Not unpopular at all.
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026
45 points (90.9% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
9166 readers
36 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
In theory it's popular, but in practice it's not. In theory: theory and practice are the same, but in practice: they're not.
The YouTube channel Clint's Reptiles does a lot of steelmanning of Creationist arguments from an evolutionary perspective. He has a PhD in Biology and just happens to be a former atheist and current religious person. People accuse him of being a shill for both sides whivh is how you know you're doing it right.
I understand the appeal of steelmanning, however linguistically the term itself promotes the illusion that other genders are less equipped to engage in debate. It inherits this bias from the figure of the strawman being the only gender considered capable of protecting crops via manning the station.
A bias I have is that conservatism seeks to generate value through competition, whereas progressivism seeks to generate value through cooperation (i.e. game theory). If that premise is accepted then progressivism implies not limiting the scope of the language one uses, in order to gain maximum insights.
I suggest the ungendered neologism Best-case Framing as a substitute. It's potentially less binary or oppositional too as it can refer to all positions not just the us vs them I believe is suggested by steelmanning.
Additionally, Peyton Manning should change his name.
i've always looked up to the straw man as a woman
I agree with the title, but what you described seems more just like establishing agreed upon definitions.
Steelmanning is when you try to find the strongest possible framing/argument for a position you disagree with, and then arguing against that. That's why it's the opposite of strawmanning (i.e. arguing against a weak/inaccurate version of the opponent's view). One is an argument against a particularly generous framing, the other an argument against a particularly harsh framing.
Just restating a view in a way your opponent agrees with isn't quite that. That's not generous or harsh, it's just neutral.
I don't see much conflict between that and what I said. The point is to make sure we're talking about the same thing rather than talking past each other. If the person you're arguing against can sign off on your "stronger version" of their argument, then that's fine. There you just again run the risk of twisting their words to the point that you're again no longer arguing against what they actually said even if your intentions were good.
It's not a matter of conflict, it's just not what the word means. The point of steelmanning is not to make sure you're talking about the same thing, it's to argue against the strongest version of the argument. Technically they don't even have to sign off on it, it's possible that they might not actually support the steelman version of their argument.
Yes, making sure you're talking about the same thing and not talking past each other is important in a debate, but that's not what steelmanning is.
Steelmanning is rarely ever used in an honest way. IMO, It’s almost always used as a way to dodge.
I worked with a person who would constantly do this:
A: “Do you think the policy will reduce costs?”
B: “So you’re asking whether the policy will reduce costs?”
A: “Yes”
B: “Do you think the policy will reduce costs?”
At one time I just hung up on them.
The exchange you described doesn't sound anything like steelmanning to me. Seems more like your coworker didn't want to engage for some reason.
They were my boss.
Oh, a troll type, then
I dunno. He kinda just started doing it one day. At first I thought he just didn’t no the answer to the question and didn’t want to sound stupid. But when I call him on it, And asked him to stop answering questions with questions, his response was literally a question. So I assume he just decided he wasn’t going to like me anymore.
But who cares now, I don’t work there!
Sounds more like your boss just didn't understand the business. "By the book" managers often have no idea how the business actually works, so they hide behind vague answers and questions. They tend to be liked by upper management because they'll just do what's asked without questions. They tend to be hated by people below them because they can't answer any questions and often know less than the people they supervise.
I get the problem of people on Lemmy asking for an explanation on why something exists or why people see something a certain way and take being able to explain it as agreeing to it.
this actually sounds close to a dialectic.
False dilemma....