Search Results: being avoided

Warning, this is going to be a wall of text but I'll keep it as lean as possible.

What do you think, will a relationship work if the man is the technical one, uses Arch Linux OS on his device, a custom ROM on his mobile device instead of Android (that is if it's not a flip phone), encrypted his devices and data and uses strong passwords, decentralizes everything, that he uses, that he can decentralize (avoids the know your customer central exchanges such as Binance and uses something like Electrum instead), avoids using those tech giants services (especially Google and Microsoft and their email services and instead either uses something like Proton, Tuta or self-hosts his own and private Email provider) and staying off from social media (meaning he has no account on there to begin with) and resists mass surveillance and privacy violating things and trying as much to stay under the radar whenever possible and avoids using Whatsapp and instead uses Signal, the messaging app, that Edward Snowden has endorsed while his girlfriend/wife/woman is a stark contrast to it: She is avid on social media, posting regularly about many things including her private life and activities and very openly stating her personal opinions in such public places, consuming content on Tik Tok and Instagram and the likes, uses either Windows 10 or 11 or MacOS with Apple devices, has an iPhone, uses Apple products and services, maybe uses a Google account with google services like Gmail, hides nothing, has a weak if any password, uses privacy violating mainstream apps like Whatsapp and doesn't really mind the cuckware, that came preinstalled with her devices.

(This has got to be the longest sentence I have written)

Can such a relationship work or even prosper?

In my experience even just not being on social media has yielded me reactions from people, that can be described as me wearing an aluminum hat. Or those weird questions like "Who/what/why are you hiding?" like i'd tell ya, you fkn idiot

First and foremost, lying is a NET POSITIVE as it has evolved among ALL species studied for the propensity for deception. The simple, harsh truth is that liars gain advantage and people who do not lie or cannot tell they're being lied to are, inferior, from an evolutionary standpoint. Suck it up. Liars win. Marks lose.

Lies we tell to PROTECT OURSELVES:

We might lie to avoid punishment. For example, children often lie about whether they have completed their homework. If they tell the truth, their parents might insist that the homework be done immediately, which could preclude their participation in a recreational activity.

We might lie to prevent ourselves from being embarrassed about behavior we regret or because we don’t want to reveal private information that might be used against us. We may worry that public awareness of such information can cause us stress or anxiety.

We might lie to avoid conflict. For example, a spouse may choose not to tell the truth about how they feel about their spouse’s behavior for fear that an uncomfortable disagreement might arise.

We might lie to gain social acceptance from a particular group. For example, we might feign interest in a subject matter to join a group that extols that subject. Or, we could post partial truths or fabrications on social media to become popular.

We might lie to get ahead in a competition or business. For example, a businessman might falsely claim great success in the past to secure a new business interest. Such lies can also make us feel better about ourselves when others believe us.

We might lie in a relationship to maintain control. For example, we might falsely state that we have brought a lot of money into a partnership.

Lies we tell to protect others:

We might lie about an illegal activity undertaken by a friend so that the friend does not suffer from negative consequences.

We might lie about something to spare the feelings of someone else.

Not attacking either political side when it comes to this idea. This is an open ended non-partisan question.

Anyway I would absolutely love to see JD Vance debate Kamala Harris and Tim Walz debate Donald Trump.

This would be a very badly needed and informative vantage point for American voters to better analyze VPs/presidential candidates. Reason being it would be much more challenging for all the candidates to prepare for their opponents which is a good thing. It would force candidates to think fast on the spot. Get the truth out.

The VP would likely be the aggressor given they can criticize the presidential candidate given they are the ultimate decision makers when it comes to policy. Also the VP would have to defend their own running mates with the opposing presidential candidate’s criticism. It would be like a hostile & unpredictable interview but not necessarily a fist fight.

It would also give more attention and prominence to the VP’s role, abilities and personality. The VP is after all just one gun shot, heart attack, etc. from being the president of the United States.

If both sides could agree to two debates (and maybe do a coin toss on which match up goes first) it be so much better for the American voter. Because it would expose more strengths and weakness of all the candidates. Give a much better picture of what the American voter is really buying.

Anyway I posted this as a non-partisan question. Please avoid attacking Trump, Kamala, etc right off the bat. However I would love to see this and I imagine so would most other people.