? So its usually better when he's going against the "forum consensus".

[TNF]

Not at all, and even if that were the case, so what?

This forum is all too often a boring echo chamber of half-baked, not-too-well-thought-out 'progressive' ideas these days. The fact that there are still people on here who don't uncritically accept the primacy of those ideas is a good thing and something that should be celebrated, rather than transformed into some excuse to brand the person in question an outcast. The more dissenters and the more angles they approach their dissent from, the better.

[TJ in Oregon]

Oakvale is a contrarian certainly, but his views are not even close to the opposite of the forum consensus. He's more of someone who simply finds bland consensus irritating than actually opposing its contents. Also he has little patience for moral crusader-style posts.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Sometimes I think he is, but most of the time he's genuine.  Keep in mind that oakvale is not a Serious Person.

[Simfan34]

I think he exaggerates it for dramatic effect at times but ultimately he's just showing how ridiculous some of these "consensus positions" are.

[free my dawg]

So this creates an interesting logic problem - if this poll (as I assume it will) indicates a consensus for "yes" I'll have to start basing my opinions on the forum consensus.

Welcome to the forum consensus. Here's your complimentary Ready for Hillary bumper sticker and Same Love vinyl.

[Gustaf]

This poll is currently tied. If that stays there is no consensus and Oakvale's head will explode.

[Simfan34]

This poll is currently tied. If that stays there is no consensus and Oakvale's head will explode.

This assumes that he is, in fact, basing his views off of the consensus.

[Mr. Morden]

This poll is currently tied. If that stays there is no consensus and Oakvale's head will explode.

This assumes that he is, in fact, basing his views off of the consensus.

I think if a majority in this poll vote "yes", then he should in fact base his views on the opposite of the forum consensus, just like the poll says.  However, by doing the opposite of the forum consensus, he'd then have to *not* base his views on the opposite of the forum consensus, since the majority of the forum thinks he does.

On the other hand, if a majority vote "no", then he should just go with the forum consensus, which would be to not base his views on the opposite of the forum consensus.

Either way, I think he'll end up like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuYbDP2kDfg

unless he uses Jennifer Connelly's problem-solving skills to get out of this logical trap:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dgmgub8mHw