Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

progressoid

(49,644 posts)
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 05:23 PM Mar 2016

"We'll have to agree to disagree"

Ugh, I hate that thought-terminating cliché.

Here's what happened. I just had a small interchange with someone on Facebook who I knew in high school. I was aware he was a right winger (not uncommon in the area where I grew up). Turns out he's also a climate denier. So he posted some stupid meme about Al Gore and the ice caps. After politely (really, I was polite) showing him more rational alternatives to bat-shit-crazy conspiracy nonsense he posted, he knew he was out of comebacks and said, "We'll have to agree to disagree."



Actually, he did have one little tidbit to add. He said he would have to agree with me because he didn't want to get hauled off to jail by Loretta Lynch. I had to look that one up. According to Breitbart, the US AG is going to prosecute climate deniers.

Really. It was the fourth story down on Google news about Loretta Lynch https://www.google.com/search?q=Loretta+Lynch&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Loretta+Lynch&safe=off&tbm=nws




He'll likely be posting some of the same bullshit again. Time to remove another from my friend list I guess.



9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"We'll have to agree to disagree" (Original Post) progressoid Mar 2016 OP
I've heard the latest thing with those on the wrong side of this issue is... Tobin S. Mar 2016 #1
Yep, I've heard the "it's cyclical" or even "solar flares" excuse. progressoid Mar 2016 #4
We won't have to end capitalism. trotsky Mar 2016 #7
I guess so. Archae Mar 2016 #2
Got a couple of those in my family too. progressoid Mar 2016 #5
No. Never. It's bait. INSTEAD: "Let's agree THAT we disagree." Festivito Mar 2016 #3
Ha! progressoid Mar 2016 #6
It is the Deniers who are going legal on the Climate Scientists. yellowcanine May 2016 #8
Aw jeez, progressoid May 2016 #9

Tobin S.

(10,418 posts)
1. I've heard the latest thing with those on the wrong side of this issue is...
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 06:36 PM
Mar 2016

that they no longer deny global warming and climate change. The evidence is becoming too overwhelming to deny. What they now argue is that humans are not the driving force behind global warming. It's a natural fluctuation that we can't do anything about.

Here's the root of the problem. To successfully combat global warming we will have to totally change the world economy and the way we live. It pretty much means the end of capitalism. Unfortunately, we have to pit the fate of the planet against the pocket books of the global elite. Currently, money is winning.

I think the people like you describe in your post actually have Stockholm syndrome. That is, unless he's some billionaire or world leader.

progressoid

(49,644 posts)
4. Yep, I've heard the "it's cyclical" or even "solar flares" excuse.
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 11:51 PM
Mar 2016

And this guy is hardly a billionaire or world leader. Just a typical right wing tool.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
7. We won't have to end capitalism.
Mon Mar 14, 2016, 09:10 AM
Mar 2016

We just need to change how we get our energy, and stop polluting. It can be done.

Archae

(46,198 posts)
2. I guess so.
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 06:40 PM
Mar 2016

I had a former neighbor move to Louisiana, and she fell in with a crowd of far-right truckers.

Any and every anti-Obama rumor she would send to my e-mail.

progressoid

(49,644 posts)
5. Got a couple of those in my family too.
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 11:57 PM
Mar 2016

What I don't get is if they send those emails just to provoke a response, or if they actually think we would be swayed by it.

Occasionally I will reply. But I've found that you can't mention Snopes. They think Snopes is in on it.

Festivito

(13,452 posts)
3. No. Never. It's bait. INSTEAD: "Let's agree THAT we disagree."
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 07:14 PM
Mar 2016

Agreeing to disagree elevates disagreement as closure, an end. It's not.

Agreeing that we disagree is to say that we both acknowledge hearing each others ideas.

And, it provokes the idea that we need to identify that disagreement.

That's why Republicans use the wrong form. It is designed to let them run and hide from the truth rather than dealing with truth. They want to run back to their authority figures on radio and Fox listening to lengthy half-truths and rolling lists of unfinished unchallenged attacks. Attacks that make them feel powerful until they realize that they cannot answer challenges except by changing the topic quickly over and over again. Or, by invoking a false ending.

progressoid

(49,644 posts)
6. Ha!
Mon Mar 14, 2016, 12:14 AM
Mar 2016

I'm not sure he would understand the difference.

Yes, in fact, he did run back to some crackpot website to get another false right wing talking point. I'm done with him.



progressoid

(49,644 posts)
9. Aw jeez,
Wed May 11, 2016, 12:23 AM
May 2016
"The university had to raise nearly $600,000 for legal fees — money the cash-strapped university should have been able to use for something productive."

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience»"We'll have to agree to d...