[acheron9383]

Contrarian almost seems too vague a term. In conversations I've run into people assuming a wide variety of roles. One is the polite interviewer who presses gently at the weak points of someone's statement, usually this person extends a lot of benefit of doubt, and is genuinely curious about the topic. The other is someone who is almost always engaged in some sort of argumentative point scoring. Attacking arguments with pedantry and too much emphasis on semantics, or always trying to one-up others with a string of "um actually..."s. The former person is usually great to talk to, they help you get your point across better. The latter is deeply frustrating since they are almost always engaged in linguistic gymnastics to deliberately miss the point. It feels rare that someone of the interviewer category would identify themselves as the "contrarian" though, and someone playing the um actually guy probably delights in the label. The most annoying part about the eager contrarian is they purposely muddy the water, nobody gains anything, and the conversation becomes unfulfilling.

[seven4]

Well said. I can't help the feeling that i encounter more "eager contrarians" both in real life and online (moreso online). Perhaps the way social media is though - pays to be adversarial?

[watwut]

> linguistic gymnastics to deliberately miss the point [...] The most annoying part about the eager contrarian is they purposely muddy the water, nobody gains anything, and the conversation becomes unfulfilling.

Yep.