I've finally cracked the code for why some people are considered "controversial" and "arrogant": it's because those people state facts. Take Yngwie Malmsteen; in this 1988 interview, he said that he "plays better than most of those [competing guitarists] guys-- nearly all those guys out there." Well, was that not true? In 1988 and maybe even today, he's one of the top living guitarists on a planet with seven billion people on it. It's not arrogance-- it's a statement of fact.

I've always considered metal to be the pinnacle of human music to this point, because it takes the peak of composition-- baroque and classic music-- and marries it to the best sound produced so far, that of electric guitar. It was amazing to me to read these words from Malmsteen then: "I like the melodic and harmonic feel of classical music and the logic behind it but I love the aggression, the impact, the noise and the extreme power of metal. I need that in my music. It's not there in classical." Well said! There is nothing "controversial" there.

But then he also said, "Often I'm playing to people who don't understand what's in the music. Sometimes I'm playing way over people's heads. There's nothing I can do about that." Again, it's a statement of pure fact: he really did and is playing over a lot of people's heads! Not everyone can be an expert in music theory, but they may still enjoy his sound for reasons they don't consciously understand.

It's sort of like when Stefan Molyneux says, "I run the best and biggest philosophy show on the internet." Is that not true? Or when an in-prime Randy Moss was asked, "who is the best receiver in the NFL right now?", and he replied, "me!". Was that also not true? Terrell Owens and Marvin Harrison were talented too, but not the extreme virtuoso phenom that Moss was-- not even close. Again, a statement of fact, which was construed by many as "arrogance".

To me, "arrogance" is being really terrible at something, but still thinking you're the best. Like when most people try to talk political theory with me, but they can't even assemble a basic syllogism. "Controversial" is stating an opinion which has no grounding in reason or fact.

Stefan Molyneux will give an entire, one hundred percent sourced, two hour presentation slideshow of nothing but pure evidence to support some hypothesis of his-- like how IQ differences in race cause different nations to develop, differently. I listen to it and say, "nothing here is even remotely controversial-- someone may present a countering case and that's fine, but Molyneux's view is not 'controversial'". And yet when other people hear the same words, they call him "arrogant" and "controversial". It makes no sense.

I think in the end it boils down to thinking versus feeling: if some idea makes them feel upset, then they call the person who said it "arrogant" or "controversial". It's nonsense.