Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The vital art of talking to strangers

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 290 posts

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#71

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

iammisc wrote: post #48
munificent wrote: post #15

I 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.

We used to call this going to church. When literally everyone of all political stripes attended the same churches, going to a church potluck was basically being paired randomly. However large political factions have made church membership out to be undesirable. We are reaping the rewards. I realized yesterday reading about cornel west, that even though I disagree with his politics, I see from his Christianity we have…

> 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".

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#72

Post by bsanr2 »

iammisc wrote: post #48
munificent wrote: post #15

I 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.

We used to call this going to church. When literally everyone of all political stripes attended the same churches, going to a church potluck was basically being paired randomly. However large political factions have made church membership out to be undesirable. We are reaping the rewards. I realized yesterday reading about cornel west, that even though I disagree with his politics, I see from his Christianity we have…

"At 11:00 on Sunday morning when we stand and sing and Christ has no east or west, we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation." It's difficult for me to justify buying into the idea of Christian social life as the source of American unity when 10 years ago participating would have seen me bombarded with the reasons why my homosexuality would see me burn in hell for all eternity, or when 200 years ago it would have seen me bombarded with all the point of scripture that justified my being treated as property. This is as someone whose grandfather was a deacon; I can't imagine what people whose families don't have a church tradition at all must think of this suggestion.

I do think that the segregation of social life is at the heart of much of this country's ills. However, perhaps that has more to do with things like, say, Bill and Sally's frankly hysterical fear of sharing a street with the Freemans. How to reduce social division in America in the long-term: ban private schools, fund public schools at the national level, and do it quickly, utterly, and irrevocably. I don't know if you would end up with a single, continental American nation, but the part left still known as "The United States of America" would be profoundly united.

Even if you disagree, you must understand that the notion that everyone must attend church for America to achieve some measure of unity is about as radical. The focus must be on the bringing together of disparate communities, secularly.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#73

Post by kian »

teachrdan wrote: post #52
iammisc wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to call this going to church. When literally everyone of all political stripes attended the same churches, going to a church potluck was basically being paired randomly. However large political factions have made church membership out to be undesirable. We are reaping the rewards. I realized yesterday reading about cornel west, that even though I disagree with his politics, I see from his Christianity we have…

> However large political factions have made church membership out to be undesirable. This comment appears to be a dog whistle, so please do correct me if I'm totally wrong here. But this reads like "Democrats / the left have demonized belonging to a church / Christianity," which is a common right wing talking point. Is that what you're saying here?

There is no need to violate the principle of charity or HN norms. Whether or not the gp meant Democrats, do you really think that atheists, agnosts, members of all other religions, scientists, artists, spiritualists, conspiracy theorists, and rationalists of all stripes form a monolithic political faction?

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#74

Post by war1025 »

bsanr2 wrote: post #72
iammisc wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to call this going to church. When literally everyone of all political stripes attended the same churches, going to a church potluck was basically being paired randomly. However large political factions have made church membership out to be undesirable. We are reaping the rewards. I realized yesterday reading about cornel west, that even though I disagree with his politics, I see from his Christianity we have…

"At 11:00 on Sunday morning when we stand and sing and Christ has no east or west, we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation." It's difficult for me to justify buying into the idea of Christian social life as the source of American unity when 10 years ago participating would have seen me bombarded with the reasons why my homosexuality would see me burn in hell for all eternity, or when 200 years ago it woul…

> How to reduce social division in America in the long-term: ban private schools, fund public schools at the national level, and do it quickly, utterly, and irrevocably.

We tried this to tame the savages [1], and I don't think people really look back kindly or positively on that choice.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_Indian_sch...

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#75

Post by pmoriarty »

Aboh33 wrote: post #62

As 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...

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#76

Post by war1025 »

Notanothertoo wrote: post #47
war1025 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although I hope you are ready to meet lots of Christians and a few alcoholics every year. Always good to lump the Christians in with the alcoholics.

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.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#77

Post by hluska »

silicon2401 wrote: post #56
munificent wrote: post #15

I 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.

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.

We’re all different and if this is who you are/how you’re most comfortable, congratulations on figuring yourself out. My experience is different than yours - people are tremendously interesting, especially over a meal.

I’m not sure that anyone involved in this is making utopian assumptions. Rather, we’re all different and just know ourselves. I’m likely as ‘correct’ as you are - we’ve both figured out how we’re happiest around others! That’s a net win for us.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#78

Post by scotu »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #57
scotu wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, and please talk about social issues and that you have a partner of the same sex! just like in family meals that's going to go down super well! /s

Food for thought: Maybe there's something wrong with your family if you can't share a meal together in peace. Like families, societies need shared values. If a third of the population is religious extremist, another third believes in freedom and liberalism and the rest in Communism, fascism, or something even different, there is no common ground. I'm a tolerant person but I can't sit with people who preach that we sh…

just clarifying I wasn't talking about my family, but yeah, I do think that some families have something wrong: bigot/religious extremist members is one of those problems.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#79

Post by amoorthy »

munificent wrote: post #15

I 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.

There's a startup doing this :-) http://www.makeamericadinneragain.com/.

They were profiled on NPR a while ago I recall.

Re: The vital art of talking to strangers

#80

Post by hluska »

deregulateMed wrote: post #26
KittenInABox wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They do comic books, they are clearly hedonists Are comics significantly more hedonistic than other media? (I'm genuinely asking; I've never been interested in comics but I've also never heard that they were all that different from other entertainment media.)

It could be argued that HN, news, and Reddit are less hedonist because they provide education. Although, my long term plan is to eliminate those in favor of non fiction books and personal projects. The best "pro comic book" argument I've heard is that science fiction can help you consider potential futures of humanity. This can reduce being surprised by biotechnology and AI events. This could help humanity vote bette…

Are you sure you want to say that people who like comic books are hedonists? That’s an overly cut and dried argument and people aren’t nearly that simple. Isn’t it more charitable and accurate to suggest that people like what they like? I like running obscenely long distances. First, what business is it of yours how others spend their time? Second, what possibly qualifies you to claim people are hedonists because they like what they like??

There’s nothing wrong with recreation or having fun. Life is very short and no matter how hard you work or how much you learn, you’re going to die.

Live your life. Don’t let others call you names for being you. The converse is that when you don’t understand how others live, don’t call them hedonists. You just don’t understand because you’re you, not them.

Post reply on HN