3 ms·

If the cost is too high for you to treat strangers like human beings for a brief moment before brutally judging them, then you can follow the ignore/walk away a

If the cost is too high for you to treat strangers like human beings for a brief moment before brutally judging them, then you can follow the ignore/walk away advice.

pkulak 4y ago
The cost is too high. And there’s nothing brutal about quickly stopping an unwanted, unsolicited, bad-faith interaction. Every person on the planet isn’t automatically entitled to my time.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- standardUser 4y ago
  The cost is too high to say "no thanks" instead of completely ignoring someone? And why assume they are acting in "bad faith" before you even know what they have to say? If you want to hide from the world, go for it, but don't pretend the people engaging with the world are the problem.
  - techsupporter 4y ago
    > but don't pretend the people engaging with the world are the problem. They are not the problem, in my opinion, but they are also entitled to nothing that I do not choose to give of my own volition. Expecting a response, particularly a polite one, to an unsolicited interaction is on the same level of telling someone that "you'd look better if you smiled." People are free to be in public but must also be aware of the consequences of their actions. One of those consequences may be that they are brusquely ignored. If they want to be out in the world, go for it, but don't pretend the people engaging in their own activities are the problem.
  - ubermonkey 4y ago
    Yes. If someone is approaching you in public with a mic in their hand, you don't owe them anything. If someone cold-calls you for sales, you don't owe them a moment more of your time once you realize what they are. If someone knocks on your door to sell knives or pots and pans or Jesus, you especially don't owe them anything.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    If you want to hide from the world This is a bait-and-switch; you're saying that the person intruded upon has a responsibility to conform their behavior to suit the person who intruded upon them. The poster above said nothing about wanting to hide from the world, you just made that up and ascribed it to them. You might want to review your approach to discourse.
  - scubbo 4y ago
    "Engaging with the world" is an extremely euphemistic way to frame "invading others' privacy". Not all forms of "engaging with the world" are positive ones, and holding boundaries about who has your consent to interact with you is not shameful.
gdhdjrjrorjrj 4y ago
If the film goes viral and that person has that is being filmed has to endure doxing, swatting and other forms of online abuse, then yes the cost could be too high... Frankly the person doing the filming should be asking permission before even filming... They are not treating the other person with any respect.
anigbrowl 4y ago
If someone unilaterally sticks a camera in my face and forces their company on me, I feel no obligation to passively refrain from judging those actions. They initiated the situation, so they've waived their right to be be left alone.

If the cost is too high for you to treat strangers like human beings for a brief moment before brutally judging them, then you can follow the ignore/walk away advice.

pkulak 4y ago

The cost is too high. And there’s nothing brutal about quickly stopping an unwanted, unsolicited, bad-faith interaction. Every person on the planet isn’t automatically entitled to my time.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
standardUser 4y ago
The cost is too high to say "no thanks" instead of completely ignoring someone? And why assume they are acting in "bad faith" before you even know what they have to say? If you want to hide from the world, go for it, but don't pretend the people engaging with the world are the problem.
- techsupporter 4y ago
  > but don't pretend the people engaging with the world are the problem. They are not the problem, in my opinion, but they are also entitled to nothing that I do not choose to give of my own volition. Expecting a response, particularly a polite one, to an unsolicited interaction is on the same level of telling someone that "you'd look better if you smiled." People are free to be in public but must also be aware of the consequences of their actions. One of those consequences may be that they are brusquely ignored. If they want to be out in the world, go for it, but don't pretend the people engaging in their own activities are the problem.
- ubermonkey 4y ago
  Yes. If someone is approaching you in public with a mic in their hand, you don't owe them anything. If someone cold-calls you for sales, you don't owe them a moment more of your time once you realize what they are. If someone knocks on your door to sell knives or pots and pans or Jesus, you especially don't owe them anything.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  If you want to hide from the world This is a bait-and-switch; you're saying that the person intruded upon has a responsibility to conform their behavior to suit the person who intruded upon them. The poster above said nothing about wanting to hide from the world, you just made that up and ascribed it to them. You might want to review your approach to discourse.
- scubbo 4y ago
  "Engaging with the world" is an extremely euphemistic way to frame "invading others' privacy". Not all forms of "engaging with the world" are positive ones, and holding boundaries about who has your consent to interact with you is not shameful.

gdhdjrjrorjrj 4y ago

If the film goes viral and that person has that is being filmed has to endure doxing, swatting and other forms of online abuse, then yes the cost could be too high... Frankly the person doing the filming should be asking permission before even filming... They are not treating the other person with any respect.

anigbrowl 4y ago

If someone unilaterally sticks a camera in my face and forces their company on me, I feel no obligation to passively refrain from judging those actions. They initiated the situation, so they've waived their right to be be left alone.