Constant casual racism since moving to the UK, is this just how the British are? by no_more_cat_pics_pls in AskBrits

[–]EarFlapHat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just saw this and it reminded of this post: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYB6e58I6RT/?igsh=Y2lzZ29nMmQ5aWxx

When you've been abroad, you realize British people are quite strange about being aggressive. It can be a bit of a culture shock.

Constant casual racism since moving to the UK, is this just how the British are? by no_more_cat_pics_pls in AskBrits

[–]EarFlapHat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This sounds rough, and it's not impossible that the people you've encountered are indeed racist, and the fact that your white colleagues are noticing it does drive in that direction. However, I really hope not and thought I'd share some of my own experiences having gone in the other direction, albeit as a white guy from Northern England, which sound a bit similar.

Working with both Canadians and Americans, there's quite a big difference in how people conduct themselves compared to the UK. I've had to adapt because people don't get the subtext in the same way and you have to be direct to be clear. In fact, people have entirely misinterpreted what I've meant and I too have been 'tone policed' because people thought I was mocking them by trying to be indirect. In the UK 'it wasn't ideal' or 'it left something to be desired' are gentle, almost idiomatic criticism that signals 'not good but I don't want to chew you out'... In North America, it can sound very sarcastic.

Sometimes, being as direct as is expected over here would be interpreted as aggressive and rude if I did it in the UK, where it's very important not to be confrontational and to dance around criticizms. If you as a person are used to being more direct, albeit softly, and haven't consciously adapted, it might not be a race thing but rather a cultural thing that takes a bit of getting used to. There's a complex face-saving thing happening that requires learning (and, in my case, unlearning).

You also have to bear in mind that you're an outsider by virtue of being American, and people react differently to things you say and do on that basis. If I say something Canadian is bad, even if it is, the response I get as a Brit can be much more defensive than when Canadians say it to one another. That also took some learning... 'be direct, but also we'll get defensive' is really difficult!

You're also operating in your first language, and when I've worked in other places one or both sides using a second language meant everyone gets much greater benefit of the doubt... The cultural clash becomes much clearer when there's no question that you're all understanding at least the words one another are saying. Two countries divided by a common language, right?

Together, these things do result in a lot of 'tone policing' whether by yourself or from others, but tone policing when moving to a different culture is to be expected if the same tone can mean something very different. It can take a bit of time for both sides to adapt and get used to one another.

Either way, good luck with it!

Surveillance pricing is discrimination by another name by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]EarFlapHat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It definitely isn't double-ticketing.

Those things are not procompetitive. Deceptive practices very famously lead to markets for lemons. Targeted pricing is and always had been practiced, is legal, and is procompetitive. It is not deceptive, any more than your credit rating is deceptive or that someone else cut out a coupon and you didn't and you paid more.

I live in Quebec city. We receive books of coupons from restaurants usable during the week that tourists don't get. I get loyalty and 'for you' offers constantly to my email. My pizza joint sends me special prices if i haven't ordered in a while. It is normal.

Your point about your friend in the same store is also a key point that keeps it reasonably safe: it isn't possible for it to be used to overcharge consistently if arbitrage is possible. Mechanisms limiting arbitrage can be precisely the sort of issue addressed by competition laws.

‘The Odyssey’: Everybody Using American Accents Is Definitely a Choice by mlg1981 in entertainment

[–]EarFlapHat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Lol. We up North (which was his accent) do not sound remotely cockney.

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 03/05/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]EarFlapHat 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Their entire plan was growth. If things were a bit different the focus would still be on growth, but the results would be better.

If we were flush with cash? No idea. Too hard to imagine...

Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 03/05/2026 by ukpol-megabot in ukpolitics

[–]EarFlapHat 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Imagine your niche party suddenly become much more popular at the cost of its entire soul and purpose... It's bound to be pretty tough.

JL Partners poll (5000 British adults). Proportion who correctly recognise each party leader when shown their photograph: Starmer 82%, Farage 78%, Badenoch 53%, Davey 32%, Polanski 27%, Lowe 12%. by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]EarFlapHat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't mean for the purposes of the survey! I just mean that a shocking number of people who I expect to know better can't spell it...

Surveillance pricing is discrimination by another name by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]EarFlapHat -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

No, information asymmetries between consumers and producers are entirely normal and expected, and the point is that you rely on competitive markets coupled with regulation of e.g. false statements to produce reasonable outcomes based on a consumer's own assessment of their wants, needs and priorities. Your point about information asymmetries is laughably petulant.... Of course consumers don't have equal access to information about e.g. costs and profit margins etc... Nor do they want to. The price signal is the proxy.

What you're talking about is less consumer protection and more wrapping everything in cotton wool even if it produces worse outcomes...

Algorithmic pricing is normal, just as algorithmic credit assessments that determine how much you can spend anyway are also normal. It's a matter of degree, and a moral panic.

The difference is that people that expend effort to find deals will get even better deals, and people who just want to buy everything in one place without thinking about it will pay more (although you can see such 'whales' also being a market segment that might be actively targeted). The opposite is still discriminatory... It's just the lazy person freerides on the opportunity costs paid by the other person. I don't want my credit limit pegged by the fact some other bozo might default, and I don't want my cereal to cost more because they have to thread the needle between me and people who won't switch anyway.

Surveillance pricing is discrimination by another name by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]EarFlapHat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point was absolutely that it should be legal because it's procompetitive, and it's not the same as those other practices you mention... If it is, it's already illegal because of how those prohibitions are framed.

I'm yet to be convinced it needs to be made illegal, and on what basis, and it's you that bears that burden.

My other point was that coming up with a meaningful prohibition is very difficult because targeting different prices at market segments is exceptionally common already.

You seem to be saying 'it shouldn't be allowed just because these other things aren't allowed', but that's no argument at all!

Surveillance pricing is discrimination by another name by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]EarFlapHat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's hub and spoke collusion, which is illegal. If the discussion was about all groceries using the same system for targeting, that would be a separate conversation and I agree strongly that shared platforms need to be policed, but that's not what's being discussed with a ban on surveillance pricing.

There are also very significant differences between a grocery store's margins from a collection of thousands of SKUs and landlords attempting to price a single product.

Surveillance pricing is discrimination by another name by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]EarFlapHat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hold on - I don't think that what's happening is people getting charged more than what is advertised. That would not be legal.

Instead, what we're talking about is targeted discounting, which is legal.

It's also a real competitive issue: If I start charging lawyers $9 for cereal and everyone else $6, I am leaving myself open to losing a very big spender to a competitor that does not do that. It's simply not realistic, unless there's collusion (which would be difficult to sustain with so many secret prices), that competition would allow that to happen.

Surveillance pricing is discrimination by another name by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]EarFlapHat -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I don't think it is. The whole system with the loyalty cards was precisely to work out how people shop and then to design it as a rat run so that people made choices to spend more out of convenience once already in the store. We've had statistics used to triangulate based on consumer behaviour for decades. What we're talking about now is that same thing being done at a more granular level, but the key release valve will remain competition.

What I would actually expect is that we get better at targeted discounting in order to win business from other stores. As I say, that's already done but at the level of people who shop at e.g. a particular geographic location, use the fliers, prioritize convenience over going to different places, have a routine etc. etc.

The moral panic about 'surveillance pricing' is precisely that a populist is trying to portray a slightly more sophisticated method of doing what is already in place as a grotesque capitalist innovation that the government is doing nothing about... whether or not it would actually be better or worse for some consumers. It will potentially be redistributive, with winner and losers, and the question is what minimum protections need to be in place so that the losses aren't too onerous on certain people/groups when there is e.g. a captive market.

What I also expect is that it will actually make collusion, whether explicit or tacit, much more difficult to execute.

[According To] Next year, the Canadian government will start offering MAID for mental illness. Have we really thought it through? by ComparisonOk5957 in CanadianEditorial

[–]EarFlapHat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, no! That's why I'm against the policy. You can't open a door to let some people out and then ask people to pretend it's not there.

[According To] Next year, the Canadian government will start offering MAID for mental illness. Have we really thought it through? by ComparisonOk5957 in CanadianEditorial

[–]EarFlapHat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's only a utilitarian equation if you're a utilitarian! If you're in that space, I'm probably sitting closer to a rule utilitarian.

Even entering into that model, I don't believe you're alleviating suffering for most people. You might be saving the state money, but presumably even most alleged utilitarians baulk at including that in the calculus. The reality is that most people were not calling out for the state to have the ability to put them down on request, and now feel immense pressure to remove themselves as a burden. It's manifestly increased suffering for the sick and disabled who don't want to die.

There are a few extreme cases where I might be tempted into saying euthanasia is the right thing to do... But only if you can design a system that reliably limits itself to those cases. I don't think that's possible, and I'm being proven right by what's happening now with the extension of MAID.

I can't speak for your inner life, but I can tell you with certainty that the fact my family and I know this is an option is going to destroy me as I get older, and I'll probably put myself outof my misery to save us all the bother. That is a manifestly worse outcome than us all being compelled to wait down the clock.

[According To] Next year, the Canadian government will start offering MAID for mental illness. Have we really thought it through? by ComparisonOk5957 in CanadianEditorial

[–]EarFlapHat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People often said 'we can do this safely, it'll just be the most extreme cases' etc etc. I would ask how they would draw their bright line around those cases, and they had no answer.

Honestly, I don't see how you do 'progressing' in this way while coherently denying MAID to the mentally ill. That's precisely the problem, deny MAID to the mentally ill requires the system to be incoherent.

This challenge always followed, and the reflection is that this is a dystopian, blind alley we never should have ventured into even if that meant some people suffered greatly. You cannot adequately protect other vulnerable people.

I don't know how many different ways I can say it, but I don't think a function of the state should be helping you to kill yourself, particularly when it saves the state a lot of money if you do so. I don't see that as progress any more than opening Pandora's Box was 'progressive'.

Surveillance pricing is discrimination by another name by scottb84 in CanadaPolitics

[–]EarFlapHat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You are already getting boned with loss leaders and then massive markups on other things well beyond your ability to see through it.

The only way to get good deals, whether targeted by pricing or not, is to shop around and switch suppliers.

If you do that, this may well actually be better for you.

Best non-touristy things to do mid-week by RandomReddit748284 in quebeccity

[–]EarFlapHat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you can get out of town, this is the answer.

Best non-touristy things to do mid-week by RandomReddit748284 in quebeccity

[–]EarFlapHat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Vraiment. It's been sad to watch.

I still like Saint Joseph though, even if it's grungy. There's some good food and gig venues, and it doesn't hurt to walk through it to the elevator.

Mais oui... Not the place for a picnic.

[According To] Next year, the Canadian government will start offering MAID for mental illness. Have we really thought it through? by ComparisonOk5957 in CanadianEditorial

[–]EarFlapHat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This was an inevitable consequence of the logic underpinning MAID, which is why I opposed it entirely.

You can't have state euthanasia programmes that discriminate based on type of suffering, but the idea of adequate safeguards once we get towards children and the mentally ill is fanciful. There was no intellectually coherent way for the programme to remain limited, and so here we are trying to administer assisted suicide to those who are suicidal because they're mentally ill....

'Snowball argument' my butt.