Here's a thought

The reaction meter
Subjects: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden
Reason for situation: Denmark has angered Sweden with a weak counter

Denmark: Active asphyxiation, reaction score: 10/10
Finland: Complete apathy, reaction score: 0/10
Iceland: Mild surprise, reaction score: 4/10
Norway: High horror and surprise, reaction score: 8/10
Sweden: Committing ongoing strangulation, reaction score: 20/10

Summary: aw shit, here we go again

@HarpyDarpyDoo

Oh come on, Finland is obviously annoyed, not apathetic. At least a 2/10. If anything, he's thinking "ugh, why do my Swedish cousins always insist on the least efficient ways of killing small animals?"

@CorruptUser Though to be fair his standard stance about anything is to be annoyed...

@CorruptUser Yeah, if Finland was completely apathetic, he wouldn't have looked over at them. He would have just focused on his food.

In Finland it's considered rude to strangle someone. You should use a knife or a gun.

So, is that how Denmark got his accent? Because Sweden keeps doing that to him?

Finland's thoughts on this: 'For gods sake, Sweden! Table manners! Here, you can borrow my knife.'

@minando No, knives are for killing stuff. Not for disagreements with the family. What he is doing wrong is that he is strangling him instead of punching him.

Danes also have a hard time realizing there's a difference between "I don't mind" and "I don't care", and how rude the second one can sound.
- What should we eat for dinner?
- I don't care.
In this situation, the average Dane would be trying to say "It's all good to me", but in English it comes out more as "Why the fuck are you even asking?".
Then a comment about my post could be "I don't mind the way they say it", but then again, they would say "I don't care about the way they say it", which means the opposite.

@Frikadeller
At least it's not "I don't care for the way they say it", which many non-native speakers don't know is actually a strong dismissal. Took me some time.

Maybe it has to do with Danes often wanting to avoid starting arguments? When you're hanging out with you family and you know people might have very different opinions on religion or politics, people might be more tempted to just go 'I don't think so' and then basically use that as a 'Okay, let us move on to another subject. We disagree and I do not want to argue about this'. Basically, a way of making it known that you don't agree, but that you're also not interested in starting a huge argument about the topic

Well, it still sounds politer than us. In Japanese, we say, "Uso!" (oo-so), which literally means, "Lie!" or "Lies!" (we don't have a plural form, so it could be either ;) The nuance is slightly different though; it means more along the lines of, "Are you kidding me with that?")
There are ways to soften it - on TV shows, hosts will usually add some words either side - but this still essentially translates to them asking the guest, "You're lying, right?" "Isn't that a lie?" and so on.

@JudasFm I always took it to mean, “No way!” I know the literal translation is “lie,” but there’s A LOT that doesn’t translate directly between English and Japanese.

@TuxedoCartman Yeah, that's another good interpretation.

@TuxedoCartman

That's the thing: it doesn't "always" mean that; it depends on the situation, who's talking to whom, and so on.

One side-effect of being geographically isolated for the vast majority of their history is their language is very contextual.
You know how you're chatting with your family in front of strangers and you can make little in-jokes and references that only other members of your family really get? Expand that concept out to an entire language system built over a couple thousand years.

English, on the other hand, evolved out of a sort of trade-pidgin tongue used in the ports between traders from different countries, which is why it's such a mish-mash of words and grammar rules from a dozen different languages. Very direct, very literal, at least when compared to other languages (especially after the upper classes started using it to write poetry and plays, long after it ceased to be just a trade tongue).
Japanese is almost the extreme in the other direction.

@JudasFm Sounds roughly equivalent to saying "That's B.S.!"

@BGMan Pretty much, although it's really not considered rude here ;)

I'm not a native speaker of Swedish, but if Danes really say "det tror jeg ikke", as just-a-Nugget did, it means in Swedisch "I don't BELIEVE that". "I don't think so" would be "det tycker inte jag", where "tycka" is an expression of opinion rather than trust (as in "believe"). Maybe the missunderstanding is based on that Swedes hear "I don't believe/trust you" rather than "I have a different opinion".

@Eldkatten ou are 100% correct! If you say that to a swede you are basicly calling him/her a liar.

@Eldkatten to use a Swedish saying: "you hit the head on the nail there".

@Eldkatten Except "Det tror jag inte", or "jag tror inte det" are actually the same as in Danish, "I don't believe that". To make it rude you'd have to say "Jag tror dig inte", "I don't believe you."
Or maybe "Det tror jag inte på".

@Eldkatten That would make a lot more sense if offence was taken.

@Eldkatten So basically it's worse than the comics isn't it?

Saying "I don't think so" is a perfect and ligitimate way to indicate you don't agree with the other person and in the same instance - and this is very important so pay attention - in the same instance say it is best if we find something else to talk about before things get out of hand and we end up in a huge fight.

I am not suprised that it pisses of swedes. People in Swedenstan get offended about almost everything, they were among the first to adopt this whole crappy modern "I'm offended culture".

Anywhoo ... I am off to track down that climate nutter Greta Tunafish or whatever her name is and tell her a few "I don't think so"

@minimilk
I don't think so.

@mowny
So how is the weather?

@minimilk
Hey! Dem's fightin' words!

@minimilk

Really? Climate nutter? So I guess you're one of those Trumpite types who doesn't think climate change is real?

That pretty much says all I need to know about you.

@celtic_twilight
LOL. You must be fun at parties. You might want to look up the word "humour" in your dictionary.

Nobody is denying climate change! Climate change isn't up for debate. The debate is about what should be done about it. I am strong believer of darwinism and therefore also of evolution. Survival of the fittest. So it is all about adapting to the changes that is happening. Planet earth won't be destroyed because of these changes, planet earth won't fall out of it's orbit around the sun, planet earth won't explode or whatever. Whether or not mankind will survive is a different matter, but life as such will continue on earth.
Roughly speaking we got 2 options, 1) We can stand up scream and cry and blame someone/something/ourselves about climate change and how we are doomed, which is what Greta and others are doing, or 2) We can try and adapt to the changes and make the best out of it. My problem with option number 1 is, that is like trying to reverse a flood by standing on the beach with your arms outstreched and trying to baricade it from sweeping over the coastline, that won't help. Option number 2 are those staying behind building a dyke and aiming at survival rather than doom.

Regarding Greta, yes she is a nutter. At the recent climate meeting in New York, she hired a boat to sail her there instead of flying. In order to maintain a boat you need to frequently paint and repaint and apply chemicals to combat algae groth on the hull. Further more the boats crew had to be flown in. All in all her boat trip across the atlantic had a large impact on the enviroment than had she just bought 3 tickets for herself and her parents. That amount of hypocracy certainly does result in her being a nutter. If she really meant to prove a point regarding the enviroment then she should have built a raft out of balsa and rushes like Heyerdahl did with Kon-Tiki.

Does it make me a trumpite if there is a couple of subjects where Trump agrees with me out if a billion other subject where we disagree?

Anyways... the subjuct isn't climate. The subject is I don't think so.... so... I don't think so.

@minimilk Hmmmm...
Or option 3 we can try to prevent the changes to become so huge that the impact will create the worst crisis humanity (and life as a whole) ever experienced WHILE trying to adapt to the changes we already provoked. And for that I believe a little bit of yelling is necessary (even though I don't necessarily agree with Greta Thunberg on every turn). But going on with business as usual until it is too late and humanity's population is doomed to decline to a meager percentage of what it is today all the while wiping off the earth a gazillion of species is a little irresponsible...
Also "Whether or not mankind will survive is a different matter, but life as such will continue on earth. " is true, but is precisely why Greta Thunberg and co. are angry with the world : because they think they have the right to go on living on this earth in a better way that our ancestors did some hundred of years ago.

I won't expand on the boat discussion because I globally agree with you and the fact that technology is NOT going to save mankind, be it a modern plane or a futuristic yacht with solar pannels...

@minimilk I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. (That's a way Canadians do that) The problem with "I don't think so" is it could readily be taken as "I'm right and you're so wrong/I have so little respect for you, that I don't even have to bother coming up with a reason".
As to your opinion on Greta . . . I don't think so.

@PurpleLibraryGuy
Danes are fairly efficient people - similar to germans - and when they say "I don't think so" it is acctually a shortening of "I don't think so, let's talk about something else instead" This type of shortenings of sentence are somewhat common. You will as an example rarely hear a dane say "Pass me the salt, please" instead you will only hear the shortened version "Salt"

@minimilk Swedenstan? Really? Can you be any more obvious about your racist tendensies?

Well, disagreeing with someone is okay as long as you back your argument up with reason or facts instead of just saying "I don't think so". You could say "I don't agree with you because" and then back it up with valid counter arguments however I think it's even more polite to skip the "I don't think so" part and instead show your disagreement in the form of a validated counterargument without having to directly say that you disagree with them. Ofcourse the most polite way would be to not say anything at all, however then your opinion wouldn't be heard obviously which could cause other problems in the long run so I wouldn't recommend that approach.

@ryttyr Well, if someone says something and you say nothing that can be a implicit agreement. Sometimes you want to state that you disagree, but you don't really want to discuss it. Not everything needs an argument, especially if it's simply a matter of esthetics and preference.

@Wickedragon *gasp* how can you not argue your point??

@ryttyr My usual go to is either just drinking coffee or changing the subject abruptly to talk about excel table options and functions. or both!

@Wickedragon hmmm... I suppose that could work too. Excel spreadsheets and coffee is a very tidy thing indeed.

@ryttyr : I don't think so, lol. Debating with some people can be an exercise in futility. Case in point, Trump Supporters.

@Kummerspeck Not just Trump supporters also far left people like antifa, in the same comment section I was called a nazi, communist and radical leftist by either side. It's like people are trying to find out how far from the center they can go before they are stopped.
As I always say politics are not on a line, it's a circle. And at some point the two sides are more alike than anyone else on the spectrum, seen the same ideas (like surveillance and death camps) from both sides just different view on who the target should be. And that is scary, especially because they see ALL other people as targets, not just the other side also center or even left and right sides them self as targets.

@Zen Feel free to join my Nationalsocialist Communist party! You'll feel right at home while pissing off both sides at the same time!

@Zen

That's something I've also considered, a circle is more accurate than a line in terms of representing the political spectrum as the more extreme stances often have more in common with each other than the people in what's normally considered the centre. Also the fact that a good suggestion your taking a moderate [and probably rational] stance if your getting attacked by both sides.

'@stevep59' Anyone who thinks politics is one dimensional is a problem. Referencing dead French politics is just bonus stupid. "Political science" was constructed as propaganda in an age where open propaganda was suddenly NOT corruption...

Besides, the horseshoe theory of the supposed ends, there's the blatant grey fallacy for the middle. It's all a setup to avoid reality since that might 1) require uncomfortable thought from the majority to even pretend to engage in politics and 2) unseat the corrupt pseudo-system of semi-faux enemies that are the near entirety of modern politics. Don't rock the boat, we're getting somewhere, just don't SERIOUSLY ask where...

@Nephandus

Your 1st sentence agreed with what I said. The rest I'm not sure where your going but it shows a lot of hostility towards just about everybody if I understand you rightly? A depressing view that we can't do anything. I've felt that way to a degree as I've got older and seen hoped for changes fail but its a trap we must avoid if we actually need to get anywhere.

'@stevep59' Reality is indeed a trap, so escapism is the answer?

Want to change things away from the insane and sleaze? We'd have to tear down most that's accepted now AND actually accept the limits of reality, instead of pretending to legislate and propagandize away humanity (not the virtue buzzword), economics (not any of the superficially rigged games), and outright bloody physics. I doubt that's your declared point, considering that strong suggestion of the bog standard hopey-changey "positivity" cultism.

Both rings and anyone standing between are under the same circus tent in the same clown show. The entire point is authoritarianism. Justifications don't matter. No one who wants power will allow it to shut down. Whatever colors they're wearing is all just part of the show.

@Kummerspeck ...okay, you have half a point there but even then they seem to have dropped as last time I heard 60-something % of Americans would not support him again in a survey done about a month ago.

@ryttyr : I certainly hope so. Here is some reading for your enjoyment.

"Trump met with boos, 'lock him up' chant at Game 5 of World Series."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/467675-trump-arrives-at-nationals-park-for-game-5-of-world-series?fbclid=IwAR0qFpJJzdKMH7t4A-TLB1JJ4QEx2n9J9_JzaT_5OsNeW7JQkD16dRon638

@Kummerspeck wow, what a burn using his own rally chant against him. Yeah, Trump's popularity chart probably looks like a ski slope at the moment.

@ryttyr I disagree with you but know my answer would piss you off, or that you won't accept it as and answer so I won't say it.

@Carewolf but you just said it...