PDA

View Full Version : Don't Fucking Agree With Me.



Sidewinder
12-10-2009, 03:58 AM
Don't do it.

When having any type of semi-intelligent (or fully intelligent; what have you) conversation, the worst possible thing one can do is agree. I don't want you to agree with me. If I wanted you to agree with me, I'd make a blog post then brag about how right I am.

A conversation is a two sided exchange of words. Two sides, implying more than one point of view, even if it's just form the other side of the lunch table. I want to be stimulated. I want to be engaged. I do not want you to appease me. I do not want these statements to be taken as sexual innuendos.

So don't agree with me. Even if you do agree in principle, there has to be one aspect of what I'm saying that doesn't ring completely true. And on the completely minuscule chance that there isn't, then play the devil's advocate.

That is all.

WebDudette
12-10-2009, 04:07 AM
You'd love me. I play devil's advocate to myself. But yeah, I agree with you.

Sidewinder
12-10-2009, 04:56 AM
No, fuck you.

DMelges
12-10-2009, 05:04 AM
Let's agree to disagree.

nieh
12-10-2009, 05:12 AM
Let's agree to disagree.

No, I'm going to disagree with you without your consent.

DMelges
12-10-2009, 05:20 AM
No, I'm going to disagree with you without your consent.

I agree to that. We are now disagreed and we have agreed to that.

Free?
12-10-2009, 06:56 AM
Don't do it.

When having any type of semi-intelligent (or fully intelligent; what have you) conversation, the worst possible thing one can do is agree. I don't want you to agree with me. If I wanted you to agree with me, I'd make a blog post then brag about how right I am.

A conversation is a two sided exchange of words. Two sides, implying more than one point of view, even if it's just form the other side of the lunch table. I want to be stimulated. I want to be engaged. I do not want you to appease me. I do not want these statements to be taken as sexual innuendos.

So don't agree with me. Even if you do agree in principle, there has to be one aspect of what I'm saying that doesn't ring completely true. And on the completely minuscule chance that there isn't, then play the devil's advocate.

That is all.

This is so wrong. I can't recall many long enough posts of yours that had variety of points big enough not to completely agree/disagree with, usually you just drop a dry one-liner which doesn't leave others any real alternative, other than to fully agree or disagree. So if you're putting yourself like that, stick it on your sticky forehead to water down your posts and give us some space for arguing on your opinions.
Here you go.

Sidewinder
12-10-2009, 07:17 AM
Clarification since you obviously missed the point:

I'm not talking about the board specifically. I didn't say, "Don't fucking agree with me, fellow BBSers." The understood subject was the entire population of everyone ever.

Also, I could post "Blah blah blah" for every single one of my posts and still have some of the more intelligent contributions here, so don't try to pull that.

WebDudette
12-10-2009, 07:32 AM
In all seriousness though, I understand what you are saying, but you can't expect everyone to argue for the sake of arguing. It takes a certain type of person to do that. Unless of course you are talking about sponge-esque people, people who will just agree with you for attention. I fucking despise that pathetic shit. Though I don't see any reason why two people can't have a discussion about something they genuinely agree on.

I knew this didn't apply to the forum, but I have to ask, what initially sparked this rant?

Free?
12-10-2009, 07:38 AM
I doubt that we'll (at least 99% of folks here) have a chance to meet you anywhere else than this bbs, so I assumed that's the place you were talking about. But if it's a cry to the whole world, then it's a good way to turn this discussion to.*

And I'm not saying that your posts aren't intelligent, I'm just merely stating that your usual posts are short and there are no sub-aspects, just dry statements that leave no room for any partial disagreement, it's either fully agree or don't.

*So you basically want everybody everywhere you'll ever meet to disagree with you, even if you're absolutely right and the only way to keep the fight against you is using invalid arguments?

Sidewinder
12-10-2009, 07:41 AM
Firstly, I'm just generally talking about people who agree without thinking of an issue from different perspectives. For instance, when talking with a friend about a reading for our philosophy class, his response to my critique of the writing was, "Yeah, that's basically what I got out of it." I would have at least said something like, "Yeah, I pretty much agree, though I suppose you could also see it this way." That sort of thing. That's at least a discussion.

Secondly, I'm in the middle of writing a paper, which means drifting in and out of thought, which means thinking of things that annoy me.

Free?
12-10-2009, 07:52 AM
Ohshit, I'm starting to agree with you, I'd better leave.

Epic quote for post scriptum:

I cannot disagree with you...so I agree 100%.

WebDudette
12-10-2009, 08:19 AM
Free?, do you truly support everything you are claiming, or are you just playing a poor devil's advocate?

Obviously, if Alec says 'Hey, I quite like this band.' and someone else says 'Yeah, me too.' he isn't going to be pissed off or upset about it. But I understand where he is coming from, concerning conversations. Do you really want to attempt an in depth and intellectual conversation with someone, when after getting your point across and giving your opinion on the subject their only reply is 'yeah, I agree'?

Sidewinder
12-10-2009, 08:28 AM
Obviously, if Alec says 'Hey, I quite like this band.'

Dude, that band totally blows. I'd never say that.

coke_a_holic
12-10-2009, 09:29 AM
No way, man, that band totally rules. Fuck off.

ad8
12-10-2009, 09:49 AM
Don't do it.

When having any type of semi-intelligent (or fully intelligent; what have you) conversation, the worst possible thing one can do is agree. I don't want you to agree with me. If I wanted you to agree with me, I'd make a blog post then brag about how right I am.

A conversation is a two sided exchange of words. Two sides, implying more than one point of view, even if it's just form the other side of the lunch table. I want to be stimulated. I want to be engaged. I do not want you to appease me. I do not want these statements to be taken as sexual innuendos.

So don't agree with me. Even if you do agree in principle, there has to be one aspect of what I'm saying that doesn't ring completely true. And on the completely minuscule chance that there isn't, then play the devil's advocate.

That is all.
But what if someone explained something just right and everything about it seems true to the conversation partner? I think he should rather agree with him than make up some stupid alternative opinion.
So I actually disagree with you. Happy now?;)

Free?
12-10-2009, 09:57 AM
Free?, do you truly support everything you are claiming, or are you just playing a poor devil's advocate?

Obviously, if Alec says 'Hey, I quite like this band.' and someone else says 'Yeah, me too.' he isn't going to be pissed off or upset about it. But I understand where he is coming from, concerning conversations. Do you really want to attempt an in depth and intellectual conversation with someone, when after getting your point across and giving your opinion on the subject their only reply is 'yeah, I agree'?

I was just doing what he asked for in this thread ('s title). 'Twas cool to find a solid backbone to build this on, so by calling it acting a poor devil's advocate for the most part you are correct, even though I don't see how my points were invalid and I still think they hit the spot (at first, however, I thought this thread was dedicated to the forum's criticism, Sidewinder did that quite a few times). I'm also not that kind of guy who's gonna defend his points until oblivion, when I feel that arguing came to its end, I'll just end arguing. Don't take it like a runaway, once he answered clearly and satisfied my needs, there's nothing left to argue about. I totally feel for him and agree about situations he described in the first post.
But hey, we're not allowed to agree here.

Apathy
12-10-2009, 10:21 AM
Why must everything be meaningful conversation? Most of the world is not meaningful and most of the world's inhabitants are entirely the opposite, that is, meaningless and you can't really expect them to always have something meaningful to say.

Not to mention that if you are correct in your assessment, and given that you are arguing for it you probably believe it is correct, then the smartest thing a person could do is agree, unless it is indeed a philosophical argument in which a correct answer is hard to come by.

Simply put, the world is not an episode of Gilmore Girls. People do not just spew witty phrases back at one another without even having time to think about their next witty comment. The real world is not like this because 80% of the conversation you have in your real life is going to be made up of something like the following:

"So, uhh. You wanna go somewhere."
"Eh. I don't know. I mean, yeah, but I don't know what to do"
"Yeah. How about we go to PetCo and bang on the fishtanks"
"We did that yesterday."
"Oh yeah. Never mind."

You just need to accept that some people are agreeing with you because they either don't care what you're talking about and want you to shut up or because they really feel that you are correct.

T-6005
12-10-2009, 10:54 AM
A conversation is a two-sided exchange of words, it's true. It's not necessarily a polarized argument.

Don't worry, I won't appease you. But that's mostly because you're wrong. It's possible to reach stimulating discussion from a position of agreement. In fact, there's a possibility for further expansion if you agree, which might be what you meant. There's no reason to lock horns at the slightest sign of turbulence, and there are several reasons for that.

First of all, by forcing everything into a polarized 'you vs. me' debate it's far too easy to shove your opponent onto looser ground for no reason, especially when you're looking for a devil's advocate. This tendency will make you die friendless and alone.

Secondly, in approaching conversation as essentially an endless argument you're bounding off concepts one they stop being useful to you in that argument. There's no progression in that approach, since your use of the concept (and thus the possibilities it holds for even more complex thoughts) vanishes once your conversation is over. This tendency will make you die stupid.

And finally, it's tiring to argue all the time. Sometimes I just want to have a beer with another anthropology student and laugh about how Malinowski framed himself in his photos. No need for disagreement, it really is ridiculous. This tendency will make you into a really annoying person to be around.

http://palimpsestes2.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/malinov.jpg

You disagree? Please.

Apathy
12-10-2009, 11:13 AM
I was waiting for someone to come in and say he should spent his life with llamas, and then I saw the tag.

Sidewinder
12-10-2009, 12:15 PM
I'm not promoting argument. I'm promoting the idea that one should not simply accept what someone else says without anything to add.

The agreement leading to expansion is in a sense a non-agreement since every time something is suggested, it is technically not the same as the original proposal. There is definitely a difference between not agreeing and arguing. I am promoting the "not agree," not the "argue."

It's almost a call to for people to think independently. If in fact you are in complete agreement with something, then say why. The possible differences leading to the same conclusion are non-agreement until the end. "Yeah, I agree" is just simply one of the most annoying phrases if not given a background.

WebDudette
12-10-2009, 07:50 PM
Almost as bad as 'that's just like, your opinion man'. Yeah, I fucking know, that is why I stated it.

But I know exactly what you are talking about, I didn't get the impression that you were supporting argument so much as you where supporting something other then a one sided discussion. Talking to someone as opposed to talking at someone.

XYlophonetreeZ
12-10-2009, 09:33 PM
I've kindled some of my best friendships by uniting in a stance of agreement against third parties. There are more than two players in a conversation; there's also the shit you're talking about in addition to the two people talking. You don't have to bitch about why the person you're talking to is wrong, just bitch about other stuff. There's really no difference other than there's less tension. Your arguments will be stronger for the future. Why? Well, do you believe what you believe for only one reason? Likely no. You believe it for a lot of reasons. Only people who agree with you can open your eyes to believe it for even more reasons.

I get what you're saying about constant agreement stymying discussion, and I agree (lolz). That's sorta why I hate talking to people in the South. It's sort of the culture down here to agree, and people are likely to take shit personally if you disagree. In the North people will call you a "fawkin' moron" to your face and still be your lifelong friend. But the reason he's your friend in the first place is because he agrees with your general view on a lot of stuff.

sKratch
12-10-2009, 10:29 PM
You'd love me. I play devil's advocate to myself. But yeah, I agree with you.

I looooooooove playing devil's advocate and everyone thinks I'm taking a stance that I really believe in. It's a little frustrating but I like poking holes in arguments that I agree with.


As far as the original post is concerned, the drunker I am the more likely I am to say I agree with bullshit but then I say "but [insert thing that completely disagrees]".

Vera
12-10-2009, 11:16 PM
I'm with Thibault. My best conversations haven't been about arduous disagreements, or even partial disagreements, but basically displays of stuff both parties have thought about but haven't necessarily had the opportunity to air with one another. You can have an incredibly meaningful and deep and multisided conversation by just finding out what somebody else thinks about an issue, and explaining why you agree, and having them bounce off your ideas. (I recently had a discussion like this about Climategate with a former uni friend of mine.)

I had some really great chats about issues of social justice with Ricardo a long while back that had us both in agreement but me basically phrasing thoughts that had been mulling in my head for a while but nobody really to discuss them with. He on the other hand had clearly been discussing and thinking these issues a lot throughout his life, so it was a good discussion, though with no strands of disagreement running through i.

I'm sometimes disgusted by people who debate things for the sake of a debate. It's not about the fucking rhetoric to me, it's not about having an argument. It's about the issue at hand.

However I would agree that people who agree with you just to NOT have a debate and state their real opinions, that is really annoying. Like if you ask them why they agree and they can't really give you a proper explanation, or you say something indicating you disagree with something they just said, and they instantly backpedal "no you're right, I agree" even though they're just saying that for show and don't TRULY agree, that fucking pisses me off.

But a conversation carried out in agreement can be better than an artificial argument/debate, surely.

sKratch
12-10-2009, 11:32 PM
Don't believe a word Ricardo says. It's tainted by blackness.

WebDudette
12-10-2009, 11:49 PM
I looooooooove playing devil's advocate and everyone thinks I'm taking a stance that I really believe in. It's a little frustrating but I like poking holes in arguments that I agree with.


As far as the original post is concerned, the drunker I am the more likely I am to say I agree with bullshit but then I say "but [insert thing that completely disagrees]".

Honestly, I've got to the point where I am trying to cut back on my devil's advocate and argumentativeness in general. It is getting to the point where it is general pissing some people off how argumentative I am. Especially when I am drunk, I have a tendency to argue shit to the death, though people generally understand when I am arguing a point I truly believe in and when I am playing devil's advocate.

Harleyquiiinn
12-11-2009, 01:11 AM
Sometime, when I say "yeah, I agree with you" without adding anything, it means "I don't care"