A friend of mine was in legal troubles. He sued an awful lawyer. The awful lawyer did wild shit like brazenly trying to steal businesses by walking into them and claiming he was the heir of the owner or stuff like that. Those kinds of shenanigans ended up being done to my friend, who owns and runs a restaurant. And that restaurant was claimed by the awful lawyer, despite the fact that my friend’s family had owned and ran the place for decades. Needless to say, that is why my friend was suing the lawyer.

Turns out, one night, the lawyer was in the woods that surround my friend’s house. To everyone’s surprise, the lawyer had been going there every other night. Or so they told me. I didn’t believe it.

I happened to be with my friend that night. We heard the infamous sounds in the woods just as we were playing board games. I heard a voice from above whispering “He’s here!” The voice was my friend’s teenage son, who was supposed to be asleep but apparently woke up every time the lawyer came.

I couldn’t believe it. I was gripped by naive excitement. I got into a very playful mood. We could finally figure out what the sound was. We could investigate.

I didn’t really put much thought into it, but I decided the best way of investigating would be by surprising the supposed lawyer. I decided we should dazzle the lawyer with every single source of light in the house.

A bit to my surprise, my friend and his son agreed. Why did they agree? That’s a great question.

Part of me thinks that they just wanted resolution in this whole episode in their lives, this whole awful lawyer and lawsuit thing. Another part of me thinks maybe they didn’t fear the man. Regardless, for whatever reason, we were all on board. We all thought a bit of light would do no harm. Dazzling was the way.

We then quietly coordinated our light-attack. We gathered flashlights and located the light switches. We each went to our designated positions and got ready.

It was time for the attack. I silently walked through the kitchen up to the back door. I slowly opened it and felt the cool air from the woods. And I waited for the signal.

At this point of the story I want to point out that, to any sane person, this whole plan sounds insane. I’m quite aware of that. As you can tell, we weren’t aware of that that night. We did what we did.

To be fair, as I waited for the signal, I did feel a bit scared. Yes, I thought it was practically impossible for a man to camp right outside my friend’s house. But as I waited for the signal my brain started imagining the man’s face and clothes being lit up by our lights.

In retrospect, a man holding a suitcase was the least of my problems. What if this was a massive animal? There are many life-threatening scenarios I didn’t contemplate. But, as it turned out, at the time, our minds were fixated on “lawyer”. They wanted to see if it was the lawyer. I wanted to disprove that it was the lawyer.

And so the signal came: my friend’s son turned on his gazillion-lumen flashlight. Immediately, I also turned on mine. In an instant, the whole house lit up, as well as the forest. Or at least that’s what I assumed, because I couldn’t really see the forest. I was dazzled.

Our plan was so astoundingly short-sighted that we were all blinded by our own lights.

However, something moved outside. And just as our eyes adjusted to our light-attack, we all simultaneously saw the source of the sound: an opossum.

Turns out, the opossum had been going there every other night and making sound all along.

The sound had been misinterpreted by my friend’s son. The poor kid thought that the insane lawyer could actually camp outside. This sort of makes sense because the poor kid was only told that a man was getting sued by his parents. That and that this man sometimes walked into restaurants and stores and claimed them as his.

So what happened? That night, we all had a good laugh. The opossum was given a name, the name of the lawyer. As to the lawsuit, the charges were dropped because my friend realized this man was not targeting them in particular. This man was an opportunist, and he was crushed by other lawsuits and debt.

If this is true, holy shit.

If this isn’t true, I hope this doesn’t detract from the other shit we know is true.

Gotcha. So you’re saying that explaining my stance is compatible with sealioning.

Here’s the thing. I would love to have civil, honest, constructive conversations. Seeing that this can be perceived as malicious is very frustrating to me. I could be accused of sealioning right now. It seems like a trap: damned if I do and damned if I don’t.

What am I supposed to do if I want to have a civil, honest, and constructive conversations?

I don’t doubt there are people who sealion. I just don’t see myself as having a malicious intent. I’m being open about my stances and I want to see what people’s stances are. But, again, damned if I do and damned if I don’t.

I suppose there’s nothing left for me to do other than tell you that, if you believe I’m acting in good faith, I’d love to talk to you. However, if you don’t think I’m acting in good faith, then there’s nothing we can do to move forward.

Regardless of what you think and what you choose, I genuinely hope you have a good one. In the grand scheme of things, I hope we can all live good lives.

I would love to have an effective and open conversation with you. You mentioned I should try to be more concise and that I seem to be trying to pass classes. Sure, my responses aren’t one-liners at all, but I’m not trying to pass any class. I’m trying to see what we all believe.

Just so we’re on the same page, this conversation started with a comment of yours. It said that “it’s about having insane, radical, or uncompromising/unrealistic opinions”. I assumed you meant that .ml users are “insane, radical or uncompromising/unrealistic”, given the context of this thread. I could’ve misinterpreted you, but that’s how I took it. I decided to respond to your post, because I don’t see myself as “insane, radical or uncompromising/unrealistic”. In response, the only thing you told me was that my response seemed AI-generated. I replied asking you if you could look past your perception of AI-generated content and tell me if I seemed close-minded. You replied saying I should be more concise.

All of this I interpret as if you are not engaging with me in good faith. I could be wrong; communication mishaps happen all the time. In the past, I have misinterpreted people and people have misinterpreted me. It’s also possible you’re having a bad day or something like that. It might even be possible that you think I’m acting in bad faith or something like that. What do you think?

TL;DR: I am happy to do TL;DRs, but I would also like assurance that you will engage with me effectively and openly.

Ah. Thanks for the explanation.

Well, if I look at my posts and ask myself whether I’m sealioning, I do see that I ask many questions to others. However, I also see that I talk about my stances and my beliefs. That is, as far as I can tell, not sealioning. Sealioning seems to require work from others while not doing the work of communicating.

Here’s a post in which I lay out some of my beliefs and stances regarding .ml: https://lemmy.ml/comment/23293518

Of course, I could be wrong, but that’s how it seems to me.

The goal of posting what I posted was to let others see where I stand in relation to .ml and understand where others stand.

You said my post reads like an AI-generated response. But I can assure you I did not use AI at any point. Regardless, I think this is a moot point.

The more important point is what you think of my post’s ideas. Am I an example of the close-mindedness and zeal that you perceive? Or do you find me as someone with whom you can talk?

I would love to think that I’m someone with whom you can talk, but that is something you and others decide. Others decide if they stop the flow of meaning into the conversation or whether they flood and impose meaning into the conversation.

The best I can do is be present and open.

To be fair, I did sign up a long time ago. However, I do have reasons to stay in .ml. Here’s a response I posted elsewhere: https://lemmy.ml/post/40683138/22907808

I’m out of the loop. What’s the context of this?

I’m curious what your response would be to me: https://lemmy.ml/post/40683138/22907808

Thanks for the straightforward response.

It sounds as if it’s clear that .ml admins are pro-Russia and pro-China. I understand you’re also asking if I’m making content-flow choices.

I think it’s worthwhile to interrogate where I stand in relation to .ml and my identity.

The way I see it, .ml does have posts that mourn aspects of countries like the USA and posts that recognize achievements of China. I’m not sure I’ve seen posts praising Russia, like at all, ever (if anything, I’ve seen posts critical of how Russia is a hyper-militaristic society).

I take this to mean that .ml is not indoctrinated in the way that many of my friends are. Some of my friends think that capitalism is perfectly ethical, and they sweep under the rug awful things about capitalism. They sweep under the rug how capitalism creates systemic inequality, how capitalism optimizes for accumulation instead of human flourishing, how capitalism is short-sighted in its investment strategies, how capitalism cannot create infinite growth in a contained system like planet Earth. I see these kinds of analyses in .ml. And I do not see them as much in other places.

I want to make it clear that I’m not saying those analyses don’t exist elsewhere. However, I see .ml engaging with them much more. I could be wrong, and I’d be very interested if you can link to other communities that engage with things like, for example, classical economics instead of neoclassical or post-Keynesian economics. Anyway…

This might lead you to believe that I have a specific political project in mind that I’m supporting. And yeah, I believe in humanism, in human development, and in empathy-based ethics. However, I do not believe in static visions of the future. I do not think that there’s a Single Best Way Of Solving World Problems. I believe the world is a complex system and we need multiple simultaneous experiments at all levels to get more of what we want and less of what we don’t want.

And what is it that I want? I want more acceptance of diversity and less hatred. I want more people working in good working conditions and less shitty workplaces. I want more equality of opportunities and less hoarding of privilege by the wealthy. I want more people out of poverty and less people stuck in the cycle of poverty. I want more investments that care about the long-term benefit of everyone and less investments that care about the short-term benefit of elites. I want more people who can choose what to do with their lives and less people stuck with what they’ve got in front of them.

So am I anti-USA and pro-China?

• If you tell me the story that the USA is lagging in healthcare compared to its rich-country counterparts, then I want less of that. Am I anti-USA because of that?
• If you tell me the story that the USA managed to be an innovation power-house for a century because of its entrepreneurial state, then I want more of that. Am I pro-USA because of that?
• If you tell me the story that China has a demographic problem because of its gender imbalance, then I want less of that. Am I anti-China because of that?
• If you tell me the story that China is investing immensely in the development of green energy, then I want more of that. Am I pro-China because of that?

What I’m trying to say is that we have to look at reality with openness. I believe we should not stick to a simplistic story. I believe simplistic stories blind us to complexity and nuance. I believe we should not stick to easy stories such as “pro-USA” or “pro-China”. I believe we need to be able to break complex systems down and find what we want more of and what we want less of. I believe we then need to be able to accept that in complex systems we cannot know the end-state. I believe, instead, we need to try things out at multiple levels and see if we’re getting more of what we want and less of what we don’t want.

So yeah, I see myself as someone who sees in .ml the kinds of analyses that I don’t see elsewhere. Of course, I’m open to alternatives and am curious about where you stand and what you believe.

To understand what you mean, is that seal winking? If so, are you saying that maybe I’m not being forthcoming or honest? I hope that you and I and everyone here can agree that we’re trying to understand what we’re all saying and where we all stand. I’m not being sarcastic or trying to hide anything.

The goal is to have a good working environment to live good lives and do good work.

The fact that your boss pulled in other coworkers could be interpreted as a red flag, as something fundamentally wrong with your boss. However, without more information, I think this situation could be workable. In other words, there are things you can do.

Again, the goal is to have a good working environment to live good lives and do good work.

I think a good working environment is one where errors can be talked about openly and without fear. I do not think the solution is “praise publicly criticize privately”. I think the solution is for your team (including your boss) to create psychologically safe environment. How? By emphasizing the goal, the purpose of your work. By admitting to mistakes or lack of knowledge to accept fallibility. This is especially helpful if your boss does it. By appreciating when someone openly shares concerns or mistakes. By creating rituals or habits of inclusion, such as well run meetings or effective information-gathering methods.

Do all of those recommendations sound hard to implement and naive? I think for many teams they are. But the reality is that psychologically safe teams exist, and they perform better than teams that don’t have it.

If it’s hard to implement it, why am I bringing it up? Because I think it’s important know exactly what went wrong with your meeting with your boss. It’s better to have an accurate map that shows a steep canyon than a fake map that shows a nonexistent bridge.

So what do you do?

Here are a couple of suggestions:

• learn about psychological safety. Amy Edmonson is the authority on the subject.
• learn to have Crucial Conversations. It’ll help you now and it’ll help you forever.

If you vibe with what I’m saying, let me know and I can give you more suggestions. At the same time, it’s totally understandable if you don’t think my path is viable.

To me it’s obviously the potato that tastes like tomato. I use tomatoes in so many dishes. Potatoes don’t taste nearly as good as a tomato. Heck, even fried potatoes need tomato: fries with ketchup!

I’m sorry to hear you’re seeing so much happening all at once, things that mean so much to you.

I hope you can find meaning in each step you take, even if it’s hard.

If you want resources or help with that, feel free to ask.

Hahah! Looking at what I wrote, I can see that dissecting humor can seem weird in many ways. I didn’t expect that one way to seem weird was to sound like AI lol

Okay. I’ll take a stab at the layers.

Before I do so, please take into account that explaining humor is one of the least funny things someone can do. Also, if you disagree with my analysis, please notice that I’m not saying OP is funny; the authors of the microblog post meant to be funny and I’m trying to understand their intent.

Alright, let’s nerd out. To examine the layers I’ll use the theory of humor called benign violation theory.

1. Benign: “nothing to be alarmed about”. Violation: trading women
2. Benign: “normal aging process”. Violation: trading women.
3. Benign: “men’s beards turn white as they age”. Violation: “beard” means a partner that is used to conceal infidelity or non-heterosexuality, so the implication is that men’s (infidelity-hiding or non-heterosexuality-hiding) partners turn white as men age.
4. Benign: JD Vance is absurdly conservative and therefore supposedly faithful and heterosexual (this is the expectation). Violation: He has a “beard” in the partner sense and therefore is cheating on his partner or is non-heterosexual.
5. Benign: “nothing to be alarmed about” and “normal aging process”. Violation: trading non-white women for white women.
6. Benign: “Erika Kirk” is composed of two relatively normal names. Violation: Erika Kirk has 3K’s in her name, which is KKK, which is Ku Klux Klan.
7. Benign: (The expectation is that) The KKK is a group of hate-fueled fanatics who are obsessed with whiteness. Violation: The “normal aging process” that includes changing one’s “beard” aligns with Erika Kirk’s three K’s.

[Edit: Added the “beard” meaning after I learned it from trashcan@sh.itjust.works and pat_riot@lemmy.today.]

This happened in 2016 and here’s the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Perkins_(politician)#LGBT_issues

Proportion, perspective, shading… love it!!

This also happened to me. I had an interview on the phone in which I got amazing feedback. I then had my second interview online and had trouble with my audio. After that, they ghosted me.

I understand that, in many ways, ghosting is normal. Still, that first call’s feedback made me think they wanted to hire me.

That’s alright. I understand that explaining takes time and energy. That time and energy is something I often choose to spend, but I also sometimes choose not to. I would ask you why you want to stop explaining things, but that would, ironically, require you to explain things. I’m not saying this ironically or sarcastically: I hope you can be understood easily!