4 ms·

> What about the passengers they accosted? Speaking to a stranger != accosting. Welcome to the internet, where you can be bold enough to bash well meaning stra

> What about the passengers they accosted? Speaking to a stranger != accosting. Welcome to the internet, where you can be bold enough to bash well meaning strangers who spoke to you, yet not bold enough in real life to simply decline a conversation.

gradstudent 12y ago
The difference is that, on the Internet, you can ignore people and not feel awkward about it. Ignoring some loudmouth next to you is much more difficult. Suggesting you want to be left alone is awkward but afterwards it's even worse because that person is still there. Worse still, suppose they react badly. Urgh. Better to just mind your own business.
- tripzilch 12y ago
  Ignoring someone to indicate you don't want to talk is actually a very rude thing to do, in most normal day-to-day interactions.
derefr 12y ago
I don't often get talked to on transit. However, I do often get ranted at. The drunk and the mentally ill ride the subway too--and, unlike in other places, you can't get away from them there. The etiquette against talking to people on mass transit is a bit like the prohibition most religions have on murder: something you don't need to tell most people, because it's covered by their internal compass--but which is instead intended to suggest an orthogonal reason for holding back to the people for which that compass is broken.
- teddyknox 12y ago
  Isn't it the nature of etiquette to be implied to most people, like a moral compass? It would seem that the drunk and the mentally ill would ignore these social guidelines anyway.
- tripzilch 12y ago
  Please note that the article does not, in fact, advocate to get drunk and/or brain-damaged and start ranting at strangers. Similarly, while smiling is found to make a person more likeable, grinning like a maniac, probably less so.
zo1 12y ago
"Speaking to a stranger != accosting." It is if they clearly make it obvious that they don't want to be talked to.

gradstudent 12y ago

The difference is that, on the Internet, you can ignore people and not feel awkward about it. Ignoring some loudmouth next to you is much more difficult. Suggesting you want to be left alone is awkward but afterwards it's even worse because that person is still there. Worse still, suppose they react badly. Urgh. Better to just mind your own business.

tripzilch 12y ago
Ignoring someone to indicate you don't want to talk is actually a very rude thing to do, in most normal day-to-day interactions.

derefr 12y ago

I don't often get talked to on transit. However, I do often get ranted at. The drunk and the mentally ill ride the subway too--and, unlike in other places, you can't get away from them there. The etiquette against talking to people on mass transit is a bit like the prohibition most religions have on murder: something you don't need to tell most people, because it's covered by their internal compass--but which is instead intended to suggest an orthogonal reason for holding back to the people for which that compass is broken.

teddyknox 12y ago
Isn't it the nature of etiquette to be implied to most people, like a moral compass? It would seem that the drunk and the mentally ill would ignore these social guidelines anyway.
tripzilch 12y ago
Please note that the article does not, in fact, advocate to get drunk and/or brain-damaged and start ranting at strangers. Similarly, while smiling is found to make a person more likeable, grinning like a maniac, probably less so.

zo1 12y ago

"Speaking to a stranger != accosting." It is if they clearly make it obvious that they don't want to be talked to.