Started by Jason Gonzalez7 · · 👁 5 views · 32 replies
Morgan Chase5 said:The concept of "accepting" differing opinions... I just can't wrap my head around it. It feels fundamentally wrong.
Previously, I used to tell myself: fine, I accept that you hold a different perspective than mine.
ironmarlin1 said:It’s likely just a matter of tolerance. Essentially, you disagree with someone’s take, but you don't go looking to punish them or ban their speech. Let there be a thousand different flowers blooming.
Nicholas Gonzalez8 said:What does "accepting different opinions" even mean?
Look, it should basically mean letting people think what they want without immediately jumping down their throats just because they don't see eye-to-eye with you—or anyone else, for that matter. You don't need to be on the exact same wavelength to have a productive conversation. It’s enough to just accept people for who they are, and yeah, that includes the way their brains work.
You can almost always squeeze some kind of lesson out of someone else's perspective. For example: "I believe X, you believe Y, and honestly, that’s fine. We can talk about it, but we don't need to spend all day trying to force the other person to admit we're right. Though, that one little point you made? That's actually pretty interesting—I might have to look into that more."
The hardest part of accepting different views is definitely for those folks who walk around thinking they're the ultimate authority on everything. We really need to keep an open mind—especially when it comes to the possibility that we might actually be wrong ourselves.What counts as a "different" opinion? Does it mean it looks similar or different, but it's never actually "wrong" or "right"?Is a "wrong" opinion still an opinion?
Actually, the better question is: "What makes an opinion wrong?" Different people perceive the exact same situations through totally different lenses. Very often, one person sees one slice of reality while someone else is looking at a completely different slice of that same reality. Even if they're staring at the exact same thing, there's no guarantee they'll interpret it the same way. That doesn't necessarily mean one view is "correct" and the other is "incorrect."
MY TAKE: Don't go judging different ways of thinking. Learn from them and share your own thoughts, but try not to turn every conversation into a mission to convert everyone else to your side.
Nicholas Gonzalez8 said:What does "accepting different opinions" even mean?
Look, it should basically mean letting people think what they want without immediately jumping down their throats just because they don't see eye-to-eye with you—or anyone else, for that matter. You don't need to be on the exact same wavelength to have a productive conversation. It’s enough to just accept people for who they are, and yeah, that includes the way their brains work.
You can almost always squeeze some kind of lesson out of someone else's perspective. For example: "I believe X, you believe Y, and honestly, that’s fine. We can talk about it, but we don't need to spend all day trying to force the other person to admit we're right. Though, that one little point you made? That's actually pretty interesting—I might have to look into that more."
The hardest part of accepting different views is definitely for those folks who walk around thinking they're the ultimate authority on everything. We really need to keep an open mind—especially when it comes to the possibility that we might actually be wrong ourselves.What counts as a "different" opinion? Does it mean it looks similar or different, but it's never actually "wrong" or "right"?Is a "wrong" opinion still an opinion?
Actually, the better question is: "What makes an opinion wrong?" Different people perceive the exact same situations through totally different lenses. Very often, one person sees one slice of reality while someone else is looking at a completely different slice of that same reality. Even if they're staring at the exact same thing, there's no guarantee they'll interpret it the same way. That doesn't necessarily mean one view is "correct" and the other is "incorrect."
MY TAKE: Don't go judging different ways of thinking. Learn from them and share your own thoughts, but try not to turn every conversation into a mission to convert everyone else to your side.
Nicholas Gonzalez8 said:What does "accepting different opinions" even mean?
Look, it should basically mean letting people think what they want without immediately jumping down their throats just because they don't see eye-to-eye with you—or anyone else, for that matter. You don't need to be on the exact same wavelength to have a productive conversation. It’s enough to just accept people for who they are, and yeah, that includes the way their brains work.
You can almost always squeeze some kind of lesson out of someone else's perspective. For example: "I believe X, you believe Y, and honestly, that’s fine. We can talk about it, but we don't need to spend all day trying to force the other person to admit we're right. Though, that one little point you made? That's actually pretty interesting—I might have to look into that more."
The hardest part of accepting different views is definitely for those folks who walk around thinking they're the ultimate authority on everything. We really need to keep an open mind—especially when it comes to the possibility that we might actually be wrong ourselves.What counts as a "different" opinion? Does it mean it looks similar or different, but it's never actually "wrong" or "right"?Is a "wrong" opinion still an opinion?
Actually, the better question is: "What makes an opinion wrong?" Different people perceive the exact same situations through totally different lenses. Very often, one person sees one slice of reality while someone else is looking at a completely different slice of that same reality. Even if they're staring at the exact same thing, there's no guarantee they'll interpret it the same way. That doesn't necessarily mean one view is "correct" and the other is "incorrect."
MY TAKE: Don't go judging different ways of thinking. Learn from them and share your own thoughts, but try not to turn every conversation into a mission to convert everyone else to your side.
Nicholas Gonzalez8 said:What does "accepting different opinions" even mean?
Look, it should basically mean letting people think what they want without immediately jumping down their throats just because they don't see eye-to-eye with you—or anyone else, for that matter. You don't need to be on the exact same wavelength to have a productive conversation. It’s enough to just accept people for who they are, and yeah, that includes the way their brains work.
You can almost always squeeze some kind of lesson out of someone else's perspective. For example: "I believe X, you believe Y, and honestly, that’s fine. We can talk about it, but we don't need to spend all day trying to force the other person to admit we're right. Though, that one little point you made? That's actually pretty interesting—I might have to look into that more."
The hardest part of accepting different views is definitely for those folks who walk around thinking they're the ultimate authority on everything. We really need to keep an open mind—especially when it comes to the possibility that we might actually be wrong ourselves.What counts as a "different" opinion? Does it mean it looks similar or different, but it's never actually "wrong" or "right"?Is a "wrong" opinion still an opinion?
Actually, the better question is: "What makes an opinion wrong?" Different people perceive the exact same situations through totally different lenses. Very often, one person sees one slice of reality while someone else is looking at a completely different slice of that same reality. Even if they're staring at the exact same thing, there's no guarantee they'll interpret it the same way. That doesn't necessarily mean one view is "correct" and the other is "incorrect."
MY TAKE: Don't go judging different ways of thinking. Learn from them and share your own thoughts, but try not to turn every conversation into a mission to convert everyone else to your side.
Jason Gonzalez7 said:So, what does tolerance actually mean? For real...
When you look at different ethnic or cultural groups just "tolerating" one another, it feels like everyone is just leaving weapons in their sheds... It’s less about actual integration and more like a frozen cold war where communities stay isolated, harboring mutual resentment while collectively rejecting the culture or the country they moved to. They call it "multiculturalism" and "tolerance," but it really just keeps everyone stuck in a state of permanent, stagnant coexistence without any real change...
What exactly is tolerance if not... Cynical... Giving up on someone else...
In the end, I feel like "progressivism" is really just smothering humanity under a sticky layer of tolerance and relativism... It levels everything out until there’s no will or character left to say: this is good, this is bad, this is right, or this is wrong...
Of course, there will always be different perspectives on certain phenomena and events, but I wonder if this level of fragmentation doesn't eventually erode the very concept of truth itself...
And since truth has become an epistemological consensus, isn't that just a direct liberal concept stemming from anti-structuralism and the '68 era of "progress"? It feels more like a historical and ideological construct than anything else...
People can be anything... they can be better or worse. What about... About the qualifications?...
Does an opinion actually have the right to qualify or rank values...
That kind of openness and humanity is beautiful, but there has to be a limit. Isn't morality itself a boundary? We eventually run into ethics... because opinion leads to... The reality of it...
Black Lives Matter "thinks" certain things, so they "do" certain things.
I agree, though we have to include the possibility of being wrong—both ourselves and others. Having a strong conviction naturally involves defending it.
To me, it feels like this whole "different opinions" cliché actually undermines people of character. It pushes those with actual convictions out of "debates" where everyone supposedly has a right to their opinion, which ends up stripping public discourse of anyone who truly has something meaningful to say...
I'm just wondering why accuracy and morality are being pushed out of conversation, if accuracy is considered "multiple" and morality is "relative"...
ironmarlin1 said:True tolerance isn't about finding common ground or actually liking how someone else chooses to live their life; it’s much more about the capacity to disagree—deeply, fundamentally—without feeling the need to step in and fix it. It is the ability to look at a worldview that you find completely objectionable and simply let it exist. That is why I find it so incredibly paradoxical when certain high-strung, pedantic liberals demand tolerance from everyone else as if it were some kind of universal mandate. In reality, what they are actually demanding is a forced consensus; they aren't asking for tolerance, they are essentially demanding that others stop disapproving of their specific set of values. If we want to be intellectually honest, what one can reasonably ask of a neighbor with opposing views isn't their active approval or even their silent agreement, but rather a sense of indifference—a quiet, respectful coexistence where my way doesn't bother you, and your way doesn't dictate mine.
The core of the issue lies in the fact that our modern notions of subjectivity were essentially forged in the West, primarily within the Protestant nations. If you look at the trajectory of social development leading up to the modern era, there are entire epochs that many people simply overlook. Take religious tolerance, for instance—it wasn't just some abstract ideal handed down from on high; it was a hard-won response to the bloody, sectarian religious wars that tore through Europe. However, one cannot simply transplant that specific solution to internal conflicts between different Christian denominations and expect it to work when dealing with large-scale immigration. I’m not suggesting we revert to draconian measures like mass deportations, but rather acknowledging that the exact same sociological formula doesn't necessarily apply to the complexities of newcomers arriving from vastly different cultural backgrounds. So, while you might be onto something regarding how the traditional "formula" of tolerance struggles to hold weight in a multicultural society, we certainly shouldn't dismiss its historical necessity as the vital mechanism that eventually stabilized the fractured landscapes of old Europe.
I found myself circling back to those concepts of subjectivity earlier, mostly because I think we often trip over the supposed contradictions inherent in tolerance. It seems like a paradox, doesn't it? On one hand, you have this tension between respecting an individual's autonomy and your own refusal to endorse their specific viewpoint. If you define tolerance as needing to simultaneously withhold approval while somehow offering recognition or validation, then—strictly speaking—true tolerance becomes a practical impossibility. It’s a logical dead end. However, I suspect we can sidestep this entire headache if we stop viewing it as a contradiction and start seeing it instead as a conflict of competing goods. Think of it this way: when we practice tolerance, we aren't actually agreeing with a position we find objectionable; rather, we are choosing to honor the fundamental autonomy of the person holding that position. In essence, what tolerance truly demands of us is the recognition that upholding human agency is, in itself, a supreme good—one that justifies our decision to disagree.
It is entirely possible to hold the view that one might personally find certain group ideologies or stances completely objectionable, yet simultaneously argue that we shouldn't be reaching for the heavy hand of federal authority to intervene in those matters. One could certainly interpret that specific brand of restraint as a form of tolerance, though I suspect that to truly justify such a limited role for the state, one first needs to embrace a foundational philosophy rooted in autonomy, individual subjectivity, and those kinds of principles.
I really don't see what the fuss is about when it comes to something being both historical and ideological. If you think about it, every single position we hold and every concept we lean on is conditioned by history; they all belong to some overarching ideology, a worldview, or some similar conceptual framework. I’m struggling to wrap my head around what exactly you mean by an "epistemological consensus." Does a consensus necessarily preclude objectivity? Or are you suggesting that a consensus rests solely on arbitrary willpower or perhaps a social contract? I don't think it has to be one or the other, because there are plenty of rationalist theories regarding the will that don't force us to abandon objectivity entirely. In fact, I'd argue it's entirely possible to weave together consensus, volition, and objectivity into a single, coherent thread.
ironmarlin1 said:True tolerance isn't about finding common ground or actually liking how someone else chooses to live their life; it’s much more about the capacity to disagree—deeply, fundamentally—without feeling the need to step in and fix it. It is the ability to look at a worldview that you find completely objectionable and simply let it exist. That is why I find it so incredibly paradoxical when certain high-strung, pedantic liberals demand tolerance from everyone else as if it were some kind of universal mandate. In reality, what they are actually demanding is a forced consensus; they aren't asking for tolerance, they are essentially demanding that others stop disapproving of their specific set of values. If we want to be intellectually honest, what one can reasonably ask of a neighbor with opposing views isn't their active approval or even their silent agreement, but rather a sense of indifference—a quiet, respectful coexistence where my way doesn't bother you, and your way doesn't dictate mine.
The core of the issue lies in the fact that our modern notions of subjectivity were essentially forged in the West, primarily within the Protestant nations. If you look at the trajectory of social development leading up to the modern era, there are entire epochs that many people simply overlook. Take religious tolerance, for instance—it wasn't just some abstract ideal handed down from on high; it was a hard-won response to the bloody, sectarian religious wars that tore through Europe. However, one cannot simply transplant that specific solution to internal conflicts between different Christian denominations and expect it to work when dealing with large-scale immigration. I’m not suggesting we revert to draconian measures like mass deportations, but rather acknowledging that the exact same sociological formula doesn't necessarily apply to the complexities of newcomers arriving from vastly different cultural backgrounds. So, while you might be onto something regarding how the traditional "formula" of tolerance struggles to hold weight in a multicultural society, we certainly shouldn't dismiss its historical necessity as the vital mechanism that eventually stabilized the fractured landscapes of old Europe.
I found myself circling back to those concepts of subjectivity earlier, mostly because I think we often trip over the supposed contradictions inherent in tolerance. It seems like a paradox, doesn't it? On one hand, you have this tension between respecting an individual's autonomy and your own refusal to endorse their specific viewpoint. If you define tolerance as needing to simultaneously withhold approval while somehow offering recognition or validation, then—strictly speaking—true tolerance becomes a practical impossibility. It’s a logical dead end. However, I suspect we can sidestep this entire headache if we stop viewing it as a contradiction and start seeing it instead as a conflict of competing goods. Think of it this way: when we practice tolerance, we aren't actually agreeing with a position we find objectionable; rather, we are choosing to honor the fundamental autonomy of the person holding that position. In essence, what tolerance truly demands of us is the recognition that upholding human agency is, in itself, a supreme good—one that justifies our decision to disagree.
It is entirely possible to hold the view that one might personally find certain group ideologies or stances completely objectionable, yet simultaneously argue that we shouldn't be reaching for the heavy hand of federal authority to intervene in those matters. One could certainly interpret that specific brand of restraint as a form of tolerance, though I suspect that to truly justify such a limited role for the state, one first needs to embrace a foundational philosophy rooted in autonomy, individual subjectivity, and those kinds of principles.
I really don't see what the fuss is about when it comes to something being both historical and ideological. If you think about it, every single position we hold and every concept we lean on is conditioned by history; they all belong to some overarching ideology, a worldview, or some similar conceptual framework. I’m struggling to wrap my head around what exactly you mean by an "epistemological consensus." Does a consensus necessarily preclude objectivity? Or are you suggesting that a consensus rests solely on arbitrary willpower or perhaps a social contract? I don't think it has to be one or the other, because there are plenty of rationalist theories regarding the will that don't force us to abandon objectivity entirely. In fact, I'd argue it's entirely possible to weave together consensus, volition, and objectivity into a single, coherent thread.
ironmarlin1 said:True tolerance isn't about finding common ground or actually liking how someone else chooses to live their life; it’s much more about the capacity to disagree—deeply, fundamentally—without feeling the need to step in and fix it. It is the ability to look at a worldview that you find completely objectionable and simply let it exist. That is why I find it so incredibly paradoxical when certain high-strung, pedantic liberals demand tolerance from everyone else as if it were some kind of universal mandate. In reality, what they are actually demanding is a forced consensus; they aren't asking for tolerance, they are essentially demanding that others stop disapproving of their specific set of values. If we want to be intellectually honest, what one can reasonably ask of a neighbor with opposing views isn't their active approval or even their silent agreement, but rather a sense of indifference—a quiet, respectful coexistence where my way doesn't bother you, and your way doesn't dictate mine.
The core of the issue lies in the fact that our modern notions of subjectivity were essentially forged in the West, primarily within the Protestant nations. If you look at the trajectory of social development leading up to the modern era, there are entire epochs that many people simply overlook. Take religious tolerance, for instance—it wasn't just some abstract ideal handed down from on high; it was a hard-won response to the bloody, sectarian religious wars that tore through Europe. However, one cannot simply transplant that specific solution to internal conflicts between different Christian denominations and expect it to work when dealing with large-scale immigration. I’m not suggesting we revert to draconian measures like mass deportations, but rather acknowledging that the exact same sociological formula doesn't necessarily apply to the complexities of newcomers arriving from vastly different cultural backgrounds. So, while you might be onto something regarding how the traditional "formula" of tolerance struggles to hold weight in a multicultural society, we certainly shouldn't dismiss its historical necessity as the vital mechanism that eventually stabilized the fractured landscapes of old Europe.
I found myself circling back to those concepts of subjectivity earlier, mostly because I think we often trip over the supposed contradictions inherent in tolerance. It seems like a paradox, doesn't it? On one hand, you have this tension between respecting an individual's autonomy and your own refusal to endorse their specific viewpoint. If you define tolerance as needing to simultaneously withhold approval while somehow offering recognition or validation, then—strictly speaking—true tolerance becomes a practical impossibility. It’s a logical dead end. However, I suspect we can sidestep this entire headache if we stop viewing it as a contradiction and start seeing it instead as a conflict of competing goods. Think of it this way: when we practice tolerance, we aren't actually agreeing with a position we find objectionable; rather, we are choosing to honor the fundamental autonomy of the person holding that position. In essence, what tolerance truly demands of us is the recognition that upholding human agency is, in itself, a supreme good—one that justifies our decision to disagree.
It is entirely possible to hold the view that one might personally find certain group ideologies or stances completely objectionable, yet simultaneously argue that we shouldn't be reaching for the heavy hand of federal authority to intervene in those matters. One could certainly interpret that specific brand of restraint as a form of tolerance, though I suspect that to truly justify such a limited role for the state, one first needs to embrace a foundational philosophy rooted in autonomy, individual subjectivity, and those kinds of principles.
I really don't see what the fuss is about when it comes to something being both historical and ideological. If you think about it, every single position we hold and every concept we lean on is conditioned by history; they all belong to some overarching ideology, a worldview, or some similar conceptual framework. I’m struggling to wrap my head around what exactly you mean by an "epistemological consensus." Does a consensus necessarily preclude objectivity? Or are you suggesting that a consensus rests solely on arbitrary willpower or perhaps a social contract? I don't think it has to be one or the other, because there are plenty of rationalist theories regarding the will that don't force us to abandon objectivity entirely. In fact, I'd argue it's entirely possible to weave together consensus, volition, and objectivity into a single, coherent thread.
Jason Gonzalez7 said:That's really interesting; I haven't come across this historical perspective before. Thanks. If you have any reading suggestions along these lines, please let me know...
But what happens when that autonomy clashes with state sovereignty?
I don't find anything wrong with that in a general sense either; I'm just using the term "ideology" here pejoratively, referring to a widespread and uncritically accepted dominant paradigm...
Yeah, consensus as an epistemological trend and the kind of relativism that shapes public opinion by claiming objectivity doesn't exist—it’s most obvious when you see someone leaving comments under an article in The New York Times.
But what's even more interesting is the phenomenon of denying the value of specific actions, events, or opinions. It's just this constant "everything is equally valid" mindset.
Jason Gonzalez7 said:That's really interesting; I haven't come across this historical perspective before. Thanks. If you have any reading suggestions along these lines, please let me know...
But what happens when that autonomy clashes with state sovereignty?
I don't find anything wrong with that in a general sense either; I'm just using the term "ideology" here pejoratively, referring to a widespread and uncritically accepted dominant paradigm...
Yeah, consensus as an epistemological trend and the kind of relativism that shapes public opinion by claiming objectivity doesn't exist—it’s most obvious when you see someone leaving comments under an article in The New York Times.
But what's even more interesting is the phenomenon of denying the value of specific actions, events, or opinions. It's just this constant "everything is equally valid" mindset.
Amanda Jackson5 said:We really need to draw a line between truth and objectivity versus what we call "values." One side of that coin relies on much more concrete, measurable criteria, whereas values are essentially just a reflection of our collective spirit and whatever social norms happen to be in vogue at the moment. It’s pretty common sense, really—everyone knows that not everything carries the same weight or importance.
Adam Martin said:Respectfully, man, I have to disagree. Collective vibes and traditions might be limited, but they actually provide pretty solid benchmarks for values. Plus, an individual can totally develop their own set of standards too.
Truth and this whole "objectivity" thing are actually the ones without clear rules. Proof? If that weren't the case, you wouldn't have a hundred different versions of truth or a hundred different philosophies out there—all claiming to be true. 😂
rustymaker5 said:Hey, Mark Torres14, look who decided to show up! It’s been ages since I saw you typing away here... 😍
See, the thing isn't really about whether you should accept a differing opinion, it's more about acknowledging the mere existence of those different opinions in the first place. There’s a massive distinction there, don't you think... 😉
Amanda Jackson5 said:Well, you've certainly given me something to chew on. I suppose I wasn't being quite clear enough. Objective truth is a massive headache in its own right, but if we just look at it through the lens of everyday life—say, when we're discussing those undeniable, proven facts you find in a science textbook—then there are definitely clear criteria. We know the Earth orbits the Sun and that water is made of H2O molecules; those aren't matters of opinion. When it comes to values, though, we don't even need criteria at certain levels because, take a traditional, conservative community for example, those values are just assumed to be unquestionable, intuitively obvious, or even divinely ordained, so people don't debate them; they just live by them. But once a society fractures into various subcultures, each building its own ethical, aesthetic, and interpretive frameworks, you end up with a messy web of competing value systems. It leads to a breakdown in social cohesion, but that's a conversation for another day. As for how multiple philosophies can all be partially true, that was settled by the Hegelian synthesis and the ultimate conclusion of all philosophy: that truth is a whole.
Adam Martin said:Okay, this makes sense. But I see a potential circular definition problem here. Basically, we're defining truth as a scientific fact right out of the gate, then layering on stuff that isn't scientifically provable but we still call "true." Let's agree that we can't assign value to a scientific fact. The fact that water is H2O doesn't have a "value"—positive or negative. It just is. With philosophy, we start having preferences, but Hegel clearly pushed back against that, trying to make it as unbiased and objective as the laws of nature. The less certain a fact is, the more subject to valuation it becomes. Since we aren't 100% sure if something is true, we try to rank it, which leads us to assign it a positive or negative value.
So, you could flip it and say that what is "true" is what we *can't* value, while anything we *can* value is somehow distanced from the truth, or we're just unsure of its status regarding the principle of truth. Because of that uncertainty, we try to objectify it by assigning it a value. Back in the day, in stable social communities, these values were uniform and unquestioned. But now, with the rise of subcultures and pockets of misinformation or nonsense popping up within the dominant system, the problem becomes unsolvable again. Put simply, we can't separate the wheat from the chaff because we lack reliable criteria. Not to mention that "scientific truth," much like "philosophical truth," has lost its status as an absolute. It can be challenged by any other truth claiming universality—artistic, religious, spiritual, etc. If things were different, "creationists" wouldn't even be allowed to debate "evolutionists." And to make it even wilder, even among scientists, there are people who should theoretically share one single truth, yet they don't.
Jason Gonzalez7 said:That's really interesting; I haven't come across this historical perspective before. Thanks. If you have any reading suggestions along these lines, please let me know...
But what happens when that autonomy clashes with state sovereignty?
I don't find anything wrong with that in a general sense either; I'm just using the term "ideology" here pejoratively, referring to a widespread and uncritically accepted dominant paradigm...
Yeah, consensus as an epistemological trend and the kind of relativism that shapes public opinion by claiming objectivity doesn't exist—it’s most obvious when you see someone leaving comments under an article in The New York Times.
But what's even more interesting is the phenomenon of denying the value of specific actions, events, or opinions. It's just this constant "everything is equally valid" mindset.
But what happens when individual autonomy runs headlong into the sovereignty of the state?
Yes, consensus has essentially become an epistemological fad, fueling a sort of relativism that shapes public opinion by suggesting objectivity doesn't exist—you see this most clearly in the simplest cases, like some guy leaving a comment under an article in The New York Times.
And even more intriguing is this phenomenon where people actively work to deny the valuation of specific events, actions, practices, or opinions. It's this pervasive "everything is equally valid" mindset.
Jason Gonzalez7 said:What does "accepting different opinions" actually mean?
Is it just liberalism, an ideology of tolerance, or simply leveling the playing field in our digital democracy?
What does it truly mean to "accept" something in this context?
And what qualifies as a "different" opinion—does it mean things that look similar but aren't necessarily right or wrong?
Can a "wrong" opinion even be called an opinion?
We could approach this from an epistemological standpoint (though we might just end up going in circles),
we could look at it ethically or religiously (in terms of those core spiritual axioms that exist when two people truly understand one another),
we could tackle it politically, which would probably be most effective...
or we could just look at it through the lens of this forum—I'm sure many of you have been stuck in a debate where someone used this exact cliché to shut things down.