I didn’t say I would jump. I said I’d think “why am I not jumping.” Maybe I’m right not to jump. Or, there might be a good reason everyone is jumping. Maybe I should too. Maybe.

I see where you’re coming from.

Sayings have to be short and memorable, meaning they usually lack nuance, are wrong depending on context, or are just straight up wrong. That’s why I don’t like the bridge jumping one; it’s the same reason I don’t like most sayings. I don’t think the bridge jumping saying is “straight up wrong.” Simplistic and lacking nuance? Yes.

I think you’re right in that few make their own decisions and defer to their “heroes.” I’d instead say few truly think critically, despite believing they do.

There are always people who do things nobody else does, don’t do things everyone else does, do things with an uncommon approach, or hold opinions that are considered outside the sphere of common thought. As a whole, this is okay. Not just okay, but good. Good for making societies interesting.

When everyone does x, that doesn’t mean you should be doing x. Divergence sometimes proves righteous. This is what I presume is intended by the bridge jumping saying.

However, I feel that many are far too arrogant in their divergencies. If something is different from everything else, that does not make it inately better. Often, it is not.

This is especially true in the West. Western (especially American) culture is so individualistic that arrogance is rampant. How often do people really stop think whether they are really right about an ingrained divergency, to think that maybe they are in the wrong…maybe they’re not a rare enlightened one. For example, maybe prevaling theory from experts might have just a modicum of validity. Maybe more than some nunce’s gut feeling.

Anyway, I’m rambling so to get to the point:

If everyone else is jumping off a bridge, don’t jump blindly, but question why you aren’t jumping. You might be right not to jump. However, as the only one not jumping, you should consider if jumping might be just fine. Maybe everyone else has a good reason to be jumping.

Who’s “he”?

If only one jumps, I’m gonna think “why are they jumping?”

If everyone is jumping and I know I’m surrounded by reasonable people, I wouldn’t jump blindly but I’m gonna think “why am I not jumping?”

I’ve never liked this saying.

I usually hear it as “if your friends […], would you do so too?” If my friends—who I feel are quite level-headed—were jumping off of a bridge, I think they would probably have a pretty good reason. Is there a bear charging us from behind and they’ve noticed but I haven’t? Is it because the bridge is short and they’re safely jumping into some water for fun? (I’ve done this before. If the conditions are right, it’s perfectly safe for those who can swim.)

Surround yourself with good, level-headed people. If your friends are arrogant/ignorant or not all that bright, you can’t assume they’re right to jump. If you’ve built up a sensible group of peers and they all are or are not doing something, you should at least consider why you are the outlier.

Then again, I just wanted to dispute this saying. I’m not saying I agree with OP here.

If we’re not talking legislation, then I don’t see how it’s all that important in a discussion about democracy. If a social media company chooses freely to decide they don’t want to platform someone, where’s the problem? That’s freedom, baby. I have very few carveouts where I will not support someone’s actual right to speech, but I do not think forcing any private entity to platform speech they are against is all that democratic.

I do not even agree that many of these companies are really all that quick to deplatform people either. There are many conservative voices on social media. The examples that come to mind where individuals were kicked off certain sites generally involve explicit undue vitriol against other people (individuals and communities), often wishing harm unto them. If this is not what you mean by the “mainstream ideas that conservative believe” that people are being kicked off platforms for (I sure hope not)…then what else? I mean, who is being booted off of platforms for saying they think the government is too big, or that they think x politician is doing a poor job, etc.?

Buddy, you didn’t point out shit, you gave a presupposition. If you want to point something out, point out the legislation behind each of the “steps the left has taken in the last few years.”

It makes sense when merging onto a highway.

If it’s busy and everyone else is zooming by, merging at a slower speed is dangerous. Speed up, match the flow (even if speeding), merge, then you can ease off to whatever speed you want. This is what I was tought in drivers’ ed, and it makes sense.

Once you’re on the highway though, yeah, it doesn’t apply anymore.

Them’s the small government folks for ya…

They don’t think it be like that, but like that it do indeed be.

That’s where you guys draw the line? With automated facial recognition vans, CCTV everywhere, among other things, the UK is certainly not a country that comes to mind when I think “civil liberties and privacy”.

True, but even if Steam were to offer a x% lower cut on sales for Linux users if the developer makes a Linux-native build, it’d still not entice many to build and maintain a native port if they are only saving x% off a tiny y% of users. Other poster’s point being that incentives like this would actually become enticing to companies when Linux market share (Proton users) increases.

Doubtful Steam is gonna offer a share cut on all sales when it runs on Proton for the 2% of userbase using Linux, and from that only a minority would care whether or not it’s native anyway.

In a few months though I can handle a change or gap in insurance though so I’ve got a light at the end of the tunnel at least

This is just so fucked. In no way do I mean on your end, but just that the system begets inhumane situations like this.

Never thought a single non-canadian would have even heard of Corner Gas lol

WTF is the screen scaling set to on that laptop?