I have indeed been accused when I didn't agree with the objective harm caused. Thankfully, I typically didn't further escalate the situation and act like a jerk

I have indeed been accused when I didn't agree with the objective harm caused. Thankfully, I typically didn't further escalate the situation and act like a jerk by denying their perception of the issue. Just because you don't immediately mount a fiery defense doesn't mean that you own their position, their feelings, or have to agree with them. This is emotional intelligence 101. Typically a quiet, non-escalated discussion can help both parties feel better, clear up misunderstandings, and if apologies are merited (even from the initial accuser) they can be had. But only if you don't get someone's hackles up in the first place, or deny their right to air a grievance. Again, the fact that you are already considering it a contest to be won or lost (or avoided immediately without discussion, which is a sure indicator to folks how much you don't care) probably says a lot about the lens you view the world through. Referencing the connotation means that there is a general accepted usage, which is not the hyperbolic "didn't absolutely agree with their grievance" that the original post I replied to was making. In general terms, I think it has come to include unconscious manipulation in addition to the previous, narrow definition of conscious, machiavellian attempts to dispute concrete facts.