I've personally noticed that my own value of autonomy has often contributed to a reduction in social activity and community integration. I used to be very selective of what I did with others. If I had an invite from friends and the activity didn't seem immediately interesting to me, I'd decline. I've since learned to say yes more (but not always) to invites and particularly consider ones that are more outside my comfort zone. This does however require a sacrifice of my individualism that is so heavily prized in western culture.
> If I had an invite from friends and the activity didn't seem immediately interesting to me, I'd decline.
I have seen many (usually younger) people make this mistake. The mistake is thinking that the point of the activity is the activity itself. It isn't. The point is the genuine social engagement.
(Edited to add:)
> I've since learned to say yes more
Years ago, I learned to change my default answer to things from "no" to "yes". It has been a key to my career success. But, more than that, I have lived a more interesting life than most as a result of that.
Making "yes" your default instead of "no" increases the chances that something bad will happen, this is true, but it also increases the chances that something good will happen. Personally, I've found that on the whole, the riskier path is the better path. But I'm quite certain that not everyone will feel the same.
Was just talking with a friend about this. The reason older people tend to play repetitive card games isn’t because they are captivating, it is just a thin excuse to spend a few relaxing hours together.
After a few months of hesitation I’ve gotten some of my friends into playing simple games like euchre and hearts and the quality of our time together has gone up significantly.
Reminds me of a scene from a favorite book-series, where the protagonist is visiting with a recently-retired/convalescent former boss.
> “So,” Illyan said at last. “What do a couple of retired officers and gentlemen do on a country weekend?”
> [...] “Tradition is, you take the local beer from the village—there’s a woman there who home-brews it, extraordinary stuff—and hang the bottles over the side of the boat to stay cold. When the beer gets too warm to drink, it’s too hot to fish.”
> “What season is that?”
> “Never, as far as I could tell.”
> “Let us by all means observe tradition,” said Illyan gravely.
IDK that hasn't been my experience. When I've gotten together with people to play euchre it's always people who are super competitive about it, get annoyed if you misplay a hand, and don't talk about anything except how good or bad their last hand was.
That's my experience as well. In my opinion, "social" board games are always an excuse for the people who propose it to "dominate" others in an activity they don't do as often and don't care about much.
They call it socializing but it is always a type of problematic socialisation because it always ends up hypercompetitive and solely focused on the game.
We know humans can't truly multi-task and this is true for games too, so what happens is that as the game progresses everyone is increasingly focused on its strategy and no real conversation about anything else happens.
I think it is actually a crutch for people that are not that interesting to begin with and prefer to retort to this sort of activity (passive-agressive competitiveness built-in) instead of cultivating something interesting to talk about with other peoples.
I'm all for socialisation by talking or doing shared activities with a common goal, but games and to an extent sports are really more trouble than they are worth most of the time...
Sounds to me like you are maybe the competitive one. It could be that you are friends with board-gaming sociopaths but in my life I have met only one person who I think would propose a board game just because they could win at it.
Interestingly, I've gone the opposite way in my old age. I realize now how very short life is and how it's absolutely not worth wasting what little free time I have on activities that don't interest me.
This goes even moreso in the workplace, where saying yes often leads you into taking on more responsibilities for no extra pay or recognition, unless you simultaneously try to wangle the added work into a schmoozing opportunity, which cuts even more into the time you could have been spending doing something you actually wanted to do if you'd said no.
I suspect people come from different baselines here, which for some means saying "yes" more often, and for others saying "no".
But I think the parent's point is to "say yes" more broadly than just when the activity interests you; e.g., if the people are good, interesting people and there will be interesting conversation, the activity may just be an excuse to get together, and not its focus -- and it's too easy to evaluate just the activity alone in response to an invitation.
> it's absolutely not worth wasting what little free time I have on activities that don't interest me.
Well, my perspective is that the point is spending valuable free time with my friends, which I value and is good for everybody. What we're spending that time _doing_ is a secondary consideration.
> in the workplace, where saying yes often leads you into taking on more responsibilities for no extra pay or recognition
Of course! By saying "I changed my default answer from 'no' to 'yes'", I don't mean I say yes to everything (and I wasn't talking primarily about in the workplace). I mean it in the form of a shift in mental stance.
In the workplace, that means my default stance to something that involves additional work is "ok, how could I make that happen?". It may very well be that I can't. Or, more likely, it may be that I can if I deprioritize something else. The stance difference is that instead of just rejecting it automatically, I spend a moment weighing the factors and am able to present the tradeoffs involved so that we can make a better determination as to if it's a good idea or not.
Good point. Everything boils down to moderation though, right? My usual attitude is, if I have nothing to do — say yes. If I already have plans, invite my friends, but still do it even if they decline. It’s just my simple way of signalling that I like my friends, and I am happy to spend time with them.
Workplace is a different game though, as it will always depend on company, politics and your ambitions.
I mean, it depends where you start at. I always say yes, and that has led me to overscheduling, so I'm learning to say no; but my default is still yes. For me, it takes effort and discretion to say no. It sounds like for OP, it is the opposite.
Usually, though, the activity at least needs to happen, otherwise the point of getting together goes out the window.
I used to host both movie nights and poker nights at my house for (different groups of) friends. These both slowly fizzled out and largely stopped, because people lost interest in doing anything besides scrolling their phones. Like we'd make popcorn, turn the lights down, start the movie, and within 5 minutes, everyone would be scrolling their Instagrams rather than watching the movie. Even before the opening credits were done, people were all tuned out. And these were movies everyone agreed to! Same for the card games. People would miss their turn and just not engage with the game because they were on their phones.
Asking people to leave their phones at the door or turn them off would be socially unacceptable.
So, yea, default to "yes" but please do actually show up and engage, too!
There's also a weird mistake among young people in thinking of Republicans versus Democrats as enemies to be shunned rather than the "loyal opposition" who just happen to have a different perspective. Becoming a political tribalist cuts out about half your social opportunities.
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
It's not hard, it just requires compartmentalization. This is a skill that can be learned like any other, and brings rewards in many aspects of life. Give it a try.
And if you tune out the media and talk to ordinary Republicans and Democrats you'll usually find that there are few fundamental divides and that they mostly agree on the main points of political and economic philosophy. It's like Catholics and Protestants arguing over the fine points of Christian theology; those might seem important to fanatics but if you take a step back and look at the disputes from the perspective of, let's say, a Buddhist the differences seem trivial.
I'm glad you picked that example because it shows how the practical impact is not necessarily proportionate to the technical difference. Protestants and catholics have tortured and killed each other over group membership. The fact that their theology may have been, all things considered, very close does not matter when you're in real danger.
Politics isn't a sport or hobby, it is actually life or death for some people. The risk is not distributed equally, and those most in danger are not obligated to pretend the stakes are equally low for them.
The question there is _which_woman_? The one going to get the procedure or the one on the sharp end of needle? So the question one might ask you is "from whose perspective is murder trivial?"
Neither seem trivial to me, which is probably why it's such a contentious issue.
Framing it like you do seems mostly just to dehumanize the other side.
I'm probably with you in how we should treat this, but I also worry about the slippery slope problem - at what point is it no longer ok to abort? If six months, then why not six months and a day? Then why not a moment before birth? Then why not after birth? What is the magical moment where we say the "clump of cells" becomes "human"? Trying to answer that question feels like it unavoidably treads into religious grounds even for the non-religious.
Your questions are moot because functionally no one is at the end of a needle. No woman or doctor is going around willy nilly getting their jollies off killing viable fetuses.
> What is the magical moment where we say the "clump of cells" becomes "human"?
When that human is outside of another human. Until then, women and doctors should have ZERO risk of being held liable for decisions about saving the pregnant woman’s life that may have to be made in seconds in a rapidly changing medical situation.
It is a complete non issue (that is until the Repubs started banning women’s healthcare) burning untold resources of our nation’s political time and money.
>The question there is _which_woman_? The one going to get the procedure or the one on the sharp end of needle? So the question one might ask you is "from whose perspective is murder trivial?" Neither seem trivial to me, which is probably why it's such a contentious issue. Framing it like you do seems mostly just to dehumanize the other side.
In what world is this a coherent argument that people should look past these ideological divides in their relationships? You know, the actual disagreement at hand?
I respect that viewpoint and would be happy to adopt it in different times. But it's not as simple as political tribalism.
For example - Several of my close friends are trans. For the last decade or so, Republicans have been viciously attacking trans people and several states are actively taking away their rights. The entire right wing media ecosystem uses every chance they can to demonize trans people in the new culture war.
After years of these horrible attacks, we're seeing hate crimes against trans people rise. At least two of my friends have been assaulted in the last year or so.
How can I fault them for having a gut reaction to not engage with Republicans?
And if someone is still happy to call themselves a Republican after all this hate, I think that reflects something about their character. Obviously if I were to vote for Republicans who want to hurt my trans friends (which is almost all of them), I could never look them in the eyes again. Similarly, I can't have much respect for those who do. The life and safety of my friends and family is the most important thing to me.
I am happy to engage in good faith dialogue with conservatives on these topics, but frankly, if I'm out and doing something I enjoy, I'd generally rather not spoil my time talking to someone who is statistically likely to be a hateful bigot.
> How can I fault them for having a gut reaction to not engage with Republicans? And if someone is still happy to call themselves a Republican after all this hate, I think that reflects something about their character.
Yes and sometimes it's worth peeling back the layers to find out why they are embodying that character. An offensive strategy creates a defensive response, nothing will ever get resolved that way; it only creates more hostility. Instead, I invest time into knowing what makes that person so stubbornly that way while re-asserting the fact that I do not hold the same values. In at least a few of those cases, those people turned around to become more open to the LGBTQ+ community despite still holding onto their Republican status. That's a win in my book because it's slowly getting them to think more independently.
One of my friends was homophobic and would often make homophobic slurs "he's wearing f*g sandals". Instead of telling him he's a bad person or laugh along with him to avoid making things uncomfortable, I simply reiterate that I have no issues with people identifying as gay because what people do in their lives is none of my business. I let him know that I've made friends with gay men and never had one make me uncomfortable or feel like they overstepped boundaries; I know that idea is sometimes what makes straight men afraid of gay men. It took some time, but one day he finally let out that he had a weird uncle that would touch little boys and that's what he associates the LGBTQ+ community with. To which I gently pointed out why it's irrational. He's finally starting to come around now. Recently he'd been heard saying he's ok if his daughter ever turned out to be a lesbian. Small step in the right direction...
There are people who vote Republican in private, and they are different from those who loudly proclaim their Republicanism to everyone they encounter. It might be a shame that the private Republicans vote how they do, but that doesn't have to affect their ability to engage with trans people, or vice versa.
So I would say the problem is not the ideological divide per se, but the 'identity' politics which makes both sides openly intolerable to each other. Of course, it's problematic because trans people can't keep private in their transness at a game of cards in the way that a radical socialist could. But in modern discourse, we're all encouraged to be loud and proud in order to advance our preferred politics, instead of quiet and demure in order to foster community that transcends politics.
> ...but that doesn't have to affect their ability to engage with trans people, or vice versa.
I disagree. How am I supposed to trust and feel safe around someone who knowingly voted for a politician who loudly campaigned on removing my rights and demonizing my very existence?
A politician who supports an esoteric policy that disadvantages me in some way is entirely different than one who loudly and plainly says that I am less human and should have fewer rights than others. That rhetoric kills people. And it's not a deal-breaker for you? I cannot call such a person a friend. A vote for a Republican in modern times is an expression to trans people that their rights and safety are less important to you than whatever esoteric tax policy or whatever than won your vote.
You can value that policy more than the rights of trans people if you want, that's your prerogative. But it will make trans people and their allies trust you a lot less when they discover that you think their rights are just a bargaining chip to be traded away, and justifiably so. What other situations are you willing to throw them under the bus over, not just in politics, but in life? It's not just a matter of pride or preference, but a matter of rights and safety.
This is very well put, and I agree with it unreservedly. But I do think that it's worth bearing in mind that "trans rights" is, for better or worse, an evolving concept in the culture at the moment. I grew up in the 70s and 80s, when people even in my "west coast liberal" milieu wouldn't bat an eye if someone called someone else a "fag." That's practically inconceivable now, as would be playing "smear the queer" as we did just about daily on the playground. It seems to me that we're now in the middle of a similar process with trans rights, and I do think there are issues -- in particular those regarding the rights of minors and their parents -- that many people are trying in good faith to work through, and about which there are bound to be disagreements. I don't mean to make excuses for the politicians you mention, most of whom I think are using this issue opportunistically and not in good faith. I just think "the rights of trans people" is not something that has a well defined meaning at this point.
>I disagree. How am I supposed to trust and feel safe around someone who knowingly voted for a politician who loudly campaigned on removing my rights and demonizing my very existence?
Because almost all that "demonizing", et al. is just political marketing that will mean nothing if they get into office.
I vote Republican because, as a Japanese-American, I sincerely can't stand the constant identity politics the Left/Democrats want to play on me. No, I'm not a "BIPOC", I'm an American. I'm a minority and an Asian as far as objective facts go, but I'm an American. At least the Right/Republicans seem more content to just call me an American and leave me alone.
But at the end of the day, I have no issues mingling with Leftists/Democrats if they have the decency to leave their politics at the front doors of their houses just like I do my Right/Republican politics.
Also, it's such a fucking stupid thing to not be friendly with each other just because of political differences.
> At least the Right/Republicans seem more content to just call me an American and leave me alone.
I am honestly happy that you get that treatment.
A lot of other minorities don't. The left didn't just decide to play identity politics out of nowhere. They did it because this country has a long history of racism - people alive today experienced life before the Civil Rights act. And the racists who had to be told by law to cut it out didn't just stop being racist because a law was passed, just like how laws against murder don't stop murder from occurring. The racists just found other ways to be racist, and many of the underlying issues have persisted. People on the left are still fighting that fight. And their identity does matter, because it's the very thing that is being used against them.
I imagine if you were an immigrant from Mexico, accused of stealing jobs, running drugs, or being a leech on the system - or any other of the (and I quote Trump here) "shithole countries" that the right hates - you might feel differently. You are lucky that, right now, Japan is not on that list.
> Also, it's such a fucking stupid thing to not be friendly with each other just because of political differences.
Again, it's not just "political differences". They demonize minorities to the point of violence, and two of my friends have been assaulted because of it. It's not theoretical tax policy, it's dehumanization, in rhetoric and in actual laws they hope to pass. Not wanting to be around people who want to engage in violence against my friends is not unreasonable. This isn't theoretical, and my friends have scars to prove it.
> political marketing that will mean nothing if they get into office
Just not true. As the person you replied to pointed out there are hundreds of bills restricting rights for Trans people, all from the right.
In my experience, the average republican is almost allergic to accountability. Yes, these things are happening. Yes, these policies DO represent you. And yes if you vote right you contributed to it.
If that bothers you, or others, it might be time to analyze your affiliations. But you should not simply lie or live in a delusion that nothing happens. No no... things happen. The culture war politics the right cherishes do come to fruition.
I'm afraid, internet stranger, that you are part of the problem here. The original topic for this thread was about "community" and the mental health crisis. Community brings diverse people into contact with each other, which fosters communication and thus has the potential to heal division and increase empathy.
Do you not realize that a lot of people think that abortion is literally murder? That voting for the pro-choice candidate will kill more babies each year than there are trans people? Regardless of how correct you think they are, they also think this is a matter of rights and safety, of life and death. It may be hard to understand, but they believe this as strongly and fervently as you believe what you do.
Now you tell me, without some mechanism to bring people of such disparate views together, how does this resolve? An acrimonious dissolution into a red nation and a blue nation?
A civil war in which we both try to snuff out opposing views with violence? (Wouldn't that be ironic?)
At best, you want your side to win, in perpetuity, until the current generation of bad-ists has died off and your views prevail. But as we see, that doesn't happen. The "bad" views continue to be transmitted from generation to generation, fomented by political opportunists, and then we are at constant risk of "their side" prevailing in perpetuity. You think 2028 or 2032 will be any better?
The only way people change their minds is by coming into contact with other people with different viewpoints over a long period of time. But that involves actual relationships, not beating someone into submission with well-reasoned arguments. (Think about how well that works on you!) And you can't have any kind of relationship if you dismiss a citizen out-of-hand because of how they voted.
So you want to make a real difference? Stop being so loud about who you can't be friends with. Don't ask your co-workers about their politics; it's a waste of energy. Talk with your relatives about their actual problems, and steer the conversation away from political rhetoric. Pretend like you want to be a part of humanity instead of apart from it.
I would certainly be a better person if I was the sort of saint that can talk to people who hate my guts that badly, but not all of us are saints.
It's currently illegal for me to use a public bathroom in Florida. Or rather, technically I am legally required to use the women's bathroom, but since I have a significant beard it's quite likely the police would get called on me for attempting to do so.
The next best solution would be protest. What I should really be doing is flying to Florida, using the women's bathroom as legally required, and making sure that as many journalists and lawyers as possible know about the arrest. I haven't quite worked up the courage yet, though. Plenty of trans people can and do flee the states that have successfully deprived them of bathroom access and healthcare because they don't have the energy to stand and fight. The descent to attempted murder has already happened, and it's not the trans people starting it.
It's only a matter of time before so-called "pro-life" policies start killing people too. Hospitals in Idaho are flying women to other states because they're not legally allowed to end ectopic pregnancies - which are never viable and always result in the death of the mother if not terminated - until the woman is too close to death. (https://www.npr.org/2024/04/25/1246990306/more-emergency-fli...)
> continue to be transmitted from generation to generation
Yes, and no. Because the baseline moves. Progressives are ahead of the baseline, and conservatives behind it.
Conservatives of my day were anti-marriage equality. The ones before them were anti-gay in general. Before them, they were anti-integration. Before them anti-women's rights. Before them anti-suffrage. Before them anti-abolition.
The conservative stance gets pushed more and more forever with each passing generation. The overall idea stays - "maintain the status quo and conserve the days of old". But the days of old have changed.
In 100 years, conservatives of that day will be wildly different than the ones right now.
I generally agree with your sentiment, and I do think open dialog is necessary to bridge the divide. It is way more easily said than done though, especially as political violence becomes more frequent.
But I will say - it's pretty terrible that the people being attacked and vilified in this situation are also expected to "be the better person" and bridge the divide. Why is the onus on the oppressed to make peace with their oppressor? Bystanders and allies should call out the bullies for starting the fight rather than blaming the victim for not advocating for themselves politely enough.
Sure, such misfortunes are a part of life and no progress is made without adversity. It is a pattern, though, that bystanders and allies should recognize and help reduce as much as possible.
> Pretend like you want to be a part of humanity instead of apart from it.
It's not me or my trans friends who want to live apart from humanity, trust me. We just want to live here, too - that's what the fight is about. It's the conservatives who are trying to push us out and remove us from society. The original sin of the fracture is theirs, not ours. If we live in a bubble, it's because they forced us into one, not because it's where we want to be.
I mean, the label of the group is “conservative”. Trans acceptance and the explosion in trans identifying individuals is objectively a change in the social order, which by definition will be opposed by those seeking to conserve the existing social order.
Conservatives don’t have a logical argument, and when you press them for one they typically generate something nonsensical on the fly, but really they don’t need a logical argument for every specific issue. Their broad position is just “social change in general is risky and potentially bad, and what we had before was good enough”.
Do you think that is not a valid position to hold? Surely you can think of some social changes that would obviously lead to catastrophic effects, and given that we can’t simulate a society we can’t know in advance whether a particular “not obviously bad” change will have a negative impact later on.
Conservatives might not have a logical argument against this, but feminists have plenty. And if you read radical feminist writings they've been warning about this and the outcomes of this for decades. Take prisons for example. The policy changes that in some states now separate prisons by "gender identity" instead of sex has led directly to males being locked up in women's prisons, some of whom have sexually assaulted, raped and impregnated female prisoners incarcerated with them. This is just one negative outcome of many. The ideology behind "trans" causes demonstrable harm towards women and girls.
I don't want to get into a giant political debate here, but I would urge you to follow the spirit of this post and actually talk to some trans people, in person, to get their perspective before voting for people who demonize them and take their rights away.
All of those are rooted in transphobia. The entire point of those bathroom bills to "protect women" is built upon the foundational idea that trans people are dangerous predators who want to assault people. It's a bigoted idea not supported by the data, which is built out of fear, and - appropriate to this whole post - a lack of understanding from never having actually talked to a trans person.
Do you realize that these laws that are supposed to "protect women" mean that I, a trans guy who was assigned female at birth but now have a full beard and look completely male in any clothes considered acceptable in public settings, am required to use the women's restroom and changing rooms in Florida? Is forcing an angry (trans) man to use the women's restroom your idea of "protecting women's spaces"?
If compromise with others is starting to be seen as an affront to one's own sense of identity, it's no wonder people are reporting such a poor sense of well-being nowadays.
I grew up before the terminally online era, and I'm not sure we ever saw taking turns doing each other's favorite activity as a sacrifice of our individualism. It was just part of what it means to form meaningful social bonds with other people. Heck, most the time we agreed to spend time together before choosing an activity, because that's where our priorities lied.
I agree with you, but there was certainly some pressure in that direction.
You were probably told that if all your friends were doing drugs (or jumping off a cliff) you should think for yourself.
And you were probably told it was bad to be a sheep and just follow the crowd.
And you probably saw some "real fans" of bands/comics/whatever being scornful towards "phoneys" who were just "pretending".
And you might have been given the impression that picking up some new hobby because a cute member of the opposite sex is into it was somehow insincere or cringe-worthy.
And if some of the activities were expensive by your family's standards, you might have been asked if you really wanted to do whatever.
I can imagine how a person who over-thought this sort of stuff could have ended up thinking they shouldn't, say, go to a baseball game if they don't like baseball.
