“News outlet” might be the most generous interpretation I’ve ever seen.

It doesn’t escape me, but what part of what I’ve said has invited confrontation or dismissal? I’m asking honestly.

In this case i can’t see any big red flags.

The tone is a possibility, as i said, being correct isn’t an absolute defence against being considered an arsehole.

To be clear, I’m not implying you were incorrect, or the tone was incorrect, just that that kind of certainty (evidence based or not) gets some people’s backs up.

It’s grating that it keeps happening and I keep telling people to stop.

I don’t think it’s what you actually meant but this could be interpreted as “Somebody didn’t accept my answer and argued, so i told them to stop, they didn’t even though i was clearly correct, this is grating”

Hyperbole aside, it’s frequent enough that I can see a pattern of people starting petty arguments trying to win and throwing low punches instead of clarifying what is being said and why.

Firstly, welcome to public internet forums in general, this is common behaviour.

That aside, there are numerous trolls and bad faith “debaters” around, but just because you consider something petty doesn’t mean the other person does.

This is what i was trying to convey in my reply earlier, if almost all interactions end up with what you consider petty behaviour it’s worth considering the possibility that you are contributing to that outcome somehow.

Like, I don’t even want to argue.

So don’t, if you don’t want to continue the interaction then don’t reply.

Meaning what, it’s also me?

Possibly, yes.

lol If I’m the one telling people to stop and act like adults and that gets 180° turns in behaviour, what does that say to you?

Honestly, it says to me that your communication skills might need some work.

Again, to be clear i don’t mean your communication of facts and information, i mean your ability to understand how phrasing something in a certain way might illicit a certain kind of response.

“Stop acting like a child” is a very good way to build enmity and confrontation, which is useful in some cases, if you intend to illicit that response.

However, saying something like that and then being confused/frustrated when people get confrontational and dismissive suggests a lack of understanding about the impact of tone and phrasing.

Because stoners are basically a cult at this point, and refuse anything even as remotely negative as “it’s not good for your cats?”

I mean, i specifically stated it wasn’t related to the actual topic being discussed, but i can address this anyway i suppose.

Possibly culty i suppose, about the same amount as alcohol consumers, smokers, people who see chiropractors etc.

Less than people in organised religion ( big cults ), actual cults and MLM schemes.

If all of the stoners you know are your definition of culty ( except you of course ), perhaps consider that it’s your choice in acquaintances rather than an entire demographic.

Can’t say i care either way, but i’d be interested in any studies you might have on the subject ( belief systems of stoners in general, not specifically the ones you know ofc, that would be unlikely )

To be clear, I smoke most nights… but god damn do I hate people who feel the need to defend weed against everything.

If that personal preference works for you, who am i to tell you you’re wrong.

It’s a drug, y’all. It’s not good for you.

Drug doesn’t automatically imply harm, but i think i know what you mean.

So, two things unrelated to the actual topic being discussed.

I’ll pretend your choice of words isn’t low-key confrontational and dismissive like every other comment on this site

It’s entirely possible to be correct and do it in such a way that invites confrontation and dismissal.

If it seems like everyone apart from you is confrontational and dismissive, perhaps it’s time to consider additional perspectives on why that might be happening.

Do you have an example of this ?

That “rape aside” is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn’t the “had sex, your fault” narrative you seem to be espousing here.

Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.

Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the “this book is the literal truth” christians i suppose.

or you’re trolling, in which case, congratulations…i guess.

For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.

Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.

Condolences on your loss.

Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.

Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.

What if the life I’m imagining I’m protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn’t scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.

That’s a win win right?

I mean, yes? That’s a good summation.

The part where you get to call something “open source” by OSI standards (which I’m pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.

Don’t want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn’t adhere, because that’s how commonly accepted standards work, socially.

Want to make an “open source 2 : electric boogaloo” licence , still no problem.

Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.

Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn’t adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.

To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.

Much like the “true” ¹ open source licences and the other, “closely related, but not quite legit” ² variations.

¹ As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI

² Any other set of standards that isn’t compatible with ¹

edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable

“It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s wrong”.

I think it’s more “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s not open source, don’t pretend it is”.

The “wrong” part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn’t to gain some advantage. I’m this case community contributions.

There’s not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.

That’s reasonable

I don’t know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.

Think headphones jacks don’t cause suffering at some point in the chain?

Not that I’m disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.

Does it assume that it’s generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don’t claim otherwise, it’s cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.

Like “Horrendously harmful Apple” or “Mildly harmful Colgate”

A bit hyperbolic perhaps.

Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I’ve occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.

Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of “The good place”

Unless you’re a big corp, then fuck with impunity but make sure to pay the “cost of doing business” tax.

If the tax is too high, just buy some lobbyists or political system equivalent.

So, not a good faith take then, oh well.

“Logical” is not a binary position. It’s a spectrum.

Agreed, not sure how it’s relevant but it seems we agree on something after all.

OK, so let’s assume that’s a good faith literal interpretation.

Let’s try it this way.

Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren’t generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.

I could however be wrong in this generalisation given I only have my experience to go on, if your experience leads you to believe people who threaten kids over videogames are not running with a logic deficit then your statement makes sense I suppose.

I wouldn’t expect logical thinking to be a strong characteristic in someone who’d threaten kids over a videogame.

Second, at least here in Germany Telegram has become the main platform for conspiracy nuts and antidemocratic organizations. Someone who is “very active” on Telegram is most certainly an idiot.

Bet the majority of them drive cars as well.

I’m talking anecdotally and from my experience here, not as an absolute.

I will upfront admit i am somewhat biased against authority in general, especially what i perceived to be unearned authority (if you wish to be a respected authority, earn it and continue to do so) In this case however I’m talking about “authority” in a professional sense somewhat measured against the success or failure of particular projects or initiatives.

For the most part i agree with you but it seems like you are using the term “anti-authoritarian” as an absolute, as in being against authority is bad in all cases.

At a lot of companies “Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas” is considered anti-authoritarian because the company culture doesn’t allow for that kind of autonomy of thought (by design or long term evolution usually).

Your example works in the context of a company that works in a manner that promotes/encourage that kind of person, not all of them do. My personal experience and that of my circle of colleagues and acquaintances, I’d guess that percentage is around 30/70 with the 70% being companies that either actively or passively punish/discourage both of those types of employees.

Which i’d imagine is what @bouh meant when they said “But good employees will hate your company, because you consider them like bad ones”

Anti-authoritarianism is a bad trait. when the authority in question is doing the correct things (for whatever definition of correct you wish to use). “Anti-authoritarianism” and “Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas” are not mutually exclusive.

As with most things it’s contextual.