No, you’re not entitled to your opinion
theconversation.com> So next time you hear someone declare they’re entitled to their opinion, ask them why they think that. Chances are, if nothing else, you’ll end up having a more enjoyable conversation that way.
Not really, most of the time people use the titular phrase as a way to stop discussion because they don't want their opinion challenged further -- as the author himself says at the start of the article.
Pressure people even a little beyond that point and they become unreasonable and even aggressive.
Attacking deeply held beliefs and attacking the person's ability to think are different things but these people are unable to separate them after they get triggered because they feel under attack. It becomes a desperate defense of the ego and further discussion is doomed.
People love anecdotal evidence and they especially love the idea of the underdog lonely sample that goes against the established thought in an area. Many feel that sharing such beliefs in a group event makes them more interesting, i.e. they're seeking social prestige and the goal definitely isn't search for the truth.
They're all brain defects and we all have them and we all fell victim to them at one point. I respect more the people who are able to recognize they're being unreasonable and either ask to postpone the discussion or restart it with a different set of assumptions.
I relate this to Hume's guillotine [0], insofar as you're entitled to what is, but once you cross into what "ought to be", everything from there is subjective.
> The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful.
These people have every right to think whatever stupid stuff they want. We built an entirely country around protecting people's rights to believe whatever ass-backwards stuff they want to believe, because ultimately it is their right to express themselves (even if the expression borders on insanity). The beauty is that we can have scientific discussion separate from these "entitled opinions". Our medical research is not predicated on the New Testament. Our Bible study is not bound by the understandings of modern medicine. Similarly, I think people will always believe vaccines are dangerous, just as we thought that barcodes were the devil and Beanie Babies are worth their weight in gold. Personally, I think that discussion is fine as long as we recognize it as totally distinct from factual, scientific research being done. Maybe that research doesn't refute what other people feel, but it does give a factual basis for future generations to base their opinions on.
The vaccine case is notable. The people who are now prominently decrying vaccines are not the ones who "always believe vaccines are dangerous.
It is a new position, driven by ideological conflict but not based in ideology. There is nothing about their previous beliefs that makes them doubt vaccines in general or this vaccine in particular. It is solely about defending an ego-driven position that those who take COVID seriously are wrong, and everything else about it is post hoc rationalization.
They are entitled to that opinion only in the trivial sense that you cannot compel thought. In every other way it is an absurd position of no merit, not even in defending their own genuine beliefs and values.