7 ms·

It's the internet. When you talk to people online, it often descends into pettiness. When you talk to people in the real world, that rarely happens. But it's mu

It's the internet. When you talk to people online, it often descends into pettiness. When you talk to people in the real world, that rarely happens. But it's much easier to talk online, so people get the wrong impression. You should talk to strangers. It's never gone wrong for me. Most people have a warmth and agreeableness that comes out when you are there with them, talking about stuff. There's also the interesting effect that people will give you their innermost secrets, knowing you won't tell anyone (I actually met a serial killer who did this, heh). For instance I was on a long haul flight earlier this year, and my neighbour told me everything about her divorce. Like a kind of therapy. I also find when I have a real disagreement with someone, it's a lot easier when you're face-to-face. For instance, I have friends who are religious, in a real way, ie they actually think there's a god who created the earth and wants us to live a certain way. Being there in person keeps me from ridiculing them like I might on an internet forum, but it also keeps them from condemning me to hell. So folks, practice talking to people. Much of what's wrong in the current world is actually loneliness, having no outlet for your expressions.

manapause 1y ago
Beautifully said. I believe wholeheartedly that in real life, disagreements between two people hinge on an ability to disarm each other through charm and disposition. The less you know someone, and the more they appear to earnestly try to understand you - becoming heated and firing phasers just feels unbecoming; why would I perpetuate personal loneliness or ennui in a moment that is genuinely devoid of it?
BrandoElFollito 1y ago
I learned the hard way that religion is something best left aside in discussions. I am an absolute atheist, and I believe that people who are educated in science and are religions have some kind of mental illness. This is just too set the context :) I also used to be very active on radio about science vs religion. First, people who are hard core religious may get off their way to cure you. I had people yelling in front of my house. I never saw physicists doing the same. But that's a perk of the "atheism job" :) I had something much worse happening to me. A friend of mine was religions, from a very religions family. We had long discussions and she gradually realized that her while world is going to shit when she discovered the insanity of religion. She got into a deep depression and tried to commit suicide. I was with her 7 years until she somehow snapped back to a normal life. I never attempted to turn an individual anymore. Sure, general information about rational hygiene (religion, homeopathy, ...) but not on z 1:1 basis.
karmakurtisaani 1y ago
> I actually met a serial killer who did this, heh Would love to hear the story behind this one.
- astura 1y ago
  A stranger was trying to impress GP by pretending to be a serial killer and the GP is naive enough to believe them.
  - jibal 1y ago
    No ... read above why they have good reason to believe, after the fact, that he was a serial killer.
- lordnacho 1y ago
  When I was an intern in a small town, I took a trip to London. On my way back, I caught a cab from the provincial station to my house. The cabbie seemed fun. We were talking about football. Just ordinary banter with a cab driver. Out of the blue, he asks me "hey mate, just for fun, what would you do if you'd murdered someone and had a dead body to dispose of?" I was a bit surprised, but it's not that odd a thing to think about. People watch crime flicks all the time. But I hadn't thought much about it and gave a bland answer like "maybe dig a hole in the roadside, something like that". But I did think it was an odd switch in mood. He drops me off, end of that. A few years later, I've graduated, I'm watching the news. A cab driver has been convicted of murdering multiple women, in the town I was in. Over the same period. He's buried the bodies in various places. I happened to run into a detective from the same town, to whom I explained my anecdote. He's pretty sure it's the same guy, but the cabbie has been sent down for life, so I wouldn't really be adding anything if I reported it.
  - DaiPlusPlus 1y ago
    Still a better conversion than the typical Reform party bollocks I get from the cabbies at the airport. EDIT: if I had to dispose of a body I’d find a farmer willing to lend-out his pigs with no questions asked.
RataNova 1y ago
Online, it feels like we're all half-performing for an invisible audience, so the incentives skew toward snark or point-scoring. In person, there's no scoreboard, just two humans trying to get through the moment together
- dfxm12 1y ago
  The snark is not Internet specific. It comes from the top down, whether it's the talking heads on Fox News, your favorite podcast/streamer or popular Twitter posters. A few decades ago, it might have been popular opinion writers or radio personalities. This is how we learn to discuss things.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  An interesting "control case" is random-chat websites like Omegle. I spent many many hours on that site before it shut down. Omegle pairs you up with a single random stranger, so there's no audience. I typically used it in text-only mode, so there's no face-to-face communication either. I'd say my experience was closer to the "30 minutes with a stranger" study than it was to modern social media. It was fairly common for a conversation to degrade into insult-trading. But it was more common to have a deep, heartfelt conversation. (Oftentimes I felt like I should follow up with the person I talked to, but I rarely did so in practice, even when we traded contact information.) Another interesting "control case" is Usenet. You mention the concept of point-scoring. The point-scoring metaphor is rather literal on a website like HN which has upvotes/likes/etc. Usenet didn't have that stuff, but I'm told it had flamewars nonetheless. Surely some HN users reading this comment are old enough to remember Usenet. Was it better or worse than modern social media in terms of civility? I'm especially curious about Usenet after Eternal September, once small-group norm enforcement broke down, and the underlying characteristics of the platform shone through. If we score early Usenet as 10/10 for civility, and modern X or reddit as 0/10, what score would latter-day, post-AOL Usenet receive? Another thought: It occurred to me that "point-scoring" could actually be less of an issue with pure-anonymity platforms like 4chan, since you have less of a persona to defend. I've barely used 4chan though, so I can't say much here.
  - 1y ago
yeoyeo42 1y ago
[dead]
ipaddr 1y ago
Talk to strangers it has never gone wrong for me and I even met a serial killer who killed a lot of women who asked how I would dispose of a body. So much to unpack. You got lucky if you were a woman you probably would have had a poor outcome. I would prefer a rude online person who is petty vs a serial killer wanting advice on how to get rid of the body.
- bombcar 1y ago
  sarcasm even the most prolific serial killer has killed way less than 1% of the people he’s met. Nothing to worry about! /sarcasm
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
- balamatom 1y ago
  Get the best of both worlds: meet rude petty people afk!
johnisgood 1y ago
> it often descends into pettiness. When you talk to people in the real world, that rarely happens If you are talking about one on one with a stranger, then I can see that, yeah, but if you have worked with people, then you know it is a huge mess, creation of cliques, gossip, and all sorts of crap, including heavy pettiness, greed, jealousy / envy, and so on.
namuol 1y ago
> I actually met a serial killer who did this I don’t think this is the fun anecdote you make it out to be
tnel77 1y ago
I agree, but another aspect is what’s lost in text. Even when I don’t have negative intentions, my messages can come across as rude or brash. I feel like I get more negative responses from my friends in the group chat compared to in person, where I’ve never had a single argument with them. In person, the recipient can see my smile and body language, which makes it clear that I don’t mean anything negative by my words.
ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
There's definitely an aspect of "dehumanization," when it comes to remote communication (not just the Internet, but I think store-and-forward leaches the most humanity, compared to realtime). It's the having time to consider responses, that I think actually makes it more difficult to accept the person on the other end as "human," more than the physical separation. You can see this in formal debates, where the emotional feedback is strictly regulated. I've actually met a number of killers (long story for another venue), and will probably continue to do so, for the remainder of my life. I even call some of them friends. I enjoy the story, and accept it as true, because I have heard much more unbelievable true stories.
- trueismywork 1y ago
  In a more poor society, It is a false nicety. These are the people who wouldn't blink twice while killing you as a part of the mob.
- sentinelsignal 1y ago
  The dehumanisation of online dialogue is interesting. Is it because of 'anonymity' or is there more at play?
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    I think that part of it, is that when we are engaging with people in realtime (especially face to face), our emotional driver is behind the wheel, and when there's a pause between responses, our analytical driver has time to grab the wheel, and that's where the "dehumanization" comes from. That's not always a bad thing. In emotionally-charged situations, that "few seconds of consideration" can help stabilize the interaction. People claim that it's the lack of consequences, and illusion of safety, but I feel as if it's really the emotional disconnection that does it.
  - lordnacho 1y ago
    Anonymity is one aspect, for sure. But also, people often have not taken in the lesson of interpreting generously. They take the worst interpretation of the words, and often add a few imagined things that were never written (oh you like healthcare, you communist?). This is worse in written form because the feedback loop is longer, but it being written makes it feel like the author has had plenty of time to think about it. Forums are also the kind of place that everyone thinks are populated by political bots. Believing every other comment is written in bad faith is going to change how you behave. When you think of arguments as a kind of battle, you end up forgetting the person on the other side.
fauria 1y ago
> There's also the interesting effect that people will give you their innermost secrets, knowing you won't tell anyone This is exactly what David Choe says in this interview: https://youtu.be/HrBhuzHHlhQ?t=127 https://youtu.be/HrBhuzHHlhQ?t=127
aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> I also find when I have a real disagreement with someone, it's a lot easier when you're face-to-face. For instance, I have friends who are religious, in a real way, ie they actually think there's a god who created the earth and wants us to live a certain way. Being there in person keeps me from ridiculing them like I might on an internet forum, but it also keeps them from condemning me to hell. My life experience differs: I, for example, am likely more disagreeable in real life than on the internet. :-) In internet forums, all answers are "delayed" (since you have to put them into a coherent text). Thus you rather have to think through your arguments, and thus react less on impulse (the impulse is typically already over when you have finalized your post). On the other hand, in real life, things that you strongly disagree with might trigger a very spontaneous emotional reaction. Also, in internet forums, you want to "win internet points". Thus, you only tangentially write your arguments for the counterpart (who you will likely not convince), but more importantly to convince the many people who read your post. So your arguments are better well-thought and well-researched. In real life, there is often no additional audience to appreciate and be convinced by "your great arguments" ;-) so it's an "all-or-nothing" to bring the truth to this ignorant being. Since the counterpart has such as "stupid" opinion, rational arguments are likely not the best way for this (because if the counterpart was capable of rational thinking, they would immediately see how "stupid" their opinion is ;-) ), so you better "hammer" your arguments into the counterpart. :-)
- the13 1y ago
  Skill issue. Or social anxiety. Ask me how I know!
  - heywoods 1y ago
    Point scored!
chasd00 1y ago
> For instance I was on a long haul flight earlier this year, and my neighbour told me everything about her divorce. Like a kind of therapy. this gets old fast, it's like being emotionally vomited on.
- titanomachy 1y ago
  Only if the person is unable to tell if you’re actually engaged or just humoring them. Most people are actually pretty good at reading social cues.
  - m463 1y ago
    sometimes. I remember talking to a doctor once (in a social situation). We were talking about non doctor things and he mentioned that most people find out he's a doctor and start talking about medical issues. I think this happens to some people (doctors, lawyers, police). And to a smaller extent it happens to all of us (sometimes). Older people might talk about divorce, or their operations, or their kids.
- the13 1y ago
  [flagged]
- andruby 1y ago
  That's a very negative reaction. I enjoy helping others, and I like hearing someone's life story. Not everyone needs to like that though, people are different. Hearing the same story from the same person can be very tiring and I have family members like that, but with strangers it's a different person, different context, different story.
cortesoft 1y ago
> You should talk to strangers. It's never gone wrong for me. I guess it depends on your definition of wrong. I feel the opposite, where it has never gone right. I can’t remember any actual interesting conversations I have had with strangers. I can remember a lot of bad, awkward, and boring ones, though.
- barbazoo 1y ago
  Lots of context we're missing here obviously and we might not even be talking about the same thing but in what way were conversations you have had with strangers "bad"?
teiferer 1y ago
> knowing you won't tell anyone (I actually met a serial killer who did this, heh) And why would you not tell anyone about the serial killer?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
sixothree 1y ago
> Most people have a warmth and agreeableness that comes out when you are there with them, talking about stuff. I really hate saying this, but I live in the Deep South and people here can quite repulsive under the veneer of manners. The amount of hate, anger towards people different from them, and just rampant racism is quite difficult to deal with. And these are things that get exposed when having these conversations. I do as you suggest. But I'm always ready to just walk away from a conversation. There's no winning with these people and the moral injury you sustain by being in their presence is awful
- istjohn 1y ago
  Yes, moral injury. Thanks for giving me a new way to frame that experience. The natural impulse to be sociable and get along with people combined with minor insecurity or social anxiety has led to social experiences that when I reflect on them, I can only cringe in shame at my timid response to some awful statements.
  - sixothree 1y ago
    It's not like you have a lot of options. You won't be changing these people. It's not your job. But you do need to protect yourself. It is okay to interrupt them and walk away, especially to any stranger or faint acquaintance. And to say "I'm not sure I agree with that" and let them keep talking will at least let them know where you stand.
2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
People become jaded dicks online. Rare good faith effort is punished by unassailable trolls, cynical jerks, etc. Makes it easy to become one of them because extending an olive branch is taken advantage of.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
kadonoishi 1y ago
> Much of what's wrong in the current world is actually loneliness, having no outlet for your expressions. A dramatic line. I made a note of it.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
alexashka 1y ago
> So folks, practice talking to people. Much of what's wrong in the current world is actually loneliness, having no outlet for your expressions. If I had a penny for every bizarre theory people who ruin the world believe about who/what is actually ruining the world. My favourite was an interview with Jerry Springer. He also had a theory of what's wrong in the current world and none of it had anything to do with what he did.
- danhite 1y ago
  > My favourite was an interview with Jerry Springer. He also had a theory of what's wrong in the current world and none of it had anything to do with what he did. FWIW, later in his life there are many findable examples of Jerry finding fault with what he did--since I recalled seeing him express mea culpas I took the time to give you this early (jocular) example from 2014 : https://youtu.be/eBL00CcBF40?si=PXXc5oJk9atlWKjv https://youtu.be/eBL00CcBF40?si=PXXc5oJk9atlWKjv "Jerry Springer Apologizes For His Career" -- Dish Network (~1 minute clip)
- balamatom 1y ago
  Well obviously. Someone saying that the world is "being ruined", and theorizing on the causes of the same, implies that the speaker is experiencing the world they inhabit as changing in a manner that's unacceptable to that person. Nobody goes around thinking "people like me are making the world unlivable for people like me"; even if that's a useful and sometimes even a correct notion - what reason would anyone have to entertain it?
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
johnnyanmac 1y ago
>Much of what's wrong in the current world is actually loneliness Okay cool. How do we fix it? We don't have places to just "talk to people". Maybe some places still has a mall area, but most businesses discourage soliciting. So you're mostly asking people to pay to talk to strangers. A part of this is behavorial, but the UX of life also kept pushing Gen Z onto the internet, the only "third place" left for them.

manapause 1y ago

Beautifully said. I believe wholeheartedly that in real life, disagreements between two people hinge on an ability to disarm each other through charm and disposition. The less you know someone, and the more they appear to earnestly try to understand you - becoming heated and firing phasers just feels unbecoming; why would I perpetuate personal loneliness or ennui in a moment that is genuinely devoid of it?

BrandoElFollito 1y ago

I learned the hard way that religion is something best left aside in discussions. I am an absolute atheist, and I believe that people who are educated in science and are religions have some kind of mental illness. This is just too set the context :) I also used to be very active on radio about science vs religion. First, people who are hard core religious may get off their way to cure you. I had people yelling in front of my house. I never saw physicists doing the same. But that's a perk of the "atheism job" :) I had something much worse happening to me. A friend of mine was religions, from a very religions family. We had long discussions and she gradually realized that her while world is going to shit when she discovered the insanity of religion. She got into a deep depression and tried to commit suicide. I was with her 7 years until she somehow snapped back to a normal life. I never attempted to turn an individual anymore. Sure, general information about rational hygiene (religion, homeopathy, ...) but not on z 1:1 basis.

karmakurtisaani 1y ago

> I actually met a serial killer who did this, heh Would love to hear the story behind this one.

astura 1y ago
A stranger was trying to impress GP by pretending to be a serial killer and the GP is naive enough to believe them.
- jibal 1y ago
  No ... read above why they have good reason to believe, after the fact, that he was a serial killer.
lordnacho 1y ago
When I was an intern in a small town, I took a trip to London. On my way back, I caught a cab from the provincial station to my house. The cabbie seemed fun. We were talking about football. Just ordinary banter with a cab driver. Out of the blue, he asks me "hey mate, just for fun, what would you do if you'd murdered someone and had a dead body to dispose of?" I was a bit surprised, but it's not that odd a thing to think about. People watch crime flicks all the time. But I hadn't thought much about it and gave a bland answer like "maybe dig a hole in the roadside, something like that". But I did think it was an odd switch in mood. He drops me off, end of that. A few years later, I've graduated, I'm watching the news. A cab driver has been convicted of murdering multiple women, in the town I was in. Over the same period. He's buried the bodies in various places. I happened to run into a detective from the same town, to whom I explained my anecdote. He's pretty sure it's the same guy, but the cabbie has been sent down for life, so I wouldn't really be adding anything if I reported it.
- DaiPlusPlus 1y ago
  Still a better conversion than the typical Reform party bollocks I get from the cabbies at the airport. EDIT: if I had to dispose of a body I’d find a farmer willing to lend-out his pigs with no questions asked.

RataNova 1y ago

Online, it feels like we're all half-performing for an invisible audience, so the incentives skew toward snark or point-scoring. In person, there's no scoreboard, just two humans trying to get through the moment together

dfxm12 1y ago
The snark is not Internet specific. It comes from the top down, whether it's the talking heads on Fox News, your favorite podcast/streamer or popular Twitter posters. A few decades ago, it might have been popular opinion writers or radio personalities. This is how we learn to discuss things.
0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
An interesting "control case" is random-chat websites like Omegle. I spent many many hours on that site before it shut down. Omegle pairs you up with a single random stranger, so there's no audience. I typically used it in text-only mode, so there's no face-to-face communication either. I'd say my experience was closer to the "30 minutes with a stranger" study than it was to modern social media. It was fairly common for a conversation to degrade into insult-trading. But it was more common to have a deep, heartfelt conversation. (Oftentimes I felt like I should follow up with the person I talked to, but I rarely did so in practice, even when we traded contact information.) Another interesting "control case" is Usenet. You mention the concept of point-scoring. The point-scoring metaphor is rather literal on a website like HN which has upvotes/likes/etc. Usenet didn't have that stuff, but I'm told it had flamewars nonetheless. Surely some HN users reading this comment are old enough to remember Usenet. Was it better or worse than modern social media in terms of civility? I'm especially curious about Usenet after Eternal September, once small-group norm enforcement broke down, and the underlying characteristics of the platform shone through. If we score early Usenet as 10/10 for civility, and modern X or reddit as 0/10, what score would latter-day, post-AOL Usenet receive? Another thought: It occurred to me that "point-scoring" could actually be less of an issue with pure-anonymity platforms like 4chan, since you have less of a persona to defend. I've barely used 4chan though, so I can't say much here.
- 1y ago

yeoyeo42 1y ago

[dead]

ipaddr 1y ago

Talk to strangers it has never gone wrong for me and I even met a serial killer who killed a lot of women who asked how I would dispose of a body. So much to unpack. You got lucky if you were a woman you probably would have had a poor outcome. I would prefer a rude online person who is petty vs a serial killer wanting advice on how to get rid of the body.

bombcar 1y ago
sarcasm even the most prolific serial killer has killed way less than 1% of the people he’s met. Nothing to worry about! /sarcasm
cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]
balamatom 1y ago
Get the best of both worlds: meet rude petty people afk!

johnisgood 1y ago

> it often descends into pettiness. When you talk to people in the real world, that rarely happens If you are talking about one on one with a stranger, then I can see that, yeah, but if you have worked with people, then you know it is a huge mess, creation of cliques, gossip, and all sorts of crap, including heavy pettiness, greed, jealousy / envy, and so on.

namuol 1y ago

> I actually met a serial killer who did this I don’t think this is the fun anecdote you make it out to be

tnel77 1y ago

I agree, but another aspect is what’s lost in text. Even when I don’t have negative intentions, my messages can come across as rude or brash. I feel like I get more negative responses from my friends in the group chat compared to in person, where I’ve never had a single argument with them. In person, the recipient can see my smile and body language, which makes it clear that I don’t mean anything negative by my words.

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago

There's definitely an aspect of "dehumanization," when it comes to remote communication (not just the Internet, but I think store-and-forward leaches the most humanity, compared to realtime). It's the having time to consider responses, that I think actually makes it more difficult to accept the person on the other end as "human," more than the physical separation. You can see this in formal debates, where the emotional feedback is strictly regulated. I've actually met a number of killers (long story for another venue), and will probably continue to do so, for the remainder of my life. I even call some of them friends. I enjoy the story, and accept it as true, because I have heard much more unbelievable true stories.

trueismywork 1y ago
In a more poor society, It is a false nicety. These are the people who wouldn't blink twice while killing you as a part of the mob.
sentinelsignal 1y ago
The dehumanisation of online dialogue is interesting. Is it because of 'anonymity' or is there more at play?
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  I think that part of it, is that when we are engaging with people in realtime (especially face to face), our emotional driver is behind the wheel, and when there's a pause between responses, our analytical driver has time to grab the wheel, and that's where the "dehumanization" comes from. That's not always a bad thing. In emotionally-charged situations, that "few seconds of consideration" can help stabilize the interaction. People claim that it's the lack of consequences, and illusion of safety, but I feel as if it's really the emotional disconnection that does it.
- lordnacho 1y ago
  Anonymity is one aspect, for sure. But also, people often have not taken in the lesson of interpreting generously. They take the worst interpretation of the words, and often add a few imagined things that were never written (oh you like healthcare, you communist?). This is worse in written form because the feedback loop is longer, but it being written makes it feel like the author has had plenty of time to think about it. Forums are also the kind of place that everyone thinks are populated by political bots. Believing every other comment is written in bad faith is going to change how you behave. When you think of arguments as a kind of battle, you end up forgetting the person on the other side.

fauria 1y ago

> There's also the interesting effect that people will give you their innermost secrets, knowing you won't tell anyone This is exactly what David Choe says in this interview: https://youtu.be/HrBhuzHHlhQ?t=127 https://youtu.be/HrBhuzHHlhQ?t=127

aleph_minus_one 1y ago

> I also find when I have a real disagreement with someone, it's a lot easier when you're face-to-face. For instance, I have friends who are religious, in a real way, ie they actually think there's a god who created the earth and wants us to live a certain way. Being there in person keeps me from ridiculing them like I might on an internet forum, but it also keeps them from condemning me to hell. My life experience differs: I, for example, am likely more disagreeable in real life than on the internet. :-) In internet forums, all answers are "delayed" (since you have to put them into a coherent text). Thus you rather have to think through your arguments, and thus react less on impulse (the impulse is typically already over when you have finalized your post). On the other hand, in real life, things that you strongly disagree with might trigger a very spontaneous emotional reaction. Also, in internet forums, you want to "win internet points". Thus, you only tangentially write your arguments for the counterpart (who you will likely not convince), but more importantly to convince the many people who read your post. So your arguments are better well-thought and well-researched. In real life, there is often no additional audience to appreciate and be convinced by "your great arguments" ;-) so it's an "all-or-nothing" to bring the truth to this ignorant being. Since the counterpart has such as "stupid" opinion, rational arguments are likely not the best way for this (because if the counterpart was capable of rational thinking, they would immediately see how "stupid" their opinion is ;-) ), so you better "hammer" your arguments into the counterpart. :-)

the13 1y ago
Skill issue. Or social anxiety. Ask me how I know!
- heywoods 1y ago
  Point scored!

chasd00 1y ago

> For instance I was on a long haul flight earlier this year, and my neighbour told me everything about her divorce. Like a kind of therapy. this gets old fast, it's like being emotionally vomited on.

titanomachy 1y ago
Only if the person is unable to tell if you’re actually engaged or just humoring them. Most people are actually pretty good at reading social cues.
- m463 1y ago
  sometimes. I remember talking to a doctor once (in a social situation). We were talking about non doctor things and he mentioned that most people find out he's a doctor and start talking about medical issues. I think this happens to some people (doctors, lawyers, police). And to a smaller extent it happens to all of us (sometimes). Older people might talk about divorce, or their operations, or their kids.
the13 1y ago
[flagged]
andruby 1y ago
That's a very negative reaction. I enjoy helping others, and I like hearing someone's life story. Not everyone needs to like that though, people are different. Hearing the same story from the same person can be very tiring and I have family members like that, but with strangers it's a different person, different context, different story.

cortesoft 1y ago

> You should talk to strangers. It's never gone wrong for me. I guess it depends on your definition of wrong. I feel the opposite, where it has never gone right. I can’t remember any actual interesting conversations I have had with strangers. I can remember a lot of bad, awkward, and boring ones, though.

barbazoo 1y ago
Lots of context we're missing here obviously and we might not even be talking about the same thing but in what way were conversations you have had with strangers "bad"?

teiferer 1y ago

> knowing you won't tell anyone (I actually met a serial killer who did this, heh) And why would you not tell anyone about the serial killer?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

sixothree 1y ago

> Most people have a warmth and agreeableness that comes out when you are there with them, talking about stuff. I really hate saying this, but I live in the Deep South and people here can quite repulsive under the veneer of manners. The amount of hate, anger towards people different from them, and just rampant racism is quite difficult to deal with. And these are things that get exposed when having these conversations. I do as you suggest. But I'm always ready to just walk away from a conversation. There's no winning with these people and the moral injury you sustain by being in their presence is awful

istjohn 1y ago
Yes, moral injury. Thanks for giving me a new way to frame that experience. The natural impulse to be sociable and get along with people combined with minor insecurity or social anxiety has led to social experiences that when I reflect on them, I can only cringe in shame at my timid response to some awful statements.
- sixothree 1y ago
  It's not like you have a lot of options. You won't be changing these people. It's not your job. But you do need to protect yourself. It is okay to interrupt them and walk away, especially to any stranger or faint acquaintance. And to say "I'm not sure I agree with that" and let them keep talking will at least let them know where you stand.

2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago

People become jaded dicks online. Rare good faith effort is punished by unassailable trolls, cynical jerks, etc. Makes it easy to become one of them because extending an olive branch is taken advantage of.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

kadonoishi 1y ago

> Much of what's wrong in the current world is actually loneliness, having no outlet for your expressions. A dramatic line. I made a note of it.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

alexashka 1y ago

> So folks, practice talking to people. Much of what's wrong in the current world is actually loneliness, having no outlet for your expressions. If I had a penny for every bizarre theory people who ruin the world believe about who/what is actually ruining the world. My favourite was an interview with Jerry Springer. He also had a theory of what's wrong in the current world and none of it had anything to do with what he did.

danhite 1y ago
> My favourite was an interview with Jerry Springer. He also had a theory of what's wrong in the current world and none of it had anything to do with what he did. FWIW, later in his life there are many findable examples of Jerry finding fault with what he did--since I recalled seeing him express mea culpas I took the time to give you this early (jocular) example from 2014 : https://youtu.be/eBL00CcBF40?si=PXXc5oJk9atlWKjv https://youtu.be/eBL00CcBF40?si=PXXc5oJk9atlWKjv "Jerry Springer Apologizes For His Career" -- Dish Network (~1 minute clip)
balamatom 1y ago
Well obviously. Someone saying that the world is "being ruined", and theorizing on the causes of the same, implies that the speaker is experiencing the world they inhabit as changing in a manner that's unacceptable to that person. Nobody goes around thinking "people like me are making the world unlivable for people like me"; even if that's a useful and sometimes even a correct notion - what reason would anyone have to entertain it?

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

johnnyanmac 1y ago

>Much of what's wrong in the current world is actually loneliness Okay cool. How do we fix it? We don't have places to just "talk to people". Maybe some places still has a mall area, but most businesses discourage soliciting. So you're mostly asking people to pay to talk to strangers. A part of this is behavorial, but the UX of life also kept pushing Gen Z onto the internet, the only "third place" left for them.