I've been in plenty of conversations where someone has said literally "I disagree" to an idea or opinion being forwarded. It's not done rudely and it seems perfectly normal to say you disagree with something someone said as long as you have the consideration to explain why and be open to them responding to your opinion. I would find it more weaselly, disingenuous, or even offensive if someone didn't agree with something but pretended they did and then began underhandedly attacking the position.
Respectfully, people who disagree with you might have valid reasons for doing so. It's incurious to remove their agency by ascribing ulterior motives to them.
Maybe you'd have more friends if you could recognize that you're impugning someone's integrity by claiming they could only hold an opinion if they had ulterior motives that they aren't being forthcoming about.
If you disagree with someone, the right thing to do is to put forward your own side of the argument. It isn't polite to simply disregard what someone says because of your conceptions about where that belief is coming from.
Even if you believe it to be true, starting the conversation by telling people that their opinions are illegitimate is a bad first step when asking them to do something.
If you flat out tell someone they're wrong, you've lost the chance to change their opinion. They'll get defensive because you appeared to give no consideration to their opinion, and they'll disregard anything you say in return.
Seems to me like it's a matter of gauging the other person's willingness to change their mind (an admittedly difficult task in itself). If there is no argument or evidence that you could present which would be good enough to do so, the entire conversation seems to be pointless and it's probably best to just walk away. If they are in fact open to being proven wrong, doing so politely may still not work (i.e. they may be able to counter any point you make), but the odds are better than if one does so rudely. All other things being equal, we're more likely to be persuaded by someone we like (or at least are neutral toward) than someone we dislike.
> Maybe the mistakes done by the speaker were too great to be ignored
Still not appropriate behavior. Ideally, you bring up your point, have a brief discussion, and then, if you still feel the speaker is wrong, you take it offline. You don't have to pretend to agree with him or her -- you can say, "Well, I disagree, but let's talk more about it when you're done."
What I did after having argued several times is to straight up let them know that this isn’t true, told one or two examples on why these arguments are fake most of the time and that if they want to find arguments against it, that they would find some. Then I stop talking about such topics with them.
In my opinion, it‘s just not worth after having spent some time trying to discuss it with them. Especially when they don’t provide any backed arguments but just „random“ statements
You can write all you want, but outright nullifying someones argument with "Well, this is obviously wrong." immediately inspires resentment and you've already lost their interest.
It's very appropriate to call someone out on their actions if they are completely inconsistent with what they are claiming to value whenever it stops being useful to them. This isn't a scoring panel for high school speech and debate class.
I guess I either assume they're sincere, or if not then they should at least be aware enough to realize that it's a bad argument. I realize this assumption may not be very well supported, but it can be hard to adjust.
I agree that such people exist. Avoid them if possible. (I'm pretty sure I don't need to tell you that!) If not, then (in my best moments) I try to disengage quickly, making it clear that I think that they are wrong, but I'm not going to continue to argue with someone who just wants to argue.
This has the virtue of not giving them the victory that they wanted. Even if they take the last word, it's usually pretty clear to an unbiased reader what was going on. I'm (at least sometimes) content to leave it there, and to let the reader judge.
Really disliking an opinion is not proof that they've been dishonest.
reply