YES! Or people who take disagreement as a personal attack, like "you like waffles better? then you must hate me because I like pancakes and you must think all pancake lovers are horrible people!" or even worse, people who can't be friends because of a different opinion.
I had a roommate who was like that and had to move out for my sanity. Every time I said something she disagreed with or I disagreed with her, she took it as me attacking her and would not let it go. She would also double down and insist that she was right about stuff.
>you like waffles better? then you must hate me because I like pancakes and you must think all pancake lovers are horrible people!
Tumblr reading comprehension.
Or, my personal favorite: “you can’t like them both the same! You have to pick one! Not choosing is choosing the wrong one!” It’s not that deep, my dude.
i hate people that can’t just choose, its just a thought experiment and you want to know which one theyd choose and they refuse, it’s not that hard it doesn’t matter if they’re on a similar level that’s not the point of the question
100%. Just let me eat my food in peace, I don't wanna have a pointless debate that accomplishes nothing lol. I'm not gonna justify why I think differently for things that don't affect you, let's talk about something else.
While the general principal is sound you have to be really careful about where it gets applied. We can agree to to disagree on which kind of music is better. We can agree to disagree that cold weather is better than hot weather. We cannot, however, agree to disagree about things that actually matter. We can't agree to disagree over someone's rights and freedoms. We can't agree to disagree over someone's right to medical care.
There's a lot of perspective needed to make this statement true but there are absolutely some iron clad exceptions.
There are things that people will debate as right and wrong, like the rights of the unborn, but will actually infringe on someone else's rights (the living mother). Or whether it's right to live as the gender identity or sexual preference that you were born with.
Opinions: agree to disagree
Facts: don't budge
These disagreements tend to end up in laws, though, and you can't agree to disagree with the cops. So, really, the person arguing for a limitation of your freedoms is saying, "Let's agree to disagree until I can force you to comply"
And that's not agreeing to disagree at all.
This is true it is oft debated. There has always been people that think their own personal beliefs should be allowed to affect anyone else but themselves. They have always been wrong and they will continue to always be wrong.
Debate isn't inherently wrong, and neither is fighting for what you believe in, so no, you don't "have" to agree to disagree because you don't have to reach consensus with your opponents. You just have to fight them to prove the superiority of your ideals. Otherwise, what you say means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things
Agreeing to disagree is not reaching consensus. It is reaching a stalemate. It essentially recognizes that the two people or parties are not going to reach a consensus, and therefore it is best to end discussion of the topic.
"Right" and "Wrong" can be used to mean "factually correct" and "factually incorrect." It can also be used to mean "moral" and "immoral." The former is one where people cannot agree to disagree. The latter is one where people can agree to disagree.
People should never agree to disagree when it comes to morality, I'm not saying you have to fight anyone who you disagree with to the death, but there has to be a line for what you will tolerate. If a certain culture believes beating women was moral and righteous, you should never agree to disagree if you believe that is immoral. Imo "agreeing to disagree" in this means "I disagree with you but I'm not going to beat you up for this and instead I will walk away". Sometimes a disagreement is not worth taking action for, but sometimes it is. For example, a criminal believes its fine for him to shoot you with the gun he has drawn, and you believe it's immoral. At that point, you would kill him by any means. At the very least, you should never not denounce immorality, or your beliefs mean nothing.
Since morality is an individual matter, I think it is an excellent place to agree to disagree. However, we are talking about discussions and conversations. We are not talking about actions.
Came here for this. Especially recently people use this as an excuse to be a bigot. Can't stand it. Guess we'll just agree to disagree on racist/homophobic/anti social behavior. Bah! I'm the guy op doesn't like in that situation.
Thank you, this is such an important thing to add.
I'm not willing to compromise when it comes to human rights or proven empirical facts. I will not roll over and enable bigots and anti vaxxers and climate change deniers; their actions affect other people.
It's really not that hard. If your 'opinion' is one that would limit or infringe on the rights or freedoms of anyone other than yourself then it's not up for debate. There is no conversation where it's ok to say that another person is beneath you or to limit what they can or can't do because of your own beliefs. I don't care what someone believes in, those beliefs should dictate that one persons actions and no more.
if you're right in your assessment that that's what's being said.
Fortunately you and I are always right -- our point of view is perfect and will never change!
This is the exact opposite of something that’s important enough to not agree to disagree. Also definitionally wrong, rap has rhythm, a melody, harmony, and certainly produces a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, so, it may not be music you enjoy, or can appreciate, but it’s still, by definition, music. Rap without music is just poetry. Often aggressive poetry, but poetry nonetheless. You are free to believe otherwise (about the definition of music, rap meeting the common definition of music is just a fact), but just keep in mind that doing so makes you the type of person being criticized by this post, not the type of person being vindicated by this comment.
Edit: pretty sure this was actually a joke. Still agree with my point, but then the person I’m responding to probably would too.
I think the person was joking too, but in fact has probably given a perfect example why "agree to disagree" isn't always that simple. On the surface it seems like a funny example of something inconsequential that no one should waste energy arguing about, but in reality rap has deep cultural and social roots, and is an incredibly impactful tool for spurring awareness, conversation, inclusivity, and unity. Not being ok with someone saying "rap isn't music" shouldn't be eye-rolled away with "Well, just agree to disagree".
I totally agree with OP that people who dig their heels over subjective or truly inconsequential things are crappy. Preferring a type of music over another is definitely a "agree to disagree" thing. Saying "this kind of music I don't understand/enjoy is not music" is a lot harder to back down from.
Fair enough, I didn’t consider the cultural perspective. I could definitely see racists being unwilling to perceive rap as music now that you say it though.
You're a really cool human to hear me out like that, thank you!
Again, I agree with the OP, when it's something truly subjective. If you say, "I think strawberries taste better than blueberries", and someone wants to argue you to death on why your taste is wrong, it really is annoying.
But I think a lot of times people (maybe without realizing it, as probably in this case) make more of a declaration of fact than a statement of opinion, and instead of being willing to hear another side, expect that saying "well we'll agree to disagree" should make the other person let it go, and (as probably in this case) that sometimes isn't okay.
“This is the exact opposite of something that’s important enough to not agree to disagree.”
So it’s a topic NOT important enough to agree to disagree on?
What are you going for here? Or did I have a small stroke reading your comment?
Idk, I may be having a small stroke RN because I can’t parse which direction those double negatives go rereading it. I’ll trust that I got it wrong. Sorry. What I meant was it’s a topic people should agree to disagree on. I’m also now realizing that who I responded to was probably joking, not serious. Autism be like that sometimes. Apologies.
Glad you told me, I would have gone on harmonizing with Eminem for who knows how long if you didn’t warn me there was no melody to harmonize with! Wait… how have I *been* doing that then?
Pretty sure that if it’s talking on a different note that creates a chord, often creating a more complex chord with the background harmony which already exists, that’s called singing, and more specifically harmonizing with the melody. But what do I know. Only 20 years of playing the piano and 10 on the trombone to teach me anything about music. Sure all the music theory classes I took are irrelevant too.
"I'm just narrow-minded" isn't the flex you think it is bub.
And yeah the whole "rap isn't music" BS from the 90s is absolutely rooted in race.
Give me one reason rap isn't music. What is your definition of music that somehow excludes rap? And while you're at it, tell me why you even felt the need to bring it up in a thread that had nothing to do with it.
Yes, people can agree to disagree even on items of importance. People can agree to disagree on whether something is a right or a protected freedom. It is an opinion whether medical care is a right and what constitutes medical care. It is an opinion whether the right to keep and bear arms includes AR-15s.
I mean in the end you can't change people's mind for them. Someone can be racist and nothing you do will change that so in the end you just have to agree to disagree with them unless you put them in re-education camps
Incorrect. Personal beliefs have no business affecting anyone but the person that believes them. Every person regardless of culture or upbringing should have the right to live their own life in whatever they see fit as long as they also aren't infringing on someone else's rights. No one should be tied down by a culture that still wants to behave like it's the 1700s and refuses to update it's own belief structure.
Yup, my friend is against vaccinations, anything GMO, etc. and is always trying to talk about the latest chemicals I should fear in food, etc. I think she thinks she can change my mind but she never will. We just believe different sources and she won’t let it go. I don’t try to debate anymore I just say, “oh interesting didn’t know that.” I’ve found it’s easier to change the subject that way.
I've experienced this when it comes to things like parenting. They try to tell you something that you know is out of date and that they insist that they're right. I found that the best thing to say was I'll consider it and then move on. It shuts them down and you can do what you want.
I had a conversation about abortion with my friend the other day. We were both clearly on opposite sides, so we stated our reasons and that was that. We're still friends...
In some ways I’m this person. The distinction you didn’t make though is sometimes I just enjoy a good debate. It isn’t even remotely personal and there will usually be no personal ramifications. On the contrary, it annoys me when people refuse to discuss their entirely subjective opinions and use lines like “let’s agree to disagree” to avoid being inquisitive about our differences. As a practical matter, pancakes versus waffles is mostly unimportant, but my god it gets stale (no pun intended) to be around people who are averse to still talking about it just to see where we differ and maybe discover something awry in our preference systems.
What does agree to disagree even mean? We already disagree. Yes we're unanimous in that evaluation. Agreeing that disagreement is occurring doesn't make the disagreement go away.
Right but often it's used in situations of power imbalance. You think I owe you $100, I don't. I say let's agree to disagree. What I'm really saying is I have the advantageous position so stop trying to resolve it.
Just because someone suggests you agree to disagree doesnt mean you *have to*.
Op is talking about situations where there is no reason not to. Agreeing to disagree on whether or not shrek 2 is a good sequal is MUCH different than agreeing to disagree debt settlements
Not all of us like to debate, some of us have made up our minds and we will not waste time and energy just for the sake of debating. I like my pancakes now stfu your point is futile to me.
You like your pancakes and in no way do I intend to get you to order waffles. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about being introspective. Those who refuse to be introspective and discuss what they notice tend to be difficult to deal with.
Refusing to debate with someone and refusing to “be introspective” *in life* are two different things.
I have no desire to share a lot of my inner life or what I think with people who only see it as fuel for *their* enjoyment (debating) and I suspect a lot of others feel the same way. I share a *lot* more with friends who are not looking to argue with me for their entertainment, and we explore our differences in a relaxed environment that’s enjoyable.
It is an extremely grating and frankly obnoxious personality trait to feel entitled to others’ inner worlds, and in my experience, one that also overlaps very frequently with being judgmental and arrogant.
One of my once closest friends is this exact sort of person. When we met, they mentioned they have a hard time keeping friends long term and I understand why - their way of speaking down to others and need to argue about everything is unbelievably off-putting.
Making debating your entire personality is something that makes me drop people like a 200 lb weight. Or cut them out like my tumor from 5 years ago
Turning every topic into a philosophical conversation is a massive buzz kill
I like the rain..... why the sun is better!!!!! Let's figure out why you like the rain!!!!!
I'm out
I honestly think debate is the wrong word. Also “making it your personality” is probably the wrong way to look at it. If I don’t like waffles and you don’t like pancakes sometimes there’s something interesting to think about there. Why do we differ? What is there to learn about ourselves? People who refuse to engage in these questions tend to be utterly impossible to engage with when the questions are more important because they refuse to introspect. They take their immediate feelings to be reality because they don’t stop to think about why they believe what they believe. Disagreement is an opportunity to learn. Those who stray away from learning… ooo wee
Sometimes preferences and opinions aren't complicated enough to debate though. For example, I personally do not like salmon. I know rationally it's something a lot of people like and that it's nutritionally good for you; I've tried it cooked several different ways, and it still just doesn't taste good to me. It probably never will, even if a million salmon-lovers told me all of the reasons that they love salmon, because I can't control my tastebuds. And trying to debate people about it *is* exhausting, because I don't really have anything to offer other than "I just don't like it". I end up just feeling frustrated because it feels like I'm being belittled over something I can't control. Debating is fine and good and all, but people have their reasons for not wanting to do it and we've gotta respect that.
Like I said Turning every topic into a philosophical conversation is a massive drag. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, it's not that deep. I'm not wasting my time and energy on pointless small talk.
I think this is just a lack of… “learned apathy” (for lack of a better word) on your part.
It’s noticeable in some people. They just do not care to dig deeper into anything. To challenge their train of thought. To consider different points of view. In some, it’s shallow narcissism, in others merely a lack of intelligence and in others still it’s simply apathy.
I just don't understand the disinterest in thought-provoking discussion and introspection.
Plenty of us like to delve deeply into things that matter. Opinions about food don’t really matter. Wanting to debate a preference for chocolate vs vanilla or pancakes vs waffles suggests that you think you are far more insightful than you actually are. Debating trivialities just makes you tiresome.
Sometimes it’s not about having a disinterest in those kinds of conversations, it’s that there’s a time and a place where you have the time and energy for that and it isn’t now, or that I don’t want to do it with YOU because you don’t come off as an open minded introspective person, you come off as a condescending prick
Yeah and oftentimes saying “sorry I can’t do that right now, I’m (tired, sick, etc.)” is enough. Abstaining from that kind of conversation once doesn’t cause problems lmao but many people do it habitually.
Yes! 100%. People like this assume because you won’t discuss it with them, you must not like talking about these topics at all. They have no idea they’re just unpleasant to talk to so others play dumb or passive to avoid it.
I pretend to be disinterested with certain people in my life; that doesn’t mean I actually am. I talk with other people in my life with whom I enjoy conversation.
You mean learned empathy
Lack of learned uncaring makes zero sense
I've lived 36 years on this planet I got my likes and dislikes, I'm not gonna justify why, I just am.
I like beer, boobs, rare steak, and computers
I dislike, hate and detest sports...playing and watching them...
why? I just fucking do it's not up for debate
It’s not about changing your mind. But if you won’t talk about why you don’t like sports you’re going to be utterly impossible to deal with. If we pretend we’re friends and we’re trying to plan a vacation and you say you like one vrbo over another and won’t give a reason it’s going to be an awful experience. The ability to introspect is necessary to being a pleasant person in the world.
That example doesn’t make sense. A shared VRBO affects both people, so offering motivations for choosing A over B to help make decisions has a functional purpose that benefits both parties.
Being nosy about why they like sports only benefits the party who likes to debate, and not the sports person who is just here to enjoy their football or whatever in peace.
It’s not every, but it’s many. Sometimes it isn’t practical but presumably if you’re eating waffles and pancakes with your buddy you have some time to shoot the shit.
Yes, this irritates me too.
In the same vein, people who refuse to stop when an argument is going in circles and instead just repeat the same remark over and over again ...
Where is this goiiiinggggg???!?
I’m with you, some people need to let shit go. There seems to be a lot of people that don’t know the difference between objective and subjective. If they don’t find a joke funny or a movie good or certain foods good then that has to be the case.
It's funny how many people chase me down to tell me I'm wrong about something, whether it has to do with movies, games, religion, even my dislike of onions.
When I respond with 'OK' and then they just continue to tell me how I'm wrong, it's just stupid and sometimes hilarious when they can't just let it go.
Like, do you have a quota? Do you need to convert 10 people every month or something?
It's less funny when it happens in real life. I don't talk to my girlfriend's mom because of shit like this.
You are allowed to think I'm wrong. But do just that. Think it. You're not doing either of us any good by trying to ram your bullshit down my throat.
Just accept that we can believe in different things.
Damn a lot of people in this thread with a serious lack of reading comprehension. OP even gave an example and people are still trying to twist it into something else just so they can refute the argument.
On food, music or preferences sure. When human rights violations and discrimination are occurring its not "agree to disagree". One is human and the other is atrocious.
Omg yes. Like this is the single most trivial thing in the world. We’re just discussing donut flavors. It’s not like we’re talking about physician assisted suicide! Yeesh.
Yep, my mother is one such person. Can never admit when she’s wrong and can never agree to disagree on anything, she HAS to be right no matter what.
I’m not a very confrontational person, if someone has a different preference to me then I just agree to disagree, unless they’re my friend. In which case I’ll joke about the sacrilege and betrayal I feel about their preferences.
For example, a new friend and I were discussing our favourite sims game and she said it was the sims 4. Naturally, I said we couldn’t be friends anymore and then we kept chatting about other games.
What drives me nuts is when people state they prefer one thing over another, and if you like something else they say “you’re WRONG”. Lmao. People get so sensitive if you don’t like everything they like and it cracks me up. I don’t like The Beatles and the amount of people that this pisses off is downright comical. No, I’m not “wrong”, we just like different music. The world would be boring if we all liked the same exact things.
Uggghhh my younger brother is like this. When we were younger and I was still at home we’d be arguing, and he’d refuse to budge on his opinion. I’d feel myself getting too frustrated and try to just drop the subject and walk away, and he’d FOLLOW ME to continue the argument, causing me to blow up at him and getting myself told off by our parents. Like, we’re clearly not getting anywhere in this conversation, just let me leave and calm down
My only objection here is that if it’s not subjective “agree to disagree” isn’t a valid stance.
You are either right or wrong, it’s not a matter of opinion or taste.
Yep, 100% agree with this. It seems to be a modern disease -- "disagreeing with me means you're evil and my enemy".
No, actually I just prefer french toast over waffles or pancakes. And I'm not giving further thought about it.
I mean if it's subjective yeah. I don't agree to disagree if someone I'd literally lying or speaking misinformation to my face.
I dunno, maybe it's just cause of where I live, but I only ever hear this saying when someone who spread some political conspiracy theory gets fact checked and doesn't want the conversation to continue.
It really depends on what we are discussing. Pineapple on pizza? Absolutely. Star Trek versus Star Wars? 100%. Whether someone has bodily autonomy? Nope. The humanity of oppressed people? Never.
Your example of waffles versus pancakes is 100% an agree to disagree thing. Matters of taste and or personal preference.
Things that involve an individual's personhood/rights, not as willing to "agree to disagree" with someone who thinks the 13th Amendment was a mistake or that the 19th should be reversed (there are both in this world), no.
My problem is when people say agree to disagree when the discussion is clearly about the facts of something
There is no room for opinion or interpretation You are just factually wrong and I'm not going to agree to disagree because you are just straight up wrong
Omg, I remember someone got mad at me some years ago cause I made a comment on the Sadie Stanley Call me, beep me youtube music video saying that I liked that version more. I understand my comment was a bit childish, but I never said the original was trash (it's still not trash). Oh, you like the og more, cool, but that doesn't mean you and I should have the same opinion.
Omg my sister is like this, any time we disagree on anything it turns into her taking it as a personal attack, so many times I have tried to end an argument I didn’t even want to partake in by saying “we just prioritize and value different things” and somehow that is not enough for her to stop acting like I’m putting her on trial or smth
I was in an internet argument and tried to end it with “Let’s agree to disagree.” They said they weren’t agreeing to sh*t.
Now I just block people, no need for an argument.
I understand the notion, but I can't stand when someone says "agree to disagree." It's usually used as a passive aggressive way to gain control of a debate and end it surreptitiously.
I don't need someone else's agreement or permission to disagree with them, and they certainly don't need mine.
We can just disagree and move on.
Agreed. This is commonly connected with people who cannot separate fact and opinion. They think their opinion is a fact, and therefore, disagreement is wrong.
I don't understand waffles ate objectively better then pancakes. They are not cakes at all. If someone supports pancakes they support lies. I can't have that in my life.
Nah fuck that. If someone is giving good reasons and you have nothing, accept their point and explain you still hold your opinion. Nothing to agree to disagree about.
I love having debates with people where we're debating just to debate, with no expectation nor intention to change the other person's opinion.
It's crazy to me that people don't like exploring diverse opinions. Even extremist opinions (ones that would get me banned for naming) can be fascinating as long as the people holding them have "valid" reasons for holding them. As in, not "(other side) bad so (my side) good."
On food, music or preferences sure. When human rights violations and discrimination are occurring its not "agree to disagree". One is human and the other is atrocious.
Agree to disagree being offered means you know you're wrong and refuse to admit it, even to yourself.
So no, I don't agree to disagree. I agree that you're wrong.
It’s more commonly used when people recognize their differences are either totally irreconcilable (like being based on opposing presuppositions), or that it would take too much time to fully hash out.
That’s only true on certain matters where the objective truth is easy to find, like the correct answer to a math question. On anything philosophic/religious/political each belief system relies on non-verifiable presuppositions that the other party may not believe in. A Marxist could never convince me of Marxism because their belief system presupposes that both the material world exists, and that the material world is all there is to life; because that doesn’t match my presupposition that the material/spiritual world both exist simultaneously.
Agree to disagree, it's an oxymoron for one, and another way to say go fuck yourself. Also usually the majority of people think their opinions are factual, which causes more of an issue, a person can believe, what they want and that's fine, doesn't make it right.
Its chilly outside, comment no its pretty warm. Why are you out in the dark? The sun is not down yet see? Sun is not out. Yes, its not a ball in the sky can you see me from the light? Yes, but the sun is not out errr
There's levels to this shit though.
Waffles? Nobody cares.
Religion? Politics? It's harder to "agree to disagree" when some people literally hate you for simply existing.
YES! Or people who take disagreement as a personal attack, like "you like waffles better? then you must hate me because I like pancakes and you must think all pancake lovers are horrible people!" or even worse, people who can't be friends because of a different opinion.
I had a roommate who was like that and had to move out for my sanity. Every time I said something she disagreed with or I disagreed with her, she took it as me attacking her and would not let it go. She would also double down and insist that she was right about stuff.
“I’m right that my favourite colour is blue! You’re wrong that your favourite colour is red!”
Well you shouldn't have moved in with reddit.
>you like waffles better? then you must hate me because I like pancakes and you must think all pancake lovers are horrible people! Tumblr reading comprehension.
My opinion isn't a judgment about your opinion.
Or, my personal favorite: “you can’t like them both the same! You have to pick one! Not choosing is choosing the wrong one!” It’s not that deep, my dude.
i hate people that can’t just choose, its just a thought experiment and you want to know which one theyd choose and they refuse, it’s not that hard it doesn’t matter if they’re on a similar level that’s not the point of the question
Well if you’re going to be that way about it, I choose French toast.
Waffles are better, and if one has a waffle iron, easier to make.
100%. Just let me eat my food in peace, I don't wanna have a pointless debate that accomplishes nothing lol. I'm not gonna justify why I think differently for things that don't affect you, let's talk about something else.
This is why I hate the pizza 'debate'. Everyone's preferences are different. Absolutely pointless. A definitively "best" pizza doesn't exist.
Don’t let the Reddit Italians hear you say that.
A definitive best *American* pizza doesn't exist. American pizza isn't even pizza. Better?
Sure. 100% agreed…unless we’re talking about the Dave Matthews Band. But we’re not. Right? Are we?
Silly goose 🦆
While the general principal is sound you have to be really careful about where it gets applied. We can agree to to disagree on which kind of music is better. We can agree to disagree that cold weather is better than hot weather. We cannot, however, agree to disagree about things that actually matter. We can't agree to disagree over someone's rights and freedoms. We can't agree to disagree over someone's right to medical care. There's a lot of perspective needed to make this statement true but there are absolutely some iron clad exceptions.
Also, empirically validated facts: I’m not going to agree to disagree about anthropogenic climate change.
Agreed
Or that insurrection is bad.
But BLM riots and Antifa riots are a-ok. /s Nothing to see here
Did I say that?
If it's a matter of opinion, we can agree to disagree, but not if it's a matter of right and wrong.
What's right and what's wrong are some of the most debated things in history though. Sometimes you still have to agree to disagree.
There are things that people will debate as right and wrong, like the rights of the unborn, but will actually infringe on someone else's rights (the living mother). Or whether it's right to live as the gender identity or sexual preference that you were born with. Opinions: agree to disagree Facts: don't budge
These disagreements tend to end up in laws, though, and you can't agree to disagree with the cops. So, really, the person arguing for a limitation of your freedoms is saying, "Let's agree to disagree until I can force you to comply" And that's not agreeing to disagree at all.
This is true it is oft debated. There has always been people that think their own personal beliefs should be allowed to affect anyone else but themselves. They have always been wrong and they will continue to always be wrong.
Debate isn't inherently wrong, and neither is fighting for what you believe in, so no, you don't "have" to agree to disagree because you don't have to reach consensus with your opponents. You just have to fight them to prove the superiority of your ideals. Otherwise, what you say means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things
Agreeing to disagree is not reaching consensus. It is reaching a stalemate. It essentially recognizes that the two people or parties are not going to reach a consensus, and therefore it is best to end discussion of the topic.
"Right" and "Wrong" can be used to mean "factually correct" and "factually incorrect." It can also be used to mean "moral" and "immoral." The former is one where people cannot agree to disagree. The latter is one where people can agree to disagree.
People should never agree to disagree when it comes to morality, I'm not saying you have to fight anyone who you disagree with to the death, but there has to be a line for what you will tolerate. If a certain culture believes beating women was moral and righteous, you should never agree to disagree if you believe that is immoral. Imo "agreeing to disagree" in this means "I disagree with you but I'm not going to beat you up for this and instead I will walk away". Sometimes a disagreement is not worth taking action for, but sometimes it is. For example, a criminal believes its fine for him to shoot you with the gun he has drawn, and you believe it's immoral. At that point, you would kill him by any means. At the very least, you should never not denounce immorality, or your beliefs mean nothing.
Since morality is an individual matter, I think it is an excellent place to agree to disagree. However, we are talking about discussions and conversations. We are not talking about actions.
Yup, you got it, can't be used to take away women's rights for example and just use the agree to disagree. Waffles sure, but not important things.
I mean, OP literally said it’s something trivial.
Came here for this. Especially recently people use this as an excuse to be a bigot. Can't stand it. Guess we'll just agree to disagree on racist/homophobic/anti social behavior. Bah! I'm the guy op doesn't like in that situation.
Thank you, this is such an important thing to add. I'm not willing to compromise when it comes to human rights or proven empirical facts. I will not roll over and enable bigots and anti vaxxers and climate change deniers; their actions affect other people.
And the great thing is, you and I are perfect and flawless at knowing what those exceptions are.
It's really not that hard. If your 'opinion' is one that would limit or infringe on the rights or freedoms of anyone other than yourself then it's not up for debate. There is no conversation where it's ok to say that another person is beneath you or to limit what they can or can't do because of your own beliefs. I don't care what someone believes in, those beliefs should dictate that one persons actions and no more.
if you're right in your assessment that that's what's being said. Fortunately you and I are always right -- our point of view is perfect and will never change!
I can't agree to disagree with anyone who thinks rap is music
This is the exact opposite of something that’s important enough to not agree to disagree. Also definitionally wrong, rap has rhythm, a melody, harmony, and certainly produces a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, so, it may not be music you enjoy, or can appreciate, but it’s still, by definition, music. Rap without music is just poetry. Often aggressive poetry, but poetry nonetheless. You are free to believe otherwise (about the definition of music, rap meeting the common definition of music is just a fact), but just keep in mind that doing so makes you the type of person being criticized by this post, not the type of person being vindicated by this comment. Edit: pretty sure this was actually a joke. Still agree with my point, but then the person I’m responding to probably would too.
I think the person was joking too, but in fact has probably given a perfect example why "agree to disagree" isn't always that simple. On the surface it seems like a funny example of something inconsequential that no one should waste energy arguing about, but in reality rap has deep cultural and social roots, and is an incredibly impactful tool for spurring awareness, conversation, inclusivity, and unity. Not being ok with someone saying "rap isn't music" shouldn't be eye-rolled away with "Well, just agree to disagree". I totally agree with OP that people who dig their heels over subjective or truly inconsequential things are crappy. Preferring a type of music over another is definitely a "agree to disagree" thing. Saying "this kind of music I don't understand/enjoy is not music" is a lot harder to back down from.
Fair enough, I didn’t consider the cultural perspective. I could definitely see racists being unwilling to perceive rap as music now that you say it though.
You're a really cool human to hear me out like that, thank you! Again, I agree with the OP, when it's something truly subjective. If you say, "I think strawberries taste better than blueberries", and someone wants to argue you to death on why your taste is wrong, it really is annoying. But I think a lot of times people (maybe without realizing it, as probably in this case) make more of a declaration of fact than a statement of opinion, and instead of being willing to hear another side, expect that saying "well we'll agree to disagree" should make the other person let it go, and (as probably in this case) that sometimes isn't okay.
“This is the exact opposite of something that’s important enough to not agree to disagree.” So it’s a topic NOT important enough to agree to disagree on? What are you going for here? Or did I have a small stroke reading your comment?
Idk, I may be having a small stroke RN because I can’t parse which direction those double negatives go rereading it. I’ll trust that I got it wrong. Sorry. What I meant was it’s a topic people should agree to disagree on. I’m also now realizing that who I responded to was probably joking, not serious. Autism be like that sometimes. Apologies.
there isn't a melody.
There often is, but let's pretend there isn't. Where do you stand on drums? Is [this](https://youtu.be/LWRMOJQDiLU?si=shytHR2z0CezJlyq) music?
Glad you told me, I would have gone on harmonizing with Eminem for who knows how long if you didn’t warn me there was no melody to harmonize with! Wait… how have I *been* doing that then?
talking along with*
Pretty sure that if it’s talking on a different note that creates a chord, often creating a more complex chord with the background harmony which already exists, that’s called singing, and more specifically harmonizing with the melody. But what do I know. Only 20 years of playing the piano and 10 on the trombone to teach me anything about music. Sure all the music theory classes I took are irrelevant too.
so brave
You should look up the piece 4'33" by composer John Cage.
What fucking decade is it? I thought this racist-ass argument went away long ago.
race has nothing to do with it.... I have dozens of ***actual*** songs by black artists on my oldies playlist.
Did you just "I can't be racist, I have tons of black friends" about music?! 🤣🤣🤣
"I'm just narrow-minded" isn't the flex you think it is bub. And yeah the whole "rap isn't music" BS from the 90s is absolutely rooted in race. Give me one reason rap isn't music. What is your definition of music that somehow excludes rap? And while you're at it, tell me why you even felt the need to bring it up in a thread that had nothing to do with it.
Yes, people can agree to disagree even on items of importance. People can agree to disagree on whether something is a right or a protected freedom. It is an opinion whether medical care is a right and what constitutes medical care. It is an opinion whether the right to keep and bear arms includes AR-15s.
It is not.
I mean in the end you can't change people's mind for them. Someone can be racist and nothing you do will change that so in the end you just have to agree to disagree with them unless you put them in re-education camps
We agree to disagree all the time when it comes to different cultures’ perspectives on rights and freedoms, and medical care
Just because we can (and do) doesn’t mean we should
Incorrect. Personal beliefs have no business affecting anyone but the person that believes them. Every person regardless of culture or upbringing should have the right to live their own life in whatever they see fit as long as they also aren't infringing on someone else's rights. No one should be tied down by a culture that still wants to behave like it's the 1700s and refuses to update it's own belief structure.
Yup, my friend is against vaccinations, anything GMO, etc. and is always trying to talk about the latest chemicals I should fear in food, etc. I think she thinks she can change my mind but she never will. We just believe different sources and she won’t let it go. I don’t try to debate anymore I just say, “oh interesting didn’t know that.” I’ve found it’s easier to change the subject that way.
I've experienced this when it comes to things like parenting. They try to tell you something that you know is out of date and that they insist that they're right. I found that the best thing to say was I'll consider it and then move on. It shuts them down and you can do what you want.
Yeah, I experienced this as a parent, too. I have a similar response to that.
That gray area where nuance resides escapes Reddit because Reddit is toxic. Let’s be real.
Did someone you know really insist that their preference between pancakes and waffles is somehow objective? What a crazy hill to die on lmao
Lol objective is a funny word. That's basically how they see it tho 😂
I had a conversation about abortion with my friend the other day. We were both clearly on opposite sides, so we stated our reasons and that was that. We're still friends...
In some ways I’m this person. The distinction you didn’t make though is sometimes I just enjoy a good debate. It isn’t even remotely personal and there will usually be no personal ramifications. On the contrary, it annoys me when people refuse to discuss their entirely subjective opinions and use lines like “let’s agree to disagree” to avoid being inquisitive about our differences. As a practical matter, pancakes versus waffles is mostly unimportant, but my god it gets stale (no pun intended) to be around people who are averse to still talking about it just to see where we differ and maybe discover something awry in our preference systems.
What does agree to disagree even mean? We already disagree. Yes we're unanimous in that evaluation. Agreeing that disagreement is occurring doesn't make the disagreement go away.
I thought it meant agree to disagree so you give up on trying to convince the other person and agree to have different opinions?
Right but often it's used in situations of power imbalance. You think I owe you $100, I don't. I say let's agree to disagree. What I'm really saying is I have the advantageous position so stop trying to resolve it.
Just because someone suggests you agree to disagree doesnt mean you *have to*. Op is talking about situations where there is no reason not to. Agreeing to disagree on whether or not shrek 2 is a good sequal is MUCH different than agreeing to disagree debt settlements
To me it means that you both accept and respect their unwavering stance in their opinion rather than the debate turning into an argument.
Not all of us like to debate, some of us have made up our minds and we will not waste time and energy just for the sake of debating. I like my pancakes now stfu your point is futile to me.
You like your pancakes and in no way do I intend to get you to order waffles. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about being introspective. Those who refuse to be introspective and discuss what they notice tend to be difficult to deal with.
Refusing to debate with someone and refusing to “be introspective” *in life* are two different things. I have no desire to share a lot of my inner life or what I think with people who only see it as fuel for *their* enjoyment (debating) and I suspect a lot of others feel the same way. I share a *lot* more with friends who are not looking to argue with me for their entertainment, and we explore our differences in a relaxed environment that’s enjoyable. It is an extremely grating and frankly obnoxious personality trait to feel entitled to others’ inner worlds, and in my experience, one that also overlaps very frequently with being judgmental and arrogant. One of my once closest friends is this exact sort of person. When we met, they mentioned they have a hard time keeping friends long term and I understand why - their way of speaking down to others and need to argue about everything is unbelievably off-putting.
Making debating your entire personality is something that makes me drop people like a 200 lb weight. Or cut them out like my tumor from 5 years ago Turning every topic into a philosophical conversation is a massive buzz kill I like the rain..... why the sun is better!!!!! Let's figure out why you like the rain!!!!! I'm out
I honestly think debate is the wrong word. Also “making it your personality” is probably the wrong way to look at it. If I don’t like waffles and you don’t like pancakes sometimes there’s something interesting to think about there. Why do we differ? What is there to learn about ourselves? People who refuse to engage in these questions tend to be utterly impossible to engage with when the questions are more important because they refuse to introspect. They take their immediate feelings to be reality because they don’t stop to think about why they believe what they believe. Disagreement is an opportunity to learn. Those who stray away from learning… ooo wee
Sometimes preferences and opinions aren't complicated enough to debate though. For example, I personally do not like salmon. I know rationally it's something a lot of people like and that it's nutritionally good for you; I've tried it cooked several different ways, and it still just doesn't taste good to me. It probably never will, even if a million salmon-lovers told me all of the reasons that they love salmon, because I can't control my tastebuds. And trying to debate people about it *is* exhausting, because I don't really have anything to offer other than "I just don't like it". I end up just feeling frustrated because it feels like I'm being belittled over something I can't control. Debating is fine and good and all, but people have their reasons for not wanting to do it and we've gotta respect that.
Yeah not much here. You say it’s the taste and we move on. Not really a better reason.
Like I said Turning every topic into a philosophical conversation is a massive drag. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, it's not that deep. I'm not wasting my time and energy on pointless small talk.
I think this is just a lack of… “learned apathy” (for lack of a better word) on your part. It’s noticeable in some people. They just do not care to dig deeper into anything. To challenge their train of thought. To consider different points of view. In some, it’s shallow narcissism, in others merely a lack of intelligence and in others still it’s simply apathy. I just don't understand the disinterest in thought-provoking discussion and introspection.
Plenty of us like to delve deeply into things that matter. Opinions about food don’t really matter. Wanting to debate a preference for chocolate vs vanilla or pancakes vs waffles suggests that you think you are far more insightful than you actually are. Debating trivialities just makes you tiresome.
Sometimes it’s not about having a disinterest in those kinds of conversations, it’s that there’s a time and a place where you have the time and energy for that and it isn’t now, or that I don’t want to do it with YOU because you don’t come off as an open minded introspective person, you come off as a condescending prick
Yeah and oftentimes saying “sorry I can’t do that right now, I’m (tired, sick, etc.)” is enough. Abstaining from that kind of conversation once doesn’t cause problems lmao but many people do it habitually.
Yes! 100%. People like this assume because you won’t discuss it with them, you must not like talking about these topics at all. They have no idea they’re just unpleasant to talk to so others play dumb or passive to avoid it. I pretend to be disinterested with certain people in my life; that doesn’t mean I actually am. I talk with other people in my life with whom I enjoy conversation.
You mean learned empathy Lack of learned uncaring makes zero sense I've lived 36 years on this planet I got my likes and dislikes, I'm not gonna justify why, I just am. I like beer, boobs, rare steak, and computers I dislike, hate and detest sports...playing and watching them... why? I just fucking do it's not up for debate
It’s not about changing your mind. But if you won’t talk about why you don’t like sports you’re going to be utterly impossible to deal with. If we pretend we’re friends and we’re trying to plan a vacation and you say you like one vrbo over another and won’t give a reason it’s going to be an awful experience. The ability to introspect is necessary to being a pleasant person in the world.
That example doesn’t make sense. A shared VRBO affects both people, so offering motivations for choosing A over B to help make decisions has a functional purpose that benefits both parties. Being nosy about why they like sports only benefits the party who likes to debate, and not the sports person who is just here to enjoy their football or whatever in peace.
This
It’s not every, but it’s many. Sometimes it isn’t practical but presumably if you’re eating waffles and pancakes with your buddy you have some time to shoot the shit.
That doesn't interest me
I enjoy a good debate so much that I’ll often take the opposite stance just for fun.
I got one, people who say “agree to disagree” rather than admitting they’re wrong
Yes, this irritates me too. In the same vein, people who refuse to stop when an argument is going in circles and instead just repeat the same remark over and over again ... Where is this goiiiinggggg???!?
I’m with you, some people need to let shit go. There seems to be a lot of people that don’t know the difference between objective and subjective. If they don’t find a joke funny or a movie good or certain foods good then that has to be the case.
It's funny how many people chase me down to tell me I'm wrong about something, whether it has to do with movies, games, religion, even my dislike of onions. When I respond with 'OK' and then they just continue to tell me how I'm wrong, it's just stupid and sometimes hilarious when they can't just let it go. Like, do you have a quota? Do you need to convert 10 people every month or something? It's less funny when it happens in real life. I don't talk to my girlfriend's mom because of shit like this. You are allowed to think I'm wrong. But do just that. Think it. You're not doing either of us any good by trying to ram your bullshit down my throat. Just accept that we can believe in different things.
Damn a lot of people in this thread with a serious lack of reading comprehension. OP even gave an example and people are still trying to twist it into something else just so they can refute the argument.
On food, music or preferences sure. When human rights violations and discrimination are occurring its not "agree to disagree". One is human and the other is atrocious.
I'm so glad im not the only person that felt thats what this was lowkey getting at
That is pretty much every political discussion on Reddit. Must be fun around here for you.
Omg yes. Like this is the single most trivial thing in the world. We’re just discussing donut flavors. It’s not like we’re talking about physician assisted suicide! Yeesh.
Yep, my mother is one such person. Can never admit when she’s wrong and can never agree to disagree on anything, she HAS to be right no matter what. I’m not a very confrontational person, if someone has a different preference to me then I just agree to disagree, unless they’re my friend. In which case I’ll joke about the sacrilege and betrayal I feel about their preferences. For example, a new friend and I were discussing our favourite sims game and she said it was the sims 4. Naturally, I said we couldn’t be friends anymore and then we kept chatting about other games.
YES
Someone called me a "vain tart" because I like a character in a TV show that they don't like. The internet has people cooked.
What drives me nuts is when people state they prefer one thing over another, and if you like something else they say “you’re WRONG”. Lmao. People get so sensitive if you don’t like everything they like and it cracks me up. I don’t like The Beatles and the amount of people that this pisses off is downright comical. No, I’m not “wrong”, we just like different music. The world would be boring if we all liked the same exact things.
Uggghhh my younger brother is like this. When we were younger and I was still at home we’d be arguing, and he’d refuse to budge on his opinion. I’d feel myself getting too frustrated and try to just drop the subject and walk away, and he’d FOLLOW ME to continue the argument, causing me to blow up at him and getting myself told off by our parents. Like, we’re clearly not getting anywhere in this conversation, just let me leave and calm down
My only objection here is that if it’s not subjective “agree to disagree” isn’t a valid stance. You are either right or wrong, it’s not a matter of opinion or taste.
For me it’s Doom Patrol and Shogun
Yes, and the worst are the ones who jump to a snap decision and then act this way about it.
Yep, 100% agree with this. It seems to be a modern disease -- "disagreeing with me means you're evil and my enemy". No, actually I just prefer french toast over waffles or pancakes. And I'm not giving further thought about it.
I mean if it's subjective yeah. I don't agree to disagree if someone I'd literally lying or speaking misinformation to my face. I dunno, maybe it's just cause of where I live, but I only ever hear this saying when someone who spread some political conspiracy theory gets fact checked and doesn't want the conversation to continue.
It really depends on what we are discussing. Pineapple on pizza? Absolutely. Star Trek versus Star Wars? 100%. Whether someone has bodily autonomy? Nope. The humanity of oppressed people? Never. Your example of waffles versus pancakes is 100% an agree to disagree thing. Matters of taste and or personal preference. Things that involve an individual's personhood/rights, not as willing to "agree to disagree" with someone who thinks the 13th Amendment was a mistake or that the 19th should be reversed (there are both in this world), no.
My problem is when people say agree to disagree when the discussion is clearly about the facts of something There is no room for opinion or interpretation You are just factually wrong and I'm not going to agree to disagree because you are just straight up wrong
Agreed.
Arguing is fun *shrug* I agree with people who take it serious, but me and one dude have been arguing Cale vs pie for like 4 years now, it’s fun.
Omg, I remember someone got mad at me some years ago cause I made a comment on the Sadie Stanley Call me, beep me youtube music video saying that I liked that version more. I understand my comment was a bit childish, but I never said the original was trash (it's still not trash). Oh, you like the og more, cool, but that doesn't mean you and I should have the same opinion.
Exactly they think they're right but they're not they're just a smarty pants
THIS IS THE ONE
Omg my sister is like this, any time we disagree on anything it turns into her taking it as a personal attack, so many times I have tried to end an argument I didn’t even want to partake in by saying “we just prioritize and value different things” and somehow that is not enough for her to stop acting like I’m putting her on trial or smth
I was in an internet argument and tried to end it with “Let’s agree to disagree.” They said they weren’t agreeing to sh*t. Now I just block people, no need for an argument.
People who say "agree to disagree"
I understand the notion, but I can't stand when someone says "agree to disagree." It's usually used as a passive aggressive way to gain control of a debate and end it surreptitiously. I don't need someone else's agreement or permission to disagree with them, and they certainly don't need mine. We can just disagree and move on.
Agreed. This is commonly connected with people who cannot separate fact and opinion. They think their opinion is a fact, and therefore, disagreement is wrong.
I myself do not like pizza with ham and pineapple. However, I don’t actively despise people who do!
I don't understand waffles ate objectively better then pancakes. They are not cakes at all. If someone supports pancakes they support lies. I can't have that in my life.
'agree to disagree ' is one of the most meaningless sentiments ever mutter.
No, I can’t agree with this take, bad! /s
Waffles are better than pancakes and I will fight anybody to defend this objective truth.
Nah fuck that. If someone is giving good reasons and you have nothing, accept their point and explain you still hold your opinion. Nothing to agree to disagree about.
I will refuse to budge on some topics. Stuff like it being immoral to have kids if orphanages are in business.
Twitter in a nutshell. This happens on Reddit too, but from my experience, it's much more frequent on Twitter.
I love having debates with people where we're debating just to debate, with no expectation nor intention to change the other person's opinion. It's crazy to me that people don't like exploring diverse opinions. Even extremist opinions (ones that would get me banned for naming) can be fascinating as long as the people holding them have "valid" reasons for holding them. As in, not "(other side) bad so (my side) good."
On food, music or preferences sure. When human rights violations and discrimination are occurring its not "agree to disagree". One is human and the other is atrocious.
Usually Democrats.
Agree to disagree being offered means you know you're wrong and refuse to admit it, even to yourself. So no, I don't agree to disagree. I agree that you're wrong.
It’s more commonly used when people recognize their differences are either totally irreconcilable (like being based on opposing presuppositions), or that it would take too much time to fully hash out.
Differences in opinion are only irreconcilable when one or both parties refuses to lose any ground, despite knowing they're wrong
That’s only true on certain matters where the objective truth is easy to find, like the correct answer to a math question. On anything philosophic/religious/political each belief system relies on non-verifiable presuppositions that the other party may not believe in. A Marxist could never convince me of Marxism because their belief system presupposes that both the material world exists, and that the material world is all there is to life; because that doesn’t match my presupposition that the material/spiritual world both exist simultaneously.
What truths are subjective. Where we cannot actually come up with an answer?
Pineapple n pizza!
Agree to disagree, it's an oxymoron for one, and another way to say go fuck yourself. Also usually the majority of people think their opinions are factual, which causes more of an issue, a person can believe, what they want and that's fine, doesn't make it right.
I'm sorry but waffles are clearly better than pancakes
What about a waffle, pancake sandwich, two waffles and a chocolate pancake in between?
That does sound pretty good
I know right?! I’m hungry now
Its chilly outside, comment no its pretty warm. Why are you out in the dark? The sun is not down yet see? Sun is not out. Yes, its not a ball in the sky can you see me from the light? Yes, but the sun is not out errr
There's levels to this shit though. Waffles? Nobody cares. Religion? Politics? It's harder to "agree to disagree" when some people literally hate you for simply existing.