I appreciate that you're trying not to call people out, but a topic like this is either inherently confrontational or inherently passive-aggressive, and you've gone with passive-aggressive. : )...
I appreciate that you're trying not to call people out, but a topic like this is either inherently confrontational or inherently passive-aggressive, and you've gone with passive-aggressive. : )
Can you either call people out or talk in more detail about what you mean?
It's fucking everybody (not literally). Every time I make a longish comment on a contentious issue, I get a bunch of responses nitpicking something that wasn't even relevant to the point I was...
It's fucking everybody (not literally). Every time I make a longish comment on a contentious issue, I get a bunch of responses nitpicking something that wasn't even relevant to the point I was making. I suppose I should label those comments as off topic?
It frankly goes beyond being frustrating into being maddening to get a stream of people basically circle jerking about something you weren't really even talking about.
That seems like a separate issue than what OP is talking about. Your concern is that people aren’t replying to the main thesis of your comment, which is different than being concerned that people...
That seems like a separate issue than what OP is talking about. Your concern is that people aren’t replying to the main thesis of your comment, which is different than being concerned that people are disingenuously disagreeing, or biasing towards the status quo (which I’m still confused as to how that’s an issue).
I don't believe that is what the off-topic label is intended for. I do recognize people responding to out of context bits of longer comments in such a way that they seem to miss the entire main...
I suppose I should label those comments as off topic?
I don't believe that is what the off-topic label is intended for. I do recognize people responding to out of context bits of longer comments in such a way that they seem to miss the entire main point. Ironically, the thread about the reading level of Americans earlier reminded me about that behavior.
I mean, it says it "is for identifying comments which have veered away from the main subject of discussion in a thread." That sounds like a lot of nitpicking would meet that criterion.
I mean, it says it "is for identifying comments which have veered away from the main subject of discussion in a thread." That sounds like a lot of nitpicking would meet that criterion.
As I understand it, off-topic is more prototypically for comments that genuinely aren't continuing the discussion, not comments that merely disagree with yours in a way you find annoying. The...
As I understand it, off-topic is more prototypically for comments that genuinely aren't continuing the discussion, not comments that merely disagree with yours in a way you find annoying. The label's main functionality as I understand it, at least when they're replies to another comment, is preventing the thread from getting bumped. This makes more sense for perfunctory responses or housekeeping comments rather than just replies that you don't think focus on the right things.
Ultimately, I don't think "off-topic" was designed to be used for the kinds of comments you're talking about. If these "nitpicky" comments are sufficiently disruptive, marking them as "noise" or "malice" is probably the more appropriate response. If they're not disruptive enough for a "noise" label, then they probably don't merit any other label, and your most effective response is just ignoring them and moving on with your day.
I suppose you are technically right, depending on how far off the subject they have gone. My take generally is that as long as it touches on the main subject it isn't off-topic even though it...
I suppose you are technically right, depending on how far off the subject they have gone. My take generally is that as long as it touches on the main subject it isn't off-topic even though it might be "wrong".
The only person who can even see malice labels is the site admin, Deimos, and he generally has made it clear that he will remove the ability to use labels when people misuse them -- which it...
And one more thing, this website literally literally shadow banned me from using the comment label feature, seemingly in retaliation for me marking almost every comment in a thread about the book “White Rural Rage” as malicious.
The only person who can even see malice labels is the site admin, Deimos, and he generally has made it clear that he will remove the ability to use labels when people misuse them -- which it sounds like you did from your own description. Ultimately, this is Deimos's website, so if you don't like his approach to that, your recourse is to leave and find/start a community elsewhere that fits your needs better.
Yeah... I had a recent interaction with the original poster, so I felt obligated to try and figure out if he was obliquely complaining about me... Which is very much a possibility 🤷♀️
Yeah... I had a recent interaction with the original poster, so I felt obligated to try and figure out if he was obliquely complaining about me... Which is very much a possibility 🤷♀️
Something to consider: People who agree with an idea will likely vote and then move on. People who disagree with an idea can only voice their disagreement by writing a reply.
Something to consider:
People who agree with an idea will likely vote and then move on.
People who disagree with an idea can only voice their disagreement by writing a reply.
Contrarianism implies that you aren’t internally consistent; do you have examples of this? It seems more likely a case of selection bias; there’s more to say when you disagree, so you see more...
Contrarianism implies that you aren’t internally consistent; do you have examples of this? It seems more likely a case of selection bias; there’s more to say when you disagree, so you see more disagreement. If you agree, most people click vote and more on. It would require an extraordinary amount of research into a pseudo anonymous internet user to know if they’re internally consistent or not.
As to the status quo, it isn’t inherently beneficial to move from the status quo? Inherently biasing towards change is how we got Trump again.
Also, some people conflate support for some issues with automatic support for other issues. An easy example from American politics (for some reason) is being progressive is "supposed" to mean...
Also, some people conflate support for some issues with automatic support for other issues. An easy example from American politics (for some reason) is being progressive is "supposed" to mean you're stringently anti-gun. That only a "right wing asshole" would support guns is usually mixed up in the reactions you'll often get, if you're not Conservative or Right, yet pro Second Amendment.
So basically, it's assumptions tripping people up. They run around making assumptions, and then get not just confused, but shade more toward anger, when it starts to become clear the assumption wasn't true. People would often rather be angry than wrong. Easier too.
Way easier to just fling accusations, betrayal, raw emotion, than to accept something might not have lined up with the reality. Or to try to think and understand that person's decisions.
Yes, I very much confuse people with some of my opinions. Right wing people think I'm a leftie. Left wing people think I must be some super conservative arch-Republican. I don't think it's a...
Yes, I very much confuse people with some of my opinions. Right wing people think I'm a leftie. Left wing people think I must be some super conservative arch-Republican. I don't think it's a complete lack of internal consistency, I like to think I'm fairly OK there (as much as a squishy meatbag processing unit that is genetically predisposed to cognitive biases can be), I do put some effort in to self assessment and metacognition to recognize issues. But I also don't toe the line on either party.
For those curious about examples and such - I generally lean toward some more center left economic policies. Not abandoning capitalism (not because it's a good system but because every other thing tried so far has been worse), but putting policies in to place to use it to bring about greater equality. However, I'm also fairly pro-2A and own multiple firearms. Similar reasons - it's not perfect by any stretch, but the genie is out of the bottle at this point in the USA and it's too baked in culturally that attempting to massively curtail it will cause more problems than it will solve. Not to say there can't be more controls, mind you (this bit will tick off the militant 2A crowd), just that something like a mass banning just won't work with the current social state of the country.
Just between those two things I can bring up specifics in either one to tick off someone devoutly on the left or the right. For that matter, I have gotten in to debates with people on both sides about those topics. It sometimes feels like an outlier place in modern society to be in a position to regularly and deeply engage with people on both sides of the aisle...
I think I'm often seen as contrarian. I think of it more as being a skeptic. I feel like it's important to recognize our ignorance and the complexity of human civilization. So if someone says...
I think I'm often seen as contrarian.
I think of it more as being a skeptic. I feel like it's important to recognize our ignorance and the complexity of human civilization. So if someone says something like "The American financial system was designed to keep lower class people as wage slaves". I may disagree. It's more complicated, institutional memory, mission creep, corruption, etc. Most likely, no one person or group mindfully designed the American financial system.
But if someone says something like: "The current system seems to make it difficult to escape wage slavery". I'll just think: "True that." Maybe vote and move on.
This might seem inconsistent. But to me it's because I think it's really important to approach problems without any misconceptions or biases. If our system was designed by evil actors than the solution would be a much easier one of just finding and stopping those people. Instead I think we actually have to do the hard work of designing and implementing a fair economic system.
I picked American economics at random. But Its the same for me with any issue. I'm more likely to push back against people I generally agree with who are making unproductive assumptions, because I want "my team" to be well informed and thinking clearly about how to move forward. Often that may seem like I'm just nitpicking something to argue about.
One of the seeming cultural components of Tildes, or at least something I've noticed, is that many users here really don't like these kinds broad-brushed "gimmees." Such as your example. I think...
So if someone says something like "The American financial system was designed to keep lower class people as wage slaves"
One of the seeming cultural components of Tildes, or at least something I've noticed, is that many users here really don't like these kinds broad-brushed "gimmees." Such as your example. I think part of that stems from this group's anti-reddit mentality, where that kinda thing is pretty common. It's free upvotes over there. So people, here, feel the need to pushback and such. And I get it. I do this in real-life with people I know. Maybe too often. Sometimes people just want to complain or let off steam, after all.
Relatedly, I think it's also why we get so many comments across Tildes that are full-on essays. Quick quips just aren't a thing here, really. I'm not saying people aren't saying interesting, thought-provoking stuff. But when I come across them, I sometimes also think, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
Clearly there's a want here to elevate the discussion. To have discussion, period. And I wonder if this is what's driving the contrarianism/defense of the status quo, plus the long-windedness. Sometimes to the annoyance of others. It's a fine-line to walk. Or maybe a blurry line is more accurate.
I think this is also a sort of anti-reddit thing. Over there, if one isn't extremely explicit in their writing with posts laying out every little detail, they're going to get hit with a tidal wave...
Relatedly, I think it's also why we get so many comments across Tildes that are full-on essays. Quick quips just aren't a thing here, really. I'm not saying people aren't saying interesting, thought-provoking stuff. But when I come across them, I sometimes also think, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
I think this is also a sort of anti-reddit thing. Over there, if one isn't extremely explicit in their writing with posts laying out every little detail, they're going to get hit with a tidal wave of low-effort "gotcha" replies that shut down discussion and get upvoted into the stratosphere.
It may be a habit that's best left behind, though.
Oh no … I have an off topic discussion about usage of the term “designed”. Please feel free to flag this so my comment is hidden to others … May I ask what your take is on how folks refer to...
Oh no … I have an off topic discussion about usage of the term “designed”. Please feel free to flag this so my comment is hidden to others …
May I ask what your take is on how folks refer to biological features? For example, colloquially, one might say that a bird’s feather is “designed” to be lightweight and strong, even though no individual (or group of individuals) literally designed it. Similarly there is frequently a desire to ascribe purpose to said features as well: your spleen is ‘for cleaning your blood cells’, your skin is ‘for keeping external biomes out’ and etc., even though reality is dramatically more complex (eg horses naturally blood dope with their spleen, your skin is a significant source of vitamin D, etc) since the organs simply “are” and do not abide the rigid categorization that exemplify human designs.
I’ve softened my take on the above examples over the years, since it seems like many people do genuinely prefer to work with those individual/human-centric framings, even if they have to adjust their conclusions in some cases due to a misalignment with the fuzzier, less coherent reality. Not sure if that’s useful to the topic at hand, but I’m curious about your take! (assuming you have one; no pressure if not)
Perhaps folks like the broad strokes of how their life is currently (uncritical acceptance of the status quo) but feel that some details in particular are unpleasant (being contrarian)? I’d also...
Perhaps folks like the broad strokes of how their life is currently (uncritical acceptance of the status quo) but feel that some details in particular are unpleasant (being contrarian)?
I’d also argue that people are, generally, walking contradictions and that internal inconsistencies seem very common [1] which doesn’t seem itself a bad thing. Except when they open their mouths and attempt to make self-defeating arguments … and cold logic does not permit paradoxes.
Could also be that, in the space of a few hundred words shared on an Internet forum, it’s hard to tell what a person stands for. We’re not all stereotypes (although some are!), so I’ve at least found some surprises when speaking with people in detail on subjects that their in group (as perceived by me) would have starkly different opinions on. Not super frequently though since I tend to keep to myself …
Finally, to be frank, I’m not always sure what constitutes being contrarian. I’ve often been accused of it by disagreeing with someone who feels that they’re clearly correct. Or when asking someone for more reasoning, since interrogating a feeling or opinion can feel like an attack when framed incorrectly.
[1] IME: devout Christians ignoring teachings that they dislike, environmentalists not following an environmentally-friendly lifestyle in literally every facet of their life, preaching acceptance while holding and espousing bigoted or exclusionary beliefs, etc.
This reminds me of all the times that I have (in real life) said something that apparently others don't realize is true, someone corrects me, I explain why what I said initially was true, and then...
Finally, to be frank, I’m not always sure what constitutes being contrarian. I’ve often been accused of it by disagreeing with someone who feels that they’re clearly correct. Or when asking someone for more reasoning, since interrogating a feeling or opinion can feel like an attack when framed incorrectly.
This reminds me of all the times that I have (in real life) said something that apparently others don't realize is true, someone corrects me, I explain why what I said initially was true, and then they tell me I always have to be right. Like, nah, I just was right and you incorrectly tried to correct me. How else do you want me to respond to that??
Oh, agreed. I don’t think I’ve had precisely the same exchanges, but I have not-infrequently conceded a point or avoided speaking because I know that further discussion would become prickly … I...
Oh, agreed. I don’t think I’ve had precisely the same exchanges, but I have not-infrequently conceded a point or avoided speaking because I know that further discussion would become prickly … I assume it’s just a commonly accepted social practice.
I really like hanging out with people who will (without a hint of aggression) call me out when I make mistakes, though, so I guess I want to select for environments like that by treating others similarly. It’s hard to grow if I’m the only source of useful critiques.
I think I might fit this description. It comes from two things: First, I’m usually motivated to reply be because I disagree with something. Not that I necessarily disagree with all of it, but if I...
I think I might fit this description. It comes from two things:
First, I’m usually motivated to reply be because I disagree with something. Not that I necessarily disagree with all of it, but if I agree then I just upvote and move on.
Second, even if I agree about overall direction, I might disagree with the way someone advocates for it because I don’t think it logically follows. There are a lot of ways to advocate for good causes while saying things that are wrong. For some controversies, there are bad arguments on both sides. (Cryptocurrency and AI come to mind.)
Also, wanting discussion to be evidence-based inherently results in a status quo bias, because that’s what we have evidence for - the past and present, whatever already happened. When we speculate about alternatives, particularly big changes, it’s often fuzzy and difficult to even describe clearly what it would be like or how things might change.
Which doesn’t mean the future is predictable. I sometimes try to argue people out of having fixed, often very pessimistic ideas about what the future might bring, not leaving room to be surprised.
I’ve come to dislike disagreeing all the time, so these days I often try to say something more positive. But a seed of disagreement is usually still there, though perhaps hidden once I’m satisfied with what I wrote.
By this, do you mean the status quo within Tildes? Or more broadly? I assume it is the former. But, as @R3qn65 points out, without giving more context and details you'll just leave people...
Arguing to defend the status quo
By this, do you mean the status quo within Tildes? Or more broadly? I assume it is the former. But, as @R3qn65 points out, without giving more context and details you'll just leave people guessing.
I think I agree that there are plenty of instances where people defend the status quo on tildes. I also would place you under that category to a certain degree due to a discussion we had a little while ago. As I assume you are not talking about yourself, I can only guess you have a different type of thing in mind.
Being contrarian
This also does need more context, this can mean a lot of things depending on the angle. I also feel that both your statements are a bit at odds with each other. Unless the status quo on tildes is to be a contrarian, which I don't think is the case.
I appreciate that you're trying not to call people out, but a topic like this is either inherently confrontational or inherently passive-aggressive, and you've gone with passive-aggressive. : )
Can you either call people out or talk in more detail about what you mean?
It's fucking everybody (not literally). Every time I make a longish comment on a contentious issue, I get a bunch of responses nitpicking something that wasn't even relevant to the point I was making. I suppose I should label those comments as off topic?
It frankly goes beyond being frustrating into being maddening to get a stream of people basically circle jerking about something you weren't really even talking about.
That seems like a separate issue than what OP is talking about. Your concern is that people aren’t replying to the main thesis of your comment, which is different than being concerned that people are disingenuously disagreeing, or biasing towards the status quo (which I’m still confused as to how that’s an issue).
Kind of. It's more that people are so eager to push back in their responses that they push back where they shouldn't.
I don't believe that is what the off-topic label is intended for. I do recognize people responding to out of context bits of longer comments in such a way that they seem to miss the entire main point. Ironically, the thread about the reading level of Americans earlier reminded me about that behavior.
I mean, it says it "is for identifying comments which have veered away from the main subject of discussion in a thread." That sounds like a lot of nitpicking would meet that criterion.
As I understand it, off-topic is more prototypically for comments that genuinely aren't continuing the discussion, not comments that merely disagree with yours in a way you find annoying. The label's main functionality as I understand it, at least when they're replies to another comment, is preventing the thread from getting bumped. This makes more sense for perfunctory responses or housekeeping comments rather than just replies that you don't think focus on the right things.
Ultimately, I don't think "off-topic" was designed to be used for the kinds of comments you're talking about. If these "nitpicky" comments are sufficiently disruptive, marking them as "noise" or "malice" is probably the more appropriate response. If they're not disruptive enough for a "noise" label, then they probably don't merit any other label, and your most effective response is just ignoring them and moving on with your day.
I suppose you are technically right, depending on how far off the subject they have gone. My take generally is that as long as it touches on the main subject it isn't off-topic even though it might be "wrong".
The only person who can even see malice labels is the site admin, Deimos, and he generally has made it clear that he will remove the ability to use labels when people misuse them -- which it sounds like you did from your own description. Ultimately, this is Deimos's website, so if you don't like his approach to that, your recourse is to leave and find/start a community elsewhere that fits your needs better.
Yeah... I had a recent interaction with the original poster, so I felt obligated to try and figure out if he was obliquely complaining about me... Which is very much a possibility 🤷♀️
Something to consider:
People who agree with an idea will likely vote and then move on.
People who disagree with an idea can only voice their disagreement by writing a reply.
Contrarianism implies that you aren’t internally consistent; do you have examples of this? It seems more likely a case of selection bias; there’s more to say when you disagree, so you see more disagreement. If you agree, most people click vote and more on. It would require an extraordinary amount of research into a pseudo anonymous internet user to know if they’re internally consistent or not.
As to the status quo, it isn’t inherently beneficial to move from the status quo? Inherently biasing towards change is how we got Trump again.
Also, some people conflate support for some issues with automatic support for other issues. An easy example from American politics (for some reason) is being progressive is "supposed" to mean you're stringently anti-gun. That only a "right wing asshole" would support guns is usually mixed up in the reactions you'll often get, if you're not Conservative or Right, yet pro Second Amendment.
So basically, it's assumptions tripping people up. They run around making assumptions, and then get not just confused, but shade more toward anger, when it starts to become clear the assumption wasn't true. People would often rather be angry than wrong. Easier too.
Way easier to just fling accusations, betrayal, raw emotion, than to accept something might not have lined up with the reality. Or to try to think and understand that person's decisions.
Yes, I very much confuse people with some of my opinions. Right wing people think I'm a leftie. Left wing people think I must be some super conservative arch-Republican. I don't think it's a complete lack of internal consistency, I like to think I'm fairly OK there (as much as a squishy meatbag processing unit that is genetically predisposed to cognitive biases can be), I do put some effort in to self assessment and metacognition to recognize issues. But I also don't toe the line on either party.
For those curious about examples and such - I generally lean toward some more center left economic policies. Not abandoning capitalism (not because it's a good system but because every other thing tried so far has been worse), but putting policies in to place to use it to bring about greater equality. However, I'm also fairly pro-2A and own multiple firearms. Similar reasons - it's not perfect by any stretch, but the genie is out of the bottle at this point in the USA and it's too baked in culturally that attempting to massively curtail it will cause more problems than it will solve. Not to say there can't be more controls, mind you (this bit will tick off the militant 2A crowd), just that something like a mass banning just won't work with the current social state of the country.
Just between those two things I can bring up specifics in either one to tick off someone devoutly on the left or the right. For that matter, I have gotten in to debates with people on both sides about those topics. It sometimes feels like an outlier place in modern society to be in a position to regularly and deeply engage with people on both sides of the aisle...
I think I'm often seen as contrarian.
I think of it more as being a skeptic. I feel like it's important to recognize our ignorance and the complexity of human civilization. So if someone says something like "The American financial system was designed to keep lower class people as wage slaves". I may disagree. It's more complicated, institutional memory, mission creep, corruption, etc. Most likely, no one person or group mindfully designed the American financial system.
But if someone says something like: "The current system seems to make it difficult to escape wage slavery". I'll just think: "True that." Maybe vote and move on.
This might seem inconsistent. But to me it's because I think it's really important to approach problems without any misconceptions or biases. If our system was designed by evil actors than the solution would be a much easier one of just finding and stopping those people. Instead I think we actually have to do the hard work of designing and implementing a fair economic system.
I picked American economics at random. But Its the same for me with any issue. I'm more likely to push back against people I generally agree with who are making unproductive assumptions, because I want "my team" to be well informed and thinking clearly about how to move forward. Often that may seem like I'm just nitpicking something to argue about.
One of the seeming cultural components of Tildes, or at least something I've noticed, is that many users here really don't like these kinds broad-brushed "gimmees." Such as your example. I think part of that stems from this group's anti-reddit mentality, where that kinda thing is pretty common. It's free upvotes over there. So people, here, feel the need to pushback and such. And I get it. I do this in real-life with people I know. Maybe too often. Sometimes people just want to complain or let off steam, after all.
Relatedly, I think it's also why we get so many comments across Tildes that are full-on essays. Quick quips just aren't a thing here, really. I'm not saying people aren't saying interesting, thought-provoking stuff. But when I come across them, I sometimes also think, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
Clearly there's a want here to elevate the discussion. To have discussion, period. And I wonder if this is what's driving the contrarianism/defense of the status quo, plus the long-windedness. Sometimes to the annoyance of others. It's a fine-line to walk. Or maybe a blurry line is more accurate.
I think this is also a sort of anti-reddit thing. Over there, if one isn't extremely explicit in their writing with posts laying out every little detail, they're going to get hit with a tidal wave of low-effort "gotcha" replies that shut down discussion and get upvoted into the stratosphere.
It may be a habit that's best left behind, though.
Really well said, and thanks for teaching me the term "institutional memory"!
Oh no … I have an off topic discussion about usage of the term “designed”. Please feel free to flag this so my comment is hidden to others …
May I ask what your take is on how folks refer to biological features? For example, colloquially, one might say that a bird’s feather is “designed” to be lightweight and strong, even though no individual (or group of individuals) literally designed it. Similarly there is frequently a desire to ascribe purpose to said features as well: your spleen is ‘for cleaning your blood cells’, your skin is ‘for keeping external biomes out’ and etc., even though reality is dramatically more complex (eg horses naturally blood dope with their spleen, your skin is a significant source of vitamin D, etc) since the organs simply “are” and do not abide the rigid categorization that exemplify human designs.
I’ve softened my take on the above examples over the years, since it seems like many people do genuinely prefer to work with those individual/human-centric framings, even if they have to adjust their conclusions in some cases due to a misalignment with the fuzzier, less coherent reality. Not sure if that’s useful to the topic at hand, but I’m curious about your take! (assuming you have one; no pressure if not)
Perhaps folks like the broad strokes of how their life is currently (uncritical acceptance of the status quo) but feel that some details in particular are unpleasant (being contrarian)?
I’d also argue that people are, generally, walking contradictions and that internal inconsistencies seem very common [1] which doesn’t seem itself a bad thing. Except when they open their mouths and attempt to make self-defeating arguments … and cold logic does not permit paradoxes.
Could also be that, in the space of a few hundred words shared on an Internet forum, it’s hard to tell what a person stands for. We’re not all stereotypes (although some are!), so I’ve at least found some surprises when speaking with people in detail on subjects that their in group (as perceived by me) would have starkly different opinions on. Not super frequently though since I tend to keep to myself …
Finally, to be frank, I’m not always sure what constitutes being contrarian. I’ve often been accused of it by disagreeing with someone who feels that they’re clearly correct. Or when asking someone for more reasoning, since interrogating a feeling or opinion can feel like an attack when framed incorrectly.
[1] IME: devout Christians ignoring teachings that they dislike, environmentalists not following an environmentally-friendly lifestyle in literally every facet of their life, preaching acceptance while holding and espousing bigoted or exclusionary beliefs, etc.
This reminds me of all the times that I have (in real life) said something that apparently others don't realize is true, someone corrects me, I explain why what I said initially was true, and then they tell me I always have to be right. Like, nah, I just was right and you incorrectly tried to correct me. How else do you want me to respond to that??
Oh, agreed. I don’t think I’ve had precisely the same exchanges, but I have not-infrequently conceded a point or avoided speaking because I know that further discussion would become prickly … I assume it’s just a commonly accepted social practice.
I really like hanging out with people who will (without a hint of aggression) call me out when I make mistakes, though, so I guess I want to select for environments like that by treating others similarly. It’s hard to grow if I’m the only source of useful critiques.
It's the difference between "you always have to be right" and "you always want to be right." The latter implies that you want to learn.
I think I might fit this description. It comes from two things:
First, I’m usually motivated to reply be because I disagree with something. Not that I necessarily disagree with all of it, but if I agree then I just upvote and move on.
Second, even if I agree about overall direction, I might disagree with the way someone advocates for it because I don’t think it logically follows. There are a lot of ways to advocate for good causes while saying things that are wrong. For some controversies, there are bad arguments on both sides. (Cryptocurrency and AI come to mind.)
Also, wanting discussion to be evidence-based inherently results in a status quo bias, because that’s what we have evidence for - the past and present, whatever already happened. When we speculate about alternatives, particularly big changes, it’s often fuzzy and difficult to even describe clearly what it would be like or how things might change.
Which doesn’t mean the future is predictable. I sometimes try to argue people out of having fixed, often very pessimistic ideas about what the future might bring, not leaving room to be surprised.
I’ve come to dislike disagreeing all the time, so these days I often try to say something more positive. But a seed of disagreement is usually still there, though perhaps hidden once I’m satisfied with what I wrote.
By this, do you mean the status quo within Tildes? Or more broadly? I assume it is the former. But, as @R3qn65 points out, without giving more context and details you'll just leave people guessing.
I think I agree that there are plenty of instances where people defend the status quo on tildes. I also would place you under that category to a certain degree due to a discussion we had a little while ago. As I assume you are not talking about yourself, I can only guess you have a different type of thing in mind.
This also does need more context, this can mean a lot of things depending on the angle. I also feel that both your statements are a bit at odds with each other. Unless the status quo on tildes is to be a contrarian, which I don't think is the case.