For awhile Sweden had Call a Random Swede https://www.theswedishnumber.com/ where if you called the number, you would literally be paired with a random Swede to talk about whatever you want.
In the US that would end up in a lot of unwanted phone sex
The vital art of talking to strangers
111–120 of 290 posts
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#112You can say you don't enjoy interacting with strangers, but I realize you should realize that you're taking the time to comment on an anonymous social platform. Even if you're just reading the comments, you're listening to what strangers have to say
I think Mike Tyson managed to eloquently sum up the Online vs IRL interactions with strangers when he said, "Social media made you all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it."
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're overstating this based on the internet. Sure, there are aggressively intolerant folks and maybe too many for this to work. But the vast majority of folks aren’t going to get into a flame war over diner while staring into someone’s face. They might say crude things but they’ll probably also learn something. I think the only thing that makes this idea really questionable is the proliferation of firearms…
I have at least 3 friends who were kicked out of their homes as teenagers for coming out to their parents. It's far more common than you'd think.
It's a little bit different when it's outside the family, though. Inside the family, a homophobic parent might feel emasculated, or like a failure, if their kid turns out to be gay. But when meeting an adult gay couple at a social function, or working with a gay colleague, the same person will probably at least remain cordial, if not explicitly supportive.
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When literally everyone of all political stripes attended the same churches The mere act of belonging to any given religion pre-selected certain ideas about how the world works and should work. Hardly "all political stripes".
Okay but if everyone attended church, as it used to be in this country, then by definition, essentially all political stripes of any import would be represented in them, and people would have to confront people who disagree with them physically.
It sounds a lot like what you're saying is "only christians matter", or worse "everyone should either be christian or pretend to be", because I can't see that working any other way. If jews go to temple and christians go to church, and muslims go to mosques, then they don't have to be exposed to each other's opinions. If jews and muslims pretend to be christian and go to church then they can't expose any opinions that go against christian worldview.
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#115As a related anecdote, I used to perform experiments by dressing in particular ways while going out in public. If I wore a nice blazer-type jacket and generally looked more preppy, I would definitely notice different behavior as when I might dress with with a t shirt and long sleeve over it with long sleeve shirt unbuttoned. I attribute this partly to conditioning via TV show characters etc.
I spent a day trying to smile at strangers. The result was that half of them gave me a "do I know you?" look, and the other half looked at me like I was crazy and backed away. Not encouraging...
I think that largely depends on where you are, and what the cultural norms are. I go out of my way to smile at everyone I see, and most people smile back, even if it takes them a double-take before they do. I'll never not smile at someone, because it's a known stress reliever to do so, especially when my smile elicits another's smile.
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do believe the modern (us) conservative evangelical "back to basics" movement started in the 30s/40s as a response to rampant alcoholism from the great depression. Church of christ and similar denominations. They take a (claimed) "hyper" literal approach over a few key issues, like alcohol, sex, drugs, taxes, tithing, homosexuality.. Recent history was the 90s abstinence movement.. And in the last 7 or so years the…
> I would wager good money that most modern conservative US Christian families have a male alcoholic relative not too far removed. I think that has more to do with the pervasiveness of Christianity and alcoholism independent of each other.
Or reverse causation, even... I've known more people turned alcoholic to cope with their christian family than people turned christian to cope with their alcoholic family.
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good for them, seriously, but I don't think it takes a lot of "picking and choosing" to point out how influential "christian" churches were in the fight to preserve America's white supremist hierarchy. The SBC was and remains the largest christian organization in the US, and it was founded for the express purpose of defending slavery.
> The SBC was and remains the largest christian organization in the US, and it was founded for the express purpose of defending slavery. The Catholic church is by far the largest christian organization in the united states. SBC is a distant second: https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/top-10-largest...
Ok, allow me to amend my statement:
The SBC was and remains the largest protestant organization in the US, and it was founded for the express purpose of defending slavery.
If you dismiss such things as mere "picking and choosing", you're unlikely to to be able to understand viewpoints to which you're inclined to disagree.
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised to see this reaction from a sales person, isn't this a major part of your job?
Actually it’s not, and there’s a difference between talking to strangers for business, and talking to strangers in social situations.
This is true. The average person on the subway or in a restaurant has no real malice or ill intent toward their fellow traveler/patron, whereas the average salesperson or business associate on the job is actively looking to hoodwink you.
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay but if everyone attended church, as it used to be in this country, then by definition, essentially all political stripes of any import would be represented in them, and people would have to confront people who disagree with them physically.
It sounds a lot like what you're saying is "only christians matter", or worse "everyone should either be christian or pretend to be", because I can't see that working any other way. If jews go to temple and christians go to church, and muslims go to mosques, then they don't have to be exposed to each other's opinions. If jews and muslims pretend to be christian and go to church then they can't expose any opinions tha…
I think this is a valid criticism, but seeing as that we've replaced church with ... nothing, I still find it difficult to imagine that my vision of society would be worse than the one we're living in.
The truth is that despite decades of trying, the secular regular get-together groups for people without any unifying interests or socioeconomic status have utterly failed.
For most people, church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them and be of widely different socioeconomic status and yet still be acquaintances.
Our neighborhoods are segregated by socioeconomic class and increasingly, by profession. Our 'clubs' are non-existent, and where they do exist, cater to special interests and hobbies.
We need something that works, not something that is perfect. I still maintain that church, temple, mosque, etc is the best thing.
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the people who left the church because they found some of the teachings abhorrent, I would assume they were rejecting the church's authority, not rejecting God. From their perspective it may be the church who split with God, and they are trying to stay on the path by getting away from the church. This is coming from an areligious atheist, so I must acknowledge my lack of experience with this even though I've read…
> For the people who left the church because they found some of the teachings abhorrent, I would assume they were rejecting the church's authority, not rejecting God. If every conservative that rejected the church's authority decided to stay at home from church, the church would be empty. I get you don't like the church... like I really understand this viewpoint. But why reject the church goers? The pope, the bishops…
> I still show up for the community. Always have, and likely always will. Just stick around.
Why would I choose to do this somewhere that the leadership rejects me and tells me I will burn in hell? I know that many individuals within the church may not agree, but plenty will, and culture is set from the top. It's not like there aren't more social/community options than I could possibly find the time to participate in that _don't_ have religious ties.