Whenever someone agrees wholeheartedly with something I write, I die a little inside.

I know opinion columnists are supposed to be in the persuasion business, and that makes agreement the coin of the realm. But instant, knee-jerk agreement makes me suspicious. That coin is devalued.

Yes, I’m happy if you appreciated my column on Pete Hegseth’s books or enjoyed it when my colleagues and I riffed on the cultural artifacts of the Trump era. But please don’t give me an “absolutely!” or a “nailed it,” let alone a “straight fire!” (I want to straight douse straight fires.)

And please, never respond with “100 percent.” I’ll take principled dissent, thoughtful counterargument, even enthusiastic opposition over “100 percent.”

If you react to something I’ve said or written with “100 percent” — in written, oral or emoji form — all you’re telling me is that I probably did not persuade you of anything. Instead of changing your thinking, I affirmed it. “100 percent” lets me know that I’ve accomplished nothing but scratch your ideological itches, confirm your convictions, pinpoint your intellectual erogenous zones.

One hundred percent — really? Even if you agreed in the main, did you find nothing at all worthy of disagreement? Not even, say 3 to 5 percent? If so, why should I bother writing, and why would you bother reading? One hundred percent agreement is a high-percentage failure.

Tune in to your favorite politics or culture podcast or your favorite cable news round table, and you’ll find many moments of 100 percent vociferous agreement. Audiences complain about the contrarian shout-fests in the mainstream media, but I’m more troubled by the self-assured nod-fests.