Playing devil’s advocate only makes you look like an asshole if the person you’re talking to has a closed mind. The entire purpose is to bridge the gap between two sides in an argument by acknowledging the positives of something they disagree with.
In essence, if someone has to play devil’s advocate with you, you’re probably the asshole. Otherwise you would be able to relate to and understand people who disagree with you without treating them like a monster.
A good example of where this can help is in politics. Political discussion is full of people talking past each other instead of trying to understand each other. If you could understand each other, it would be much easier to find compromise, which would make everyone feel heard and lead to the most reasonable outcomes when you consider the voice of all parties. But it’s much easier to label your opponent an idiot or a devil than to grapple with their actual problems.
Mostly true, but very complicated by online trolls, especially the practice of ‘concern trolling’
Basically you first have to establish the person is arguing in good faith. If some is ALWAYS playing the devils advocate, they might just be the actual devil
It can come off like you are disregarding their opinion entirely, or at least devaluing it and focusing on something seemingly small and inconsequential instead. The phrase is to clarify that’s not your intention. You don’t have to write a strangely vindictive rant, its not that deep dude.
I’m confused because the person you replied to just said, if your interlocutor has to play the devil, you’re the asshole. Now you’re saying, you, the devil, are the asshole, in direct contradiction to the point of their comment.
Playing devil’s advocate only makes you look like an asshole if the person you’re talking to has a closed mind. The entire purpose is to bridge the gap between two sides in an argument by acknowledging the positives of something they disagree with.
In essence, if someone has to play devil’s advocate with you, you’re probably the asshole. Otherwise you would be able to relate to and understand people who disagree with you without treating them like a monster.
A good example of where this can help is in politics. Political discussion is full of people talking past each other instead of trying to understand each other. If you could understand each other, it would be much easier to find compromise, which would make everyone feel heard and lead to the most reasonable outcomes when you consider the voice of all parties. But it’s much easier to label your opponent an idiot or a devil than to grapple with their actual problems.
Mostly true, but very complicated by online trolls, especially the practice of ‘concern trolling’
Basically you first have to establish the person is arguing in good faith. If some is ALWAYS playing the devils advocate, they might just be the actual devil
Partially true, but there are plenty of people who will use ‘playing devil’s advocate’ as a cover to test their controversial opinions out.
It’s hard to distinguis, especially online.
It can come off like you are disregarding their opinion entirely, or at least devaluing it and focusing on something seemingly small and inconsequential instead. The phrase is to clarify that’s not your intention. You don’t have to write a strangely vindictive rant, its not that deep dude.
I’m actually very much in favor of playing devil’s advocate and do it quite often. But I also feel like an asshole doing it quite often.
I’m confused because the person you replied to just said, if your interlocutor has to play the devil, you’re the asshole. Now you’re saying, you, the devil, are the asshole, in direct contradiction to the point of their comment.
I’ve never heard anyone label someone else devil’s advocate so I wonder if this may just be a non English speaker not understanding the colloquialism.