Jimmycrackcrack

What's the original clip from?

Well if it makes you feel better, this popped up on my front page while I was scrolling and I didn't even notice it was specific to Vancouver so I probably did overcomplicate things a bit since I thought you were musing on life in general when asking this question, so sorry for wasting your time a little there.

That said, I think we may have stumbled on the answer to your question through this process anyway. I've never been to Vancouver but I suspect the locals may have been picking up on some signals you're putting out that we're seeing right here in your manner on Lemmy as well and that's probably why you're noticing this strange tendency to avoid expressing disagreement or more likely engaging much at all when you talk to people over there. Do you tend to find this only happens after they've spent more than a couple of minutes talking to you?

Anyway, sorry you have to live in a world with such a "low standard" of people, it must be difficult being the only person you know that operates on that higher level, but hey, I'll bet if you just politey let everyone you meet know that they're functioning at a low standard and don't even realise it they'll be ever so glad that you told them your reasoning, even if they might disagree, and eventually this strategy will help you really settle in to Vancouver. Maybe you'll even eventually be able to raise everyone else's standards a little just by being there to teach everyone.

Good luck Vancouver!

It's rarely if ever a bad thing to provide additional detail and improve understanding of a headline. The commenter didn't defend Huffman's compensation, even going so far as to lament it will appear that they are an apologist for the CEO. They also didn't address their comment to moderators which is important as the title of this Lemmy post implies both that the comment was addressed to unpaid moderators of Reddit and also by doing so, that it was condescendingly justifying to them why their work should go unpaid while the CEO of Reddit is paid handsomely.

The fact that the compensation package isn't literally $193M cash isn't saying the situation is just fine and dandy and neither is pointing that fact out. Headlines can reduce information to levels that reach meaninglessness, especially when they do so on purpose to be incendiary. If this commenter adds correct details to the situation, deciding if those details changes its moral complexion is up to the readers of the comment, personally I don't think they do. I don't see however, why there needs to be a separate discussion on lemmy not about the actual issue that pissed everyone off, but instead shitting on some random commenter who added relevant detail to the original issue that was actually worthy of discussion in the first place.

I had in mind a lot of other examples to illustrate my point that covered where people are quite likely to want to avoid being explicit in a disagreement besides what I alluded to in the original post but I have a bad enough habit as it is towards being verbose so I left it at a narrower set of circumstances that make the whole post more concise even if overall less comprehensive.

I hoped though that I might have covered myself by starting with the fact that it's heavily contextual which is really more my point. I think in circumstances like those I've suggested in the original post, it sounds like we roughly agree it's unsurprising that disagreement is often either avoided altogether or mooted only obliquely. But then as you point out, there's plenty of other circumstances where it could and really probably should be just fine, but then, as I'm trying to get across, it's very contextual. In the example of the married couple as you say, disagreements of the nature you describe usually are expressed, and it makes sense, the two people involved know each other well, and can adequately sense the stakes involved and comfortably express healthy disagreement. But then your question is more specific, why do people tend to avoid such clearly expressed disagreement when 'out'. I'm taking this to mean, 'in public' so if there's a question of interpretation here hinging on the meaning of 'out' in this context then we could be at cross purposes. I think once again, the complexity of life, what people want out of a given situation, context and tactics play a heavy role. For example the same conversation on the same topic from the same people, like your married couple, could quite understandably play out very differently in public. Again there's so many dynamics at play through which this could be discussed but I have to narrow it to keep my posts at least a little shorter. When this couple are 'out' maybe they've decided to go for coffee, or to visit friends, or they're shopping, or running errands in all of these examples they have purposes to being 'out' and want to get something out of it, they want a pleasant trip to enjoy coffee and company, they want to catch up with friends and hear how they're doing, they want the items they went shopping for or they want the errands completed and not hanging over them. In all such cases it may feel like a distraction from what they're trying to achieve right now to even bother addressing a disagreement, this is especially so if it's very low stakes and not really worth talking about, or if it's extremely high stakes and could lead to an actual confrontation scenario (even in a healthy marriage), so naturally this is something you'll likely try to disengage from if the option to do so is there. So there's this desire to avoid de-railing a situation that is serving a purpose outside of the topic of disagreement and there's also the specifics and dynamics of the relationship and the nature of the topic. Like it or not almost everybody cares what people think, and they care a lot, so while in private a disagreement could be over with "no sweat" people might be concerned that they'll embarrass the person they disagree with in public or give the wrong impression about their relationship, it's likely they needn't have been so concerned especially when the disagreement could be resolved so amicably, but if it's even easier to just stay away from it and discuss it in private then you can bet people would because even if in reality people around them mightn't care, it feels like others are keenly interested and will come away with the wrong impression.

But not to stretch my point too much, all of what I discuss here can be counter exampled, I'm sure you can imagine if the disagreement is just phrased in this or that way nobody could reasonably take offence? Or what if it's not a confrontational discussion and they're people that know each other well, they couldn't ever disagree? I've disagreed with someone in such and such circumstance and it was fine, why can't everyone just do that? The main thing I'm wanting to illustrate is that it's all about complexity and nuance. If you want to know why people will avoid disagreeing in public the reasons are numerous and manifold, you're tired today, you're not interested in the conversation, you're very interested and passionate about the topic but don't want to talk to that person, you're afraid the group dynamics won't support you, you want to discuss it another time, you're clothes are feeling itchy and that's the main thing occupying your mind at this second, you're fairly sure this particular person will take offence whether it's reasonable that they should or not, you don't want to hurt someone's feelings. I guess what I'm saying is I don't think it's surprising or even bad per-se that people won't always reliably be direct and open in their disagreement because a person is aware of so many considerations any given scenario and the dynamics of the relationship with the people involved and will make smart and tactical decisions about when it's actually a good idea to voice explicit and direct disagreement (confrontationally or politely and amicably) this particular time. This is true for almost anything that goes on between humans, an ideology or personal code, like for example disagreement should be expressed openly and respectfully without fear or malice, is a good thing to have and live by but ideals have to contend with reality and to ignore the countless factors that affect how you interact with people and how they interact with you is simply going to end badly, it'd be like trying to have a conversation using some sort of formula or algorithm and it will ring hollow and uncomfortable and being around you will become uncomfortable and a chore. We're a social species that have developed through millions of years of evolution, millennia of culture and years and decades of personal experience many different adaptations to inform our decisions when talking to each other and can't pretend that that doesn't have an enormous impact on what we choose to say.

Taking the idea at face value and presumed true, I think this would be very context specific. In a lot of social or public situations a major consideration that's going on in people's heads is, "what did I sign on for when I went out today?" If you just wanted to go out for some drinks and to relax or to catch up with a group of people at large (and not so much the individual with whom you disagree specifically), then there's probably some tactical decision making involved. To unambiguously express clear and firm disagreement is going to risk spiraling the conversation in to the wheelhouse of the person saying disagreeable things. If you really didn't sign up for a clash of titans public debate it's going to be a lot easier to pick from many options that just bypass the whole thing like saying nothing and letting their statements just sit there, or expressing indirect disagreement that can be clearly discerned but wasn't explicitly stated so the person you disagree with is going to have to really work and dig to drag that implicit disagreement into the explicit in a way that will cast them as antagonistic which should hopefully discourage them. Another tactic is just abruptly changing the subject which should send a signal that this isn't an area you want to go to.

The reality is, people will probably say they believe it's best to be direct and honest and express respectful disagreement where it exists but life is more complicated than that and just blustering through it on principle, leaning in to every pointless battle is not how we generally choose to live pur lives. Maybe the person in the conversation is saying things that are varying degrees of reprehensible, to an extent, depending on what they're saying, we have something of a moral duty to say something loud and clear so we don't inadvertantly normalise their statements but not everyone is the champion of justice and defender of decency all day long every single day and we pick our battles.

I'm surprised it would be on the play store since presumably if you were a carrier or creditor of some kind you want this installed in a pretty clandestine way and wouldn't want to draw attention to it by having an app store listing.

I think the trans thing started as a sincerely held conviction very much a long the lines as you're describing, and while this is and can only be utter speculation, I have a feeling a lot of what comes after as in Chappelle, probably with Linehan (but I don't really know anything about his case) and also other examples like the vaccines cause autism guy, I think these people are seeing an opportunity in their ostracism to keeping their profiles high and business opportunities as well.

I think it's a sort of a 'hung for a sheep as for a lamb' kind of logic where you mightn't really have had any particular common cause with a lot of conservative views, or fringe elements before, but their willingness to embrace and lionize you for this one particular stance creates a new audience and market for you just as others are shrinking. From there it makes sense to gradually dole out hints and allusions to more conservative talking points and just keep ratcheting it up piecemeal to keep that profile up. For this to work you have to eventually be less hinting and more direct and the positions have to be more extreme and on more and more diverse matters, even ones you probably never had any opinion on because this is a pathway to becoming a kind professional provocateur and shock jock.

Hmm. But like there's stuff in there that isn't even part of the substance of what you said. Like the call to action at the end. That's the type of thing you'd want to be pretty sure you really wanted to do in some circumstance where you want to communicate on a matter in plain sight but obscure your identity, as such a matter would presumably be pretty important and high stakes.

This is disturbing. I wanted to know more so I googled it but I found nothing. Where did you hear this?

Hedging my bets in trying to make my statements correct. Phrasing as I did, my statements are true if it's just a few companies under potential scrutiny or all car companies in the US so it's the truest way to write with the facts I haven't my disposal.

This sounds good and promising but it's should be noted that they do not have to answer to the FTC according to this article, it has merely been recommended in a letter to the FTC by one senator that they should investigate some specific car companies. There doesn't seem to be any new way in which they are more or less accountable to the FTC than they were or weren't already and there's no obligation on the strength of this letter to do any investigation nor any guarantee of a positive outcome if they did. A rare and nice little show of support from a member of the political class for privacy rights but nothing substantive or concrete.

I play wave race 64 alot it really is such a fantastic game but it's a very short one, I've played it to death. At one point I think I even beat the world record for the Glacier Coast course but I've heard that records set on emulators aren't counted and even if you're not cheating an emulator run is considered easier than on the real 64.

I really want another wave race title. I wasn't a huge fan of the GameCube one. Just such a nostalgia hit. It was the first game I had on my 64 and I played all through Christmas day. Something about the sunset bay and also the training level really brings me right back to 1998 whenever I play it.