discussion What ever happened to "let's agree, to disagree"?

[ErzuzB]

I disagree that "let's agree to disagree" went away.

And you can't change my mind, bucko!

So let's agree to disagree.

You must be registered to see attachments

 

[whiite]

You must be registered to see attachments

 

[Republican Bear]

Well that's a very interesting debate in itself. but science itself says pee is the main ingredient.

"Squirting is the expulsion of urine during an orgasm. Female ejaculation is a release of both urine and a substance from the Skene's glands. Sexual incontinence— also called coital incontinence — is when someone loses control of their bladder during sex."

Though most women vehemently deny otherwise. Anyway fella's your drinking piss.

 

[Tosser]

I disagreed.



Humanity has always been 90% fucktard. Anywhere it looks like we picked up some moral backbone, the fucktards move in and start pushing it to extremes and trying to violently attack anyone that isn't in the morals gang, acting as the antithesis of the thing they claim to champion, assuming mere group membership is a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Shitty parents have always existed. Only fucktards have to beat their kids to make the kids pretend to listen. And they will only pretend. Ask anyone that advocates for harsher punishments for kids about their own childhood and you get a longwinded story of how they dodged their fucktard parents to go pull off fucktarded stunts in their youth.

Demanding PITA parents have always existed, vying and scheming to get their precious little angels undue rewards.

It only takes a small percentage of kids acting out for the news to make something look like a moral panic. My city's schools teach more than a hundred thousand kids. If only 1% are asshats, that would be a thousand shitmongers stirring the pot every day. But because of the spineless admin hamstringing the teachers and staff, the 1% fucktard crew causes vastly disproportional upset in the system and is rarely stopped. I guess I need to get off my ass and into politics at some point. One can only scorn a system without trying to fix it for so long before the blame starts sitting squarely on you for not stepping up.

These people are usually cast as villains where they are written of, but for every one that inspired a story, there were a hundred or thousand more than quietly got favors done for money or volunteering or because so-and-so's so-and-so is friends with so-and-so.

It's not a new problem. it's more the norm. the kids are fine. society isn't collapsing from moral degeneration, and most of the muckraking we see are a few well todo dickheads pushing media empires to start bullshit to keep people distracted while they pick their pockets.

the 1950's and earlier are often cast as some glorious time when everything was well, but they were actively cultivating that image. there were still fucktards and horrible dickheads galore, their bullshit just got swept under the rug. families hid abuse and shit to save face. institutions hid scandals and crimes and shit to save face. the news let political shit slide for city hall access and to support whoever the owners liked. society shifted so these things are getting discussed more and outed as a matter of course, and it turns out there's a lot more horrible shit out there than most people were lead to believe by the sanitized version of reality the past kept whitewashing everything with.

the only thing new in the world is that every angry dickhead ranting at the local dive and every tinfoil schizo blathering about the demons in their crayons can head online and vomit their bullshit into every discussion they haven't yet been banned from, while riling each other up and striving to out ass each other by being angrier or more deranged in the pockets of the net where they gather up to suck on their collective wounds caused by decent society telling them to fuck off with their various bullshit.

There have always been bad parents and entitled kids, but I have seen an increasing level of rotten kids in my nearly 60 years of experience on this planet. Thus, I disagree with your premise in large part that it's the "same as it ever was". It isn't.

 

[ErzuzB]

You must be registered to see attachments

 

[darqfybre]

There's only one objectively true answer:

None of the people who disagree with me will admit they're wrong!

As my coffee mug says. " I'd agree with you, but we'd both be wrong"

 

[48e1-920b-9a4ff0ce20]

I disagree with your premise in large part that it's the "same as it ever was"

You must be registered to see attachments

that is fair, as I reciprocate your disagreement. have a good day.

 

[kbakon]

As an enthusiast of history, I am unconvinced that think it was truly more prevalent in the past than it is today. Opinions are just more openly discussed today.

 

[deffel]

Hmmm since you can literally look up most things in an instant nowadays...there is not much room for agree to disagree.
That basically was only left for things that actually were up to interpretation or personal preference.

Then idiots got social media handed to them and we all see what that did get us...

 

[User_99181]

As an enthusiast of history, I am unconvinced that think it was truly more prevalent in the past than it is today. Opinions are just more openly discussed today.

Probably accurate. One minute you having a minor disagreement with a bloke at the local saloon about whether tits or ass is better, the next thing: dual to the death.

You must be registered to see attachments

 

[kbakon]

Probably accurate. One minute you having a minor disagreement with a bloke at the local saloon about whether tits or ass is better, the next thing: dual to the death.

You must be registered to see attachments

Not only on the micro scale but the macro as well. Wars (whether due to differences in religion, territorial disputes, politics, etc.) have and will always be a thing. Humanity just hasn't and never will progress enough. Although technology has clearly advanced, the average human intellect clearly has not.

 

[secrettunel]

I think in terms of interpersonal disagreements, social media has a lot to do with how people dig their heels in when arguing. It's such a public forum that if you're even a little bit wrong you can get dog-piled by people looking for that little dopamine boost from both going with the crowd dog-piling and being correct (whether they are or not.) When you're on the other side of that, public shaming is one of the least effective ways of changing someone's mind, so they just believe in whatever it is they did before harder. Regardless of who's correct, or if it's a literal matter of opinion.

 

[Marcus_S]

we basically have to hit bottom as a society before anyone will learn better (and we're pretty close).

I've been thinking we're pretty close for 10 years, yet we're still just going further down every year. It even feels like we're falling faster every year.

Like others said in this thread, I also think it's cause the anonymity and the freedom (dumb) people get on the internet. Also the sheep herd effect. People see someone they like (usually an influencer) say or do something (be it stupid or not) and they are instantly 100% on board. They don't think, they don't listen to a counter opinion, they are zealously standing up for the thing that random human said, who is just a normal guy, but with a different job.

 

[rwag77]

You want one sentece? Here:
Admitting to being wrong is viewed with disdain and not fighting for one's own opinions is seen as giving up and thus being wrong.

Here a bit more:
People seek confirmation and validation in their own beliefs/opinions, everything and everybody who opposes that puts a dent in their bubble that they have to fight to not get it popped.

Especially nowadays when everything is so overblown and put out of context and proportionality, so that every stand-alone opinion is automatically tied from outside to a whole package of other opinions (i.e. If you like this, you HAVE to also like this and also makes you to be AGAINST that).

And so people start arguing for things even though they don't support them, simply because they are in the same broad category. Even if they know that it's wrong in their own opinion.

Oh, and people who think they aren't in a bubble of own beliefs and opinions, are the ones stuck in it the most.

I see your last sentence as being the most accurate. Bubbles and beliefs. I am right, you are wrong so I am going to call you names and belittle you because of it.

 

[rwag77]

I think in terms of interpersonal disagreements, social media has a lot to do with how people dig their heels in when arguing. It's such a public forum that if you're even a little bit wrong you can get dog-piled by people looking for that little dopamine boost from both going with the crowd dog-piling and being correct (whether they are or not.) When you're on the other side of that, public shaming is one of the least effective ways of changing someone's mind, so they just believe in whatever it is they did before harder. Regardless of who's correct, or if it's a literal matter of opinion.

I have been thinking a lot about this recently and I am going to agree with you and also some of what ErzuzB said about people living in bubbles and their beliefs and do not want to have their bubbles popped. Between that and social media that is helping people build these bubbles based on things that are not actually from the real world. I believe that social media is killing the art of normal conversation. People are not learning conflict management in face-to-face situations. Instead of having a conversation with someone over a conflict, they go on social media and say anything they want to about the person, true or not. The conversation might not have ever gotten heated or led to anything other than understanding the other's point of view has now turned into a social media beat down.

 

[LilianN]

Why would anyone agree to disagree when they can just win by ignoring now. Doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, all that matters is that you win.

This is nothing new either. Back in the day there were just means to make people agree by force rather then ignoring. Most of the discussion about how the current society is going down the drain is just posturing. The "good old days" are based on a few decades of comfort. People are still people and if given the means to have their way, they will always take it.

 

[trc450]

I think it's more about how people think and form opinions. It is getting more emotional based, lack of critical thinking and understanding opposite or outside views is not there. Everything is reachable with a google search and answers are given before question is asked, there is no room for why, what about and how.

In the end only 'tools' you have are fallacies, peer pressure with your group or other more sinister pressure. There is no room to be wrong.

 

[Sarya]

"Agree to disagree" apply to things like what's the best pizza or the best rock band. It doesn't apply to politics. I'm fucking tired some people (most of them uneducated conservatives like always) are trying to instrumentalize this and more largely freedom of speech to harass minorities, destroy humans rights, to create the totalitarian state they dream of.

 

[LUVGAMZ23]

I don't like taking credit for something I didn't come up with.

When I looked up a similar topic in Google, I got this quote from a "Tom Chivers" website dated July 27 2012.
No fucking clue who that is, but I fucking love the quote:

"Basically, kids have always been ghastly little sods, and older people have always thought the world is going to hell in a handcart."

 

[Immabeas]

people love to argue. its like a ego boost knowing (thinking you know) more than another person and wanting to 'put them in their place'. even when some people use lets agree to disagree people use it with attitude (word choice) to imply they are the mature one for suggesting to end the convo.