Tim! You came for an away match. Welcome to the Penguin wall. You do always debate above board and you were indeed referenced in this piece.

And yes... actually I do think there's value in contrarianism for its own sake. Oddly enough this story has helped me explain why, Reuben Salsa sent me details of the Israeli 10th man principle as portrayed by the Israelis in the World War Z franchise. In essence, there should always be a dissenting voice because that dissenting voice encourages the others to think. The article Reuben linked is here. https://themindcollection.com/the-tenth-man-rule-devils-advocacy/

I think it's important to always hear the other side, particularly when we're surrounded by people who agree with us. If challenged to put forward the proposition that the Nazis were the good guys, then I'd make the case. I'd likely lose because of the overwhelming evidence contained within the liberal orthodoxy and historical record, but perhaps this exercise might reveal to everyone else why Holocaust denial is a psychological necessity for some people.

That's somewhat different from my critique of the groupthink around the race discussion in your country and my own. The holocaust is a settled argument whereas you and i are debating solutions to a problem we both want solved. When 9 out of 10 people believe you have the correct answer, there has to be 1 out of 10 dissent which provides an alternative. The problem with the current discourse is that any attempt to challenge the position of 9/10 people is seen as evidence of racism and not an attempt to see if the solution is worse than the problem it purports to solve.

You have categorised this as a 'both sides' issue as though there are only two sides. I think that's a symptom of groupthink on the political left. I think complicated problems like racism as you and I often debate are more like those silly dice that they use in Dungeons and Dragons. These are issues that can and should be debated at length - and yes, facts are things, but the way people select facts and use them in arguments is subjective. That's what I was doing when I argued the Founding Fathers weren't racist (they were) - but there's a valid argument to be made that without their racist limitations in the 1790s, there would be no United States of America at the moment to debate the matter. You'd be politically closer to Haiti - so yes, it is perhaps misanthropic nonsense, but it's useful misanthropic nonsense.

There's strength in discussion as you and I both know and people learn far more from intelligent people disagreeing than everyone toeing the line. So I'll just keep being the Advocatus Diaboli Penguini for the foreseeable... I don't think that's misanthropic, I think that's sensible.