[hnthrow0287345]

They're really good to use if someone wants to debate you and you don't want to engage

Most people prefer to change their minds on their own terms and schedule. I'm also surprised there's not a 'most people..." thought-terminating cliche on this page

[kylecazar]

Yeah, the only time I'll whip out one of these is when I'm in a conversation that has no chance of going anywhere. Of course they should be avoided in actual good faith argument, but they're handy as a social tool when you need a mode of egress that's softer than the alternative.

Anyone who has old friends that became politically radical will know the dance.

[AnimalMuppet]

At least once, I have done the following: "Here's why I disagree with your position. [supply a concise statement]. I'm done with the conversation here, but I'll let you have the last word."

It conveys disagreement. It conveys that I'm out. But it's still respectful.

[AndrewKemendo]

Then why not directly say:

“well you and I disagree on this and so that it’s not worth engaging in further let’s switch to a new topic”

[randusername]

Agreed. Seems to have a negative connotation, but I think it can be a good thing to put up a barrier against thinking too deeply.

I find myself saying stupid things like "ain't that just the way" or "such is life in our times" around those in my life with an endless capacity for political outrage but limited capacity for political action.

It's like the magic "yes." when neither "yes and" nor "no" will do.

[AndrewKemendo]

>a barrier against thinking too deeply

Can you explain what the risks of “thinking too deeply” are that a barrier to such is beneficial