I was once, years and years ago, falsely accused by someone of egregious dishonesty, and after I put forward evidence that the accusation was false, was told, “Let’s just agree to disagree.” At which, of course, I exploded; I would not be agreeing to disagree about whether I had been completely dishonest, thank you very much. And every time someone uses the phrase I am tempted to say, “We don’t need to agree to disagree because we already are disagreeing.” I think what gets me is that it’s such an unbelievably low standard that almost anything would be more intellectually robust; why not agree to something more ambitiously intellectual, like swapping book recommendations, or having a temporary cooling-off period, or going to a third party for arbitration or advice, or anything else, really?
I thought that “agree to disagree” had become a fixed expression meaning something like “stop discussing this for now even though we don’t agree, because we have more productive things to do/talk about”.
Not really. I usually see it used more as “I think you’re an idiot, but don’t want to bother explaining why, so let’s talk about / do something else instead.”
I believe the most appropriate corresponding expression is that the disagreement is “swept under the rug”.
Brandon Watson.
I thought that “agree to disagree” had become a fixed expression meaning something like “stop discussing this for now even though we don’t agree, because we have more productive things to do/talk about”.
Yes, but understanding that makes it harder to get annoyed at people.
Not really. I usually see it used more as “I think you’re an idiot, but don’t want to bother explaining why, so let’s talk about / do something else instead.”
I believe the most appropriate corresponding expression is that the disagreement is “swept under the rug”.