4 ms·
Offtopic: I loathe it when people project agreement on their "opponent" like this: "We believe you will agree [you shouldn't use our slogan]". If he agreed, he
by relix 13y ago
Offtopic: I loathe it when people project agreement on their "opponent" like this: "We believe you will agree [you shouldn't use our slogan]". If he agreed, he wouldn't have used that statement in the first place.
I've had it a few times where people who disagreed with something I wrote or did start their statement with "Surely you understand that [you shouldn't do what you did]". No, surely I don't, that's the reason we have this disagreement in the first place.
- fluidcruft 13y agoYou should appreciate that you loathe it because it's effective.
- ganeumann 13y agoEdit: "I am sure you appreciate that you loathe it because it's effective."
- zipppy 13y agoReminds me of this: "I don't disgree, but..." and then they go on to disagree.
- jdmichal 13y agoEverything before "but" is a lie!
- wtvanhest 13y agoI also loathe it when people project agreement on the person they are arguing with. I do not think it is lost on you or I that it is an effective tactic to quickly find where the common ground and the real differences are in a set of beliefs or arguments.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago> I do not think it is lost on you or I that... I believe you will agree that this is just another way of saying, "I believe you will agree that..." Also I'm confused about the disagreement between your first sentence and your second one. I think you're saying that it's effective but that you loathe it nevertheless.
- skore 13y agoI'm going to call Poe's law on your comment - the one before was pretty clearly joking.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoWell I'm calling Poe's law on the one before. I had no idea that was joking.
- wtvanhest 13y agoIt was definitely a joke. It was hard to craft it in a way that wasn't 100% obvious though.
- SkyMarshal 13y agoIt's just a mind game man, they're trying to frame the reality of the situation and get you to consciously or subconsciously comply with that framing. A form of reality distortion zone if you will. There are ways to combat it, one of which is to mirror their language back at them. Another is simply to be completely non-reactive emotionally and completely non-compliant.
- dkrich 13y agoThe worst is ending a dispute by saying "Thank you for understanding."
- foobarbazqux 13y agoFor reference, the quote was: > We believe you will agree that it is undesirable for our companies to make simultaneous use of "the real thing" in connection with our respective products. I read that like Coke thought the publisher didn't necessarily realize there was a dual usage of the slogan, and that once they did they would immediately agree with the only obvious conclusion which is that it's bad for business. And if the publisher did previously realize, this is simply pointing out that they were acting in bad faith with respect to Coke and stupidly with respect to themselves. And of course the publisher's reply was that they weren't competing in the same market and therefore there was no confusion over the slogan. Not sure if it was a trademark, but that's how trademark law works today. In fact Coke is required to defend its trademarks. In summary, someone who does something you don't like doesn't necessarily do so because they consciously disagree with your position. Hanlon's razor, more or less. I agree that depending on the circumstances, meta-language about the argument being had is a kind of bullying - "Let's be reasonable about this." - but it also hints as to the weakness of the bully's position.
- benched 13y agoEven more egregious: "We appreciate your cooperation and your assurance that you will discontinue the use of 'It's the real thing.'"