When one side has suffered injustice for 400 years, people who are working to make sure the other side doesn't experience any injustice by something swinging too far and needing correction (at the cost of prolonged injustice for the already suffering side) are making a claim about who is more important. When there is injustice to be fixed, contrarians against it are effectively saying "the oppressed group's rights are less important than the oppressor's rights". You are literally slowing progress and extending injustice. When you argue the minutiae and get into the weeds, while some may be valid, the practical effect is it works to invalidate the full idea thanks to how humans work and generally are not good with nuance.
All of this ignores two central flaws in the concept of a "contrarian":
1. The "going to far" that people seem to be so concerned with has few to no examples, while history is littered with injustices not corrected far enough every step of the way. Literally the story of black people in the United States, at every step, can be summarized by "not far enough".
2. There is an implicit claim here that in order to critique and improve the prevailing narrative, you need to be taking the other side. Constructive internal work while still moving forward is perfectly capable of addressing the same things. A contrarian is always inherently on the side of privilege and the oppressor, it is a luxury of circumstance. That same luxury could do so much more good being used to push forward as part of the change, reforming from within, instead of working against.
> due to highly inflamed emotions
I think you are highly undervaluing emotions, something people "of logic/science" do far too often. If there are this many strong emotions on something, something is causing them. Highlighting and fixing that source issue is likely far more important than any possible value from contrarian approaches.
--------------------------------------------------
I'm gonna be honest, I'm tired of dealing with contrarians and hopefully this short and incomplete response compared to the subject will be useful. I suspect this is a longer road I don't have time/energy for, but I truly plead that you examine this "nature" and stop being a contrarian. There are so many better ways to capture the priorities I would guess underly it without, being frank, coming off as an asshole [1] to everyone and devaluing basic humanist ideas of injustice and empathy.
I have no doubt you've experienced being treated based off of that diagnosis or criticized like this before on the internet, and likely in person. I truly am trying to lay this out in a non-confrontational way to say that it should be a sign to examine the underlying actions and approach, not to assume that the people criticizing are "arguing from emotions" or something similar. I'm at this point trying to anticipate responses, and I could be off, so take what you will from some of the extras.
Contrarianism is not a service to society: it is many things, but IMO at its core a misguided application of logic undervaluing empathy and oblivious to circumstantial privilege to be able to act as one. Again, there are many better ways to address small flaws without undermining the entire idea.
[1] I am not using this word to namecall you or contrarians generally but to underscore the reality of how people (understandably) interpret contrarianism.