The last resort of the empowered

May 02 2016 Published by under #FWDAOTI, Debate and Discussion

They know they are wrong. The arguments on both sides have clarified the discussion and pointed the finger clearly at the powerful, the entitled, the entrenched and the beneficiaries. 
In desperation they pull their imagined trump card.

 "We can agree to disagree"

No, we really can't. 

13 responses so far

  • baltogirl says:

    I am by no means powerful, entitled, entrenched or a beneficiary of those who are, but I have used this language to avoid disagreeable confrontation in areas in which I clearly hold a very different view than the person I am discussing an issue with (in some cases you, dm) when no movement appears possible.
    So, what do you suggest as an alternative- and why do you jump to the conclusion that all who use this phrase fall into the categories above?
    And no, I do not "know I am wrong". (?!)

    There is some hidden agenda here that I seem to be unaware of...

  • dr24 says:

    Someone said they prefer "Agree to disengage".

    But I wonder, DM, if you cannot agree to disagree, then by what measure do you propose creating and enforcing an agreement?

  • zb says:

    "what measure do you propose creating and enforcing an agreement?"

    complete disengagement? social ostracization? changing the laws? insurrection? armed insurrection?

    Each of them can be a viable option

    There are some things we can simply agree to disagree on (whether mushrooms are disgusting, whether long hair is more attractive, whether handwriting should be taught in schools, whether Reuters is right to accept only SOOC JPEG files, . . . )

    But there are also things that we can't just agree to disagree on.
    I like the change to "agree to disengage".

  • Laffer says:

    Yeah, I'm usually in the weaker position when I pull this out.... Usually in deference to authority.

  • drugmonkey says:

    "enforcing" dr24? don't be silly. you can't "enforce" thought.

  • baltogirl says:

    what is your alternative action or phrasing ?
    If I have failed to convince you of the logic of my position, what do you suggest I do besides politely withdraw?

  • dr24 says:

    Well then, DM, if there's no enforcement, you've just agreed to disagree, de facto.

  • Dave says:

    I prefer the phrase, let's agree that you agree with me:

  • dr24 says:

    I always say, "Let's agree to agree that you're wrong."

  • mH says:

    Let's disagree that we agreed.

  • neuromusic says:

    The one time I was happy with this phrase was when a fellow juror wanted to wrap up the deliberations of our split jury.

  • Noni Mausa says:

    I dislike that phrase too. It reminds me of another stinker, "Let's put that behind us and move forward." It is generally uttered by a transgressor to his victim, to shed blame and convince the victim to take another good-faith kick at the football.

  • Samia says:

    Makes me think of homophobes and transphobes who will express disagreement with the fact of someone's very existence and then insist everybody "agree to disagree" with them. Like actually how about you agree to eat a bag of dicks and I'll be over here enjoying the rest of my damn day.

    I hate that this term is commonly thought of as a polite way to put a matter to rest because the way it's often deployed is passive-aggressive as fuck. It pressures us to accept that "all beliefs are equal" BS. In the case of women, who are socially conditioned to care about getting along with 100% of humanity, the pressure to cave to this kind of fake compromise increases.

    I have definitely said, "I don't see it that way, but I think I can understand your point of view." And in less formal situations: "Nah bro"

Leave a Reply