Maybe not contrarian, but game theory and denial. If they prefer to take socially obnoxious actions for some benefit, then they would either have to react by d

Maybe not contrarian, but game theory and denial. If they prefer to take socially obnoxious actions for some benefit, then they would either have to react by defending the actions of others that parallel their own, or confront that they are being socially obnoxious to others. Humans are, sadly, prone to doubling down on defending the right to be socially obnoxious rather than admitting that they are being socially obnoxious :( And since this is a denial problem, it’s usually paired with “Theoretically”, “Not that I would”, “It’s fair game” and my personal favorite “They should work harder to prevent this” — which is beautiful as a cognitive dissonance: 1) They support acting selfishly (socially obnoxious) to some benefit to themselves at the expense of others; 2) They want everyone to fairly have access to that same benefit, as long as that does not interrupt their own benefit. Thus, the ‘obvious’ solution to ‘stock more Tejava’: it combines the selfishness of #1 and the moral high ground of #2 without requiring any extra effort or loss of benefit.