![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I wonder what it feels like to be able to make a terrible argument for your position and know that some significant segment of the population will back you up. Like, while I can actually see the value of reblogs, this is one of the aspects I hate most about them, that an enormous segment of reblog politics is exactly this kind of argument that tends to push me away from the position the OP (and the reblogger) would like people to adopt because it's just so poorly made. Of course, most of those kinds of arguments don't convince much of anybody to their position, and I tend to believe they're not intended to. I think they're mostly made as a way of patting oneself on the back for being right and feeling confident that the people one cares about will back them up in such positions. Though such behavior seems malicious to me and I would never want to engage in it, I do sometimes wonder what it would feel like to know your friends would actually back you up on the positions you hold beyond the very specific positions that you became friends with them for in the first place. There my be some amount of my trust issues talking here, and perhaps things aren't so dire as I perceive them to be, but realistically speaking, I know that if I actually articulated and defended most of my positions, I would lose at least some friends over that, whereas I can't realistically drop people as friends for the same level of disagreement because otherwise I'd be forced to drop everyone as a friend. I can also never, never assume my friends won't immediately drop me for expressing any given position I hold without first knowing if they very specifically hold that position themselves (and sometimes not even then if some aspect of that position forces them to reexamine other beliefs they may not wish to drop).