Opinions Vary: Everyone’s Opinion Is Supreme

If it isn’t already obvious, we here at Omega-Level are an assertive bunch, often to an outlandish degree. For both contributors and commenters, we like what we like, no matter how offbeat it may be, and we make sure that others know our likings, even if such views are potentially detrimental to our own pristine repute within the community and to the internet at large. When we must, we get opinionated about something because we think we get it better than anyone else. That conviction, for better or worse, is the modus operandi of our everyday goings-on here, and this new column aims to celebrate this dogged disposition.

Taking its name from the legendary rebuttal in the Patrick Swayze (undisputed) masterpiece Roadhouse, Opinions Vary gives OL contributors the chance to declare to the world some of our more idiosyncratic takes on it. Every Thursday, a merry-go-rounding collection of writers (Caffeine Powered, The Dude, Sneaky Pete, and yours truly shall be the usual suspects, but some featured guests may speak up sporadically) will try to articulate some of our not-so-normal thoughts on things. The arts, pop culture, politics, philosophy, social conventions, you name it: all topics are up for discussion, as long as the writer attempts to expound an outlook that is, more or less, divergent and constructive, showcasing that intellectual peculiarity that sets him (or her) at odds with others enmeshed in the typical patterns of this world-wide webbing—or, if need be, to act as an anti-softener to the very fabric of society.

And as the first one to take up this task—in an appropriately self-important way, as you can see—I think it’s only natural to offer up my own thoughts on the primacy of opinion-making before we dive into forthcoming OV pieces that will surely express opinions once established. My contention is this: Whether we realize it or not, everybody who holds and expresses an opinion believes it’s the best, the only one worth having on the matter (and this goes for any matter). Moreover, thinking one’s opinion is supreme is not only expected, it’s actually an intellectual imperative, originating at the most atomic level of self-assessment, which is perhaps why people overlook it when discussing their own opinions.

It’s really no wonder why this is often glossed over, however. No one seriously tries to come off as snobbish (at least, I hope not), and tolerance for other’s views can go a long way, but when a person honestly believes something and later puts it forth for others, that opinion-holder is trying to bring the goods, and those goods are the best that the holder can offer. This high degree of authority on anything stems from the fact that each opinion-holder is the authority of what he or she thinks is right. Subjectivity does more than just give everyone the ability to interpret things the way they wish; it gives each person the power to appraise by using their own parameters because each person is, after all, the only litmus test for individual taste in the world. And as such, whatever opinion a person is able to form becomes utterly definitive upon its acceptance.

Now, this isn’t to say that our definitive opinions, once held, are unshakable, nor is the opinion-holder forever bound to keep such views. After all, we all change during our lives—we learn, witness, hear, experience more over the years—and our ideas likewise transform as time goes on. But, nevertheless, with these alternations come an unchanging quality to opinions: No matter what becomes of that original thought, regardless of the possible refinements and modifications and flat-out displacements, the opinion-holder maintains the same judgment of superiority throughout. The best opinion possible is always held, because nobody in their right mind would downgrade to a lesser opinion, to actively take on a way of thinking that was not equally right in their mind; such a pursuit would be profoundly counter-intuitive. Rather, an ever-probing person could and, indeed, would conceivably change positions, but at no time does that person believe that the quality of that opinion is any less than the greatest that they can fathom. Deep down, the opinion-holder always holds the opinion that works best for him or her. And as far as anyone else is concerned, that opinion is simply the one that works best. The opinion-holder is the judge, jury, and executioner of all opinions, individually seeing fit to value and release those deemed good into the world(view), and locking out any others that could be corrupting to it.

Curiously, even though this individualize perspective to opinions is so commonly accepted, most people often don’t realize  that a general acceptance of it points back to the individual’s authority. Oftentimes, one will hear that “everyone has a right to their own opinion,” but rarely does anyone appreciate that the statement’s affirmation implies that a certain quality of rightness goes along with it to the person who has the opinion, and that opinion, regardless of its merit to others, is preservable. Furthermore, all the personal assertions, from those that start with “I think” to the ones that end with “for/to me”, are still assertions, through and through; they remain a singular statement of what the person thinks correct. Such personalized additions to assertions are often included to be a sort of buffer, a courteous appeal for its inherent subjectivity (and truth be told, I do this frequently), but in actuality, what we say and believe when we couple Is and mes with our opinions ultimately highlight our authority as much as the opinions themselves. The additions become personal stamps, signifying that this is our own certified opinion, definitive at that moment in time, and more than valid enough to be expressed to others who have similarly high standards.

And nowhere is this superiority more striking than when two civilized people have conflicting opinions. Ideally, when these two forces collide, they will articulate their positions on the matter at hand, utilizing everything they have at their disposal (ie. using logic, facts and experiences) to make their views known and agreeable to the other, while also listening to their fellow man’s opinion with an open mind so that they, in turn, can gather what makes that opinion estimable; all along, each weighs the other’s position against their own, to discern which is better. But after discussing the matter at length, the conversation often concludes in a stalemate. These two opinion-holders decide to “agree to disagree” and move on to other things. The statement “agree to disagree” is the decisive defense of one’s superior outlook. When expressed, a person is insinuating, “I don’t need to hear anything else you have to say on the matter, because my opinion is better than yours and whatever you say cannot take the place of what I think.” And, when they agree to disagree, both essentially reaffirm that their opinion is superior to the other, and they go their separate ways believing that they still haven’t found any other opinion that supersedes their own.

But in the end, what do I know? This whole essay is, ultimately, only one man’s opinion, but that’s precisely the point. When it comes to opinion-making, I am only one man, and this opinion is all that I have to offer, and you better believe that it’s the greatest opinion I can muster on this topic; it’s the best one there is for this one man (who only has one life, so why would I waste my time and energy writing about an opinion that isn’t paramount?). And if you’re a like-minded person who agrees with me, then we make a good company of superior opinion-holders. But if you think my opinion is lacking, then prove me wrong with your own superior take. I am more than willing to qualify or change it if I find a better option out there. But remember, if I were to do so, I’d be solidifying my original point even more: I’d just be finding a new and improve variation on my supreme opinion.

Or, if we can’t come to some kind of compromise, we can always agree to disagree.