Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not a religious person or church goer, but are the perspectives really that different? To me, it looks like a church is a self selected group of geographically proximate people who tend to look alike and dress alike. You don't usually see much ethnic diversity in a church photo. It's more diverse than sitting at home, but I think exposure to a few TV shows has more diversity of thought, ethnicity, sexuality, etc…
The Catholic Church is probably the single most ethnically diverse organization on the face of the earth. https://www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-popu...
The vital art of talking to strangers
161–170 of 290 posts
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#162I'm not a naturally social person - actually growing up I was extremely shy and lacking in confidence. But unlike many on here who seem to be content living like hermits, I was never content being shy and always had that curiosity and desire for human connection and social freedom.
So even though it was terrifying at first, I forced myself to open up and talk to people when I felt the inner urge to. It was very difficult at first - my head would be racing with thoughts like "What if I'm bothering them? What if they don't like me? What will that random person who overhears the conversation think?" and sometimes my heart would literally be pounding. But on the other hand I knew that that if I didn't do it I'd regret it for the rest of the day, and that no matter what the outcome, I'd come out a stronger, more confident, less inhibited person. Funny enough, the last two people I ended up approaching despite my heart pounding, they ended up talking my ear off, to the point where it almost seemed they wanted to talk to me more than I'd wanted to talk to them! Not everyone is this open of course, but I'm learning it's a lot more than I used to think.
I can genuinely say it's dramatically improved my quality of life. As a remote "digital nomad" solo traveler who's generally going to countries alone, it's an absolutely vital skill to have to meet people and live a more enriching life. Without this, your social circle is basically just limited to mutual friends and any in-person activities you participate in, which for me in any new city where I don't already know anyone is basically nobody.
For anyone who's wanted to be more social but hesitated due to fear of rejection or other peoples' judgement, I highly encourage you to stop living in fear of others' judgement and just live life on your own terms and go for it. It'll make you a stronger, more confident, less needy person (eg. I think too many people cling on to bad relationships because they don't think they can find better, which if they have no friends, initiative, and social skills might be true). My only regret is not doing this sooner. By not taking initiative, your social life is at the whim of other strangers who take initiative.
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, I acknowledge your correction, so I responded with an amended statement, with emphasis on the part that I'd gotten wrong. Let me know if you'd like something more, like a written apology or something. If your argument mainly focuses on whether the SBC is the first or second largest American religious organization, then I guess you win. Congratulations! It pains me to point out something so obvious, but the SBC…
SBC is not only not the first largest, it's a different order of magnitude. And my point was that it's a mixed bag. While a lot of support for slavery was nominally Christian, so was a lot of opposition. For example, the Battle Hymn of the Republic is just that -- a hymn -- and its words on slavery are absolutely brutal. You can say 'christianity was a force for slavery' but you can't say that while not also acknowle…
And I mean, this even comletely ignores blacks who form their own groups definitely not united all that much with above.
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Unfortunately, I don't think what you are describing ever existed. Every "get-together-group" I can think of has some kind of common interest, even if its something as simple as drinking coffee or reading books. I think your attachment to the church has a lot more to do with your emotions than thinking rationally. The way I see it, the cat is out of the bag with regards to organized religion. It is well known that there have been many corrupt religious organizations and heinous acts committed in the name of religion. To make the argument "The economy was shut down last year and there is a massive issue in our society with depression and loneliness as a result, but it's what those liberals deserve for leaving the church!" is asinine.
>Church is the only place they're going to be exposed to others that may share absolutely no interests with them
Are the bible, history of the church, the nature of reality, and developing a community not shared interests? Also, was the point of the article to only talk to people without shared interests? Isn't one of the first things you do when you get to know someone is try to find a common interest?
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#165The most important thing about learning to talk to strangers is practice. Taxi driving gave me lots of new people to talk to every day. Sometimes they weren't new. I didn't remember them, but they remembered me on account of my previous efforts to get information out of them. [edit: if I was starting this today I'd be a ride share driver. But I've learned enough, and don't feel the need to drive people around again.]…
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would I choose to do this somewhere that the leadership rejects me and tells me I will burn in hell? Because of the people in the church? Because of the fact that 'the leadership' is just the guy preaching, whereas the actual community is run by everyday people (well in my experience it is). > It's not like there aren't more social/community options than I could possibly find the time to participate in that _do…
You seem to be simultaneously arguing that it's ok to ignore the religious trappings and just treat the church as a social club, but also that the church is better than just any social club because of the religious trappings.
If you're not religiously inclined, then you can treat the church as a social club and ignore the religious trappings. It would behoove you to keep your atheism to yourself though, because the church is better than just any social club because of the religious nature. While some number of public doubters can be tolerated without negatively impacting the group, if it gets to be too large a number then the main benefit of community and fellowship would go away.
I am making a position without reference to the truth value of the religious claims because I'm not going to get into a debate on HN over whether Christanity / theism is right or wrong. I personally think that even if you are a committed atheist, church probably is a good idea anyway. If you're a western committed atheist, some denomination of Christianity is probably best
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
A big part of why I think my hypothesis would work is that I believe we have these shared values in the US. The problem is that these shared values have been obscured by disagreement on how to attain them, and by focusing on group identities that mark us all as "Other" to someone else.
I like your idea. At worst, you'd find out sooner or later if these shared values are a myth. Getting to know others is never a mistake. I met plenty of different strangers from around the world through Hospitality Club (the concept later copied by CouchSurfing) and never had a bad experience. Many of my friends and family thought it was dangerous inviting strangers into your home. And maybe today it is, I'm not sure…
Yet in Australia and the United States today, the zeitgeist is that we’ve “always been multicultural”. This is clearly only superficially true: multiculturalism was only recently redefined to mean the integration of non-white europeans into predominantly white european societies. In the documentary, they explain following World War II, it was feared that Australia would grow weaker than its Asian competitors oweing to Australia’s low population, which many in government thought made them susceptible to capture by aggressor nations. This, AFAICT, was the real impetus for the Australian government becoming increasingly accepting of Asian immigrants.
And more recently, during the pandemic, the Australian housing sector has been calling for more immigration. Apparently, immigration powers much of the Australian housing sector [1]:
> A fall in migrants during the pandemic is causing a sharp drop in housing demand, with the sector urging the government to create a migration plan and extend HomeBuilder incentives.
Modern multiculturalism seems to be primarily based on economic and militaristic concerns, and is in no way based on a desire for social cohesion. See also: One Billion Americans [2]. Some say the US should strive to increase its population size to one billion for more or less the exact same reasons modern day multiculturalism came about. These people were never concerned with social cohesion: they’re entirely concerned with militaristic and economic might.
[1]: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/lack-of-incoming-migrants-during...
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your hypothesis is based on some utopian assumptions. I can't tell you how many people whose views or mannerisms I hate, and who I can't stand being around. Forcing me to eat with anyone, let alone strangers, would only make me dislike them more and cause tension. My utopian solution is for people to have more space and be farther apart, rather than everybody crammed up in cities.
> I can't tell you how many people whose views or mannerisms I hate, and who I can't stand being around. Forcing me to eat with anyone, let alone strangers, would only make me dislike them more and cause tension. I think you are either an unusual outlier or are very much underestimating how well you can get along with people different from you when sharing a meal with them in person . People are not who they appear t…
You can get along with them easily. But then it ends and you are happy it ended and never want to be there again.
Because getting along with them requires you swallowing all above, pretending it is ok. Acvepting situation in which they talk and you are silent or submissive.
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember a teacher who cycled to work every day, along a coastal route. Because he saw the same people so often, he set himself a goal to smile at all he recognised so they'd smile back. Last time we spoke, he was still battling one obstinate hold-out (while reminds me of an old joke - 'smiles' is actually the longest word in the english langugage because there's a mile between the s's).
If "smiles" is the longest, how do you explain "similes"?
Re: The vital art of talking to strangers
#170I have a hypothesis that almost all of the US's current cultural problems would be solved if once a month we all cooked and shared a meal with another randomly chosen family.
This is also the case with social clubs and sports leagues. Membership of these things has been in decline for decades and is now at an all-time low. Being in a bowling league or the rotary club with random members of your community did a ton to increase basic trust in society. Which in turn, makes everything else work better.
Source: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/trust-me/
This is why consuming video content, specifically streaming services with all-you-can-stream crap is so damaging. People no longer have time for shared dinners, clubs, or adult sports leagues because they'd rather binge watch a new series every week.