I don’t really agree with this, if you’ve never noticed someone respond in the overly negative way to things you say as annoying and conversation-stopping, there is a good chance you don’t realize how other people perceive this. Sure, if you have close friends they can probably roll with the punches, but I bet they’d appreciate your conversation more if you disagreed to things in a positive way.
Maybe to give a more obvious example:
“Do you like to play any shooters”
“Nah, I think shooters are stupid.”
This halt’s the conversation and reads as “I think the thing you like is stupid, and also now I want you to respond to that.”
If the goal was to continue the conversation, the same feeling could have been expressed conversationally as…
“I’m not really a fan of shooters tbh, I’m more into puzzle games.”
This does 2 things — it expresses your disinterest in the topic presented without insulting your conversational partners preference and it follows up with an offer of similar topic that might be of interest to the other so that they could respond like…
“Oh, I haven’t seen any good puzzle games lately! You have any recommendations?”
I don’t really think there is an exception to this rule. The reason for this is that responding negatively should imply you find the others opinion unsavory:
“This driver is so terrible, they must be Asian.”
“That’s racist.”
The reason that the negative disagreement is used here is not to continue the conversation; rather, it’s to let the other person know that you think their opinion is wrong/bad. (I’m not saying this is a good way to go about this conversation either, I just think it’s more obvious what effect the negative disagreement has on conversation.)
> “I’m not really a fan of shooters tbh, I’m more into puzzle games.”
> “Oh, I haven’t seen any good puzzle games lately! You have any recommendations?”
This is not how a conversation goes. The typical response would be not to engage about puzzle games, but to tell you in blisteringly mind-numbing detail how great the shooter they're currently playing is and how they got out of a tight situation and blasted the opposition.
Because that's the conversation they want to have with you, and they won't be dissuaded.
That’s not how my conversations typically go. If they responded like that I would exit the conversation and not enter into conversations with them at a later date.
Maybe to give a more obvious example:
“Do you like to play any shooters”
“Nah, I think shooters are stupid.”
This halt’s the conversation and reads as “I think the thing you like is stupid, and also now I want you to respond to that.”
If the goal was to continue the conversation, the same feeling could have been expressed conversationally as…
“I’m not really a fan of shooters tbh, I’m more into puzzle games.”
This does 2 things — it expresses your disinterest in the topic presented without insulting your conversational partners preference and it follows up with an offer of similar topic that might be of interest to the other so that they could respond like…
“Oh, I haven’t seen any good puzzle games lately! You have any recommendations?”
I don’t really think there is an exception to this rule. The reason for this is that responding negatively should imply you find the others opinion unsavory:
“This driver is so terrible, they must be Asian.”
“That’s racist.”
The reason that the negative disagreement is used here is not to continue the conversation; rather, it’s to let the other person know that you think their opinion is wrong/bad. (I’m not saying this is a good way to go about this conversation either, I just think it’s more obvious what effect the negative disagreement has on conversation.)