[HN Gopher] Taking things less personally
___________________________________________________________________
Taking things less personally
Author : prostoalex
Score : 135 points
Date : 2022-07-19 02:34 UTC (20 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (psyche.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (psyche.co)
| liberia wrote:
| An old stoic method. If we invested more energy in improving
| ourselves for ourselves without comparing and wondering what
| people will think, we would be better off.
| nickstinemates wrote:
| I took this to the extreme end over the past couple of years.
| Like all things, there's a balance. On one extreme there's
| apathy. On the other anxiety or worse.
| samkater wrote:
| An eye-opening perspective came to me a few years ago when I
| first heard the quote," When you're 20, you care what everyone
| thinks, when you're 40 you stop caring what everyone thinks, when
| you're 60, you realize no one was ever thinking about you in the
| first place"[0] That can be good and bad, but is a personally
| useful frame of reference for the world. It helps to not take
| things too personally, but also to be intentionally active in
| people's lives when I _want_ to be considered.
|
| [0], not sure who to attribute:
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/mar/08/viral-imag...
| abnry wrote:
| But it's only half true. The anxiety over how others' perceive
| you is perhaps overblown, but you'd discount a whole lot of
| anxiety as irrational if you say that nobody forms judgments
| about you.
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| one way to look at it might be realizing that people mostly
| don't judge you but a stereotype they project onto you. or
| simply have their judgement clouded by their mood. with a bad
| mood seeking for people to judge badly and good mood seeking
| to judge people positively. also what they judge about you is
| often more telling about what is going on with them and their
| life, so at the end of the day most people judge themselves.
| in all meditation practices the goal is to stop judging and
| instead observe - for a good reason - it's healing b/c then
| you also stop judging yourself all the time.
| gzysk8 wrote:
| That's a helpful perspective. Whenever I feel social
| anxiety or the spotlight effect creep up, I also try to
| remember how little I'm actually thinking about what others
| are doing around me. Maybe it's obvious, but simply
| flipping the point of view in that moment can help you not
| judge yourself so much.
| Aperocky wrote:
| It's alright if people form judgments about me, just like I
| do about them.
|
| At the end of the day, mostly none of it matters, it's just
| easier to be authentic and straightforward all the time.
|
| Maybe the anxiety were not irrational, but I can choose not
| to have it anyways.
| winternett wrote:
| I greatly enjoy talking with people in person (outdoors of
| course) these days about interesting things because it's such a
| rare occurrence... One of the most troubling things though is how
| many people get easily wound up (and aren't forgiving) about
| misunderstandings in conversations.
|
| People seem to be increasingly concrete in their judgements about
| social, economic, and political issues that have nothing to do
| with them as individuals, and often it results in fighting words,
| and that's crazy to me. A deep polarization is coming from many
| fronts, and it also over-emphasizes issues, making people far
| more offensive and defensive than before -- possibly heightened
| because of pandemic-related isolation and economic stress.
|
| I think a lot of people judge the world based on tropes... The
| small-minded view based only on the people they've observed,
| rather than being able to place themselves in the shoes of others
| they don't know, and it's a growing problem when narrowly focused
| people like this lead and make decisions for us all. I think we
| really need to reject the use of tropes in discussions as fact
| because it's toxic, but at the same time, I work hard to not be
| triggered by anything that's well intended. We all make mistakes,
| and as long as you can choose to walk away, being misunderstood
| is a small price to pay for regular human communication.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I think this effect is actually highly dependent on who you
| are. In my experience people have actually become more open to
| discuss many subjects with me. I'm also visibly nonwhite in a
| white-majority country. In my youth, I was frequently bullied,
| harassed, and made to feel unsafe because of my nonwhite
| status. This has become less acceptable now that I'm older.
| I've also found I feel safer in cutting out racists from my
| social circle, whereas in the past I had to smile and accept
| being told immigrants like me are shitstains on the country
| while I am "one of the good ones".
| voxl wrote:
| The fact that you haven't included any examples makes the mind
| wonder
| winternett wrote:
| I avoided instances to avoid distraction from the main
| topic...
|
| Nothing is worse online than expecting a specific on-topic
| discussion and then seeing a long trail of comments that have
| nothing to do with the source topic... hah. _cough_ Reddit.
| silisili wrote:
| This is likely the result of the recent braindead 'your
| intentions don't matter, only impact' mantra that has taken
| hold. Gone are the days of just trying to assume people mean
| the best, it's just about how things make us feel. It's hard
| for me to understand how we can progress as a country, or
| society perhaps, where collective reasoning and assuming the
| best in people has been replaced with focus on each person as
| an individual on an emotional level. Just seems like a recipe
| for...well, the way things are today.
| winternett wrote:
| Agreed, even posting online is extremely frustrating now as
| there is no real connection/association with real faces and
| posts. I understand the isolation and stress that people
| feel, as I feel it too, however it doesn't license people to
| take their frustration and anger out on others. We need to
| start dealing with online aggression, and the other negative
| behaviors exhibited with more seriousness than simply banning
| or ratioing users... We also need to hold sites and
| communities accountable for equal access and presentation of
| users.
|
| People should be permitted to be wrong without getting banned
| or ratioed... That's what is not being allowed to play out
| properly... That experience only grows people who become
| moderators, and even politicians, that inflict the same
| hostile disregard and aggression towards others... "Hurt
| people hurt people".
|
| We always should thoroughly address and protect each other
| online from conversational misconduct and of course verbal or
| physical abuse, but it seems that Twitter alone encourages it
| as a means of gaining popularity on the platform... They
| should be called out for that.
| xmprt wrote:
| > Gone are the days of just trying to assume people mean the
| best
|
| I think people have been bitten in the back enough time by
| assuming the best that people have switched to thinking this
| way. When you try to be nice and keep getting taken advantage
| of then it's hard to stay nice.
| winternett wrote:
| People meaning the best isn't good enough in a world where
| people are dying from polluted water in Flint... It doesn't
| mean much when racial hate groups are growing in membership
| as much as inflation... People meaning the best also
| doesn't mean much when government grants PPP loans to
| companies that abuse it.
|
| We're living in a scam economy... My best policy is to not
| really extend trust as much as extending "tiered courtesy"
| and carefully observing the results to determine how much
| more to give... I primarily work hardest on my own
| trustworthiness, because I know very well how easily any of
| us can become corrupted by bad times.
|
| Even some of the strongest marriages and families are being
| torn apart right now because of broken trust.. In my
| experience, trust is never a permanent state, although I
| wish it could be. One thing's for certain, there's not a
| single corporation I trust right now at all, they've been
| pretty merciless towards everyone except for their
| Investors and vested leadership.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| judging people by the consequences their actions have in the
| world is fine. Supervillains tend to be in short supply so
| generally even most heinous acts committed usually are done
| with, in the mind of the perpetrator, good intent.
|
| If someone affects you negatively you'd be smart to care
| about your own skin before you care about their intentions,
| that's not a recent invention and not an unreasonable way to
| navigate the world, it also has very little to do with
| emotions. On the contrary, trying to assume someone else's
| intent seems like a pretty emotional way to operate if
| anything.
| winternett wrote:
| > If someone affects you negatively you'd be smart to care
| about your own skin before you care about their intentions,
|
| THAT IS TRUTH... You cannot save a drowning person if you
| first can't swim.... You're both likely to drown... Try to
| maybe throw them a life vest or rope if you're on the boat,
| but only sacrifice yourself if you can't live without them.
| Trustworthiness is of infinite value, but most never learn
| where that gold is buried.
| watwut wrote:
| That is because the benefit of doubt was applied
| asymmetrically (some people got infinite amount of it, others
| almost none) and was abused by bad actors quite a lot.
|
| Also, ignoring impact meant that you could actively damage
| people you did not cared about while pretending ignorance
| again and again.
| silisili wrote:
| > Also, ignoring impact meant that you could actively
| damage people you did not cared about while pretending
| ignorance again and again.
|
| I definitely agree with that. I don't think either should
| be ignored, but weighed against each other. That's pretty
| close to how our legal system works for a lot of crimes.
|
| I'd also argue a person pretending innocence does -not-
| have good intentions, regardless of what they say.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I've rarely seen someone upset about social, economic or
| political issues that don't affect them. Given the very nature
| of social, economic or political issues though as matters of
| public concern by their definition that's also pretty rare to
| begin with.
|
| The article talks about false personalization, giving the
| example of someone being wrongly upset about a friend not
| inviting them to a social event, misinterpreting something that
| didn't involve them.
|
| Views on social issues inherently involve most people. If you
| hold, and exercise politically an opinion that as a result has
| a real, negative effect on me being defensive is reasonable.
| simonh wrote:
| >I've rarely seen someone upset about social, economic or
| political issues that don't affect them.
|
| I've seen it a lot, some of the most vehemently lefty
| Marxists I've known or met came from very well off
| backgrounds. Class guilt is very much a thing. I'm fact the
| dissociation between middle class socialists and actual
| working class people has become a significant factor in UK
| politics recently.
| muffinman26 wrote:
| >> People seem to be increasingly concrete in their judgements
| about social, economic, and political issues that have nothing
| to do with them as individuals
|
| I'm not discounting your point, I definitely know many people
| that get easily wound-up about issues that have nothing to do
| with them, but simply something to consider: If you're talking
| to strangers or acquaintances, are you really sure that the
| issues they are fighting about don't relate to them personally?
|
| There are one or two political issues that I consider literally
| a matter of life-or-death. As in, I know people personally who
| would likely have died if a situation that happened to them a
| few years ago in one state in the US happened a few weeks ago
| in a different state in the US.
|
| I agree with your general premise that people need to stop
| judging the world based on tropes - that's the problem that
| causes the political issues I'm thinking of - but it's hard not
| to occasionally get angry when people keep talking about life-
| or-death issues as if they're some sort of abstract galaxy
| brain.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| Why outdoors?
| winternett wrote:
| Safer during the on-going coronavirus epidemic than indoor
| conversations (with strangers).
| stevage wrote:
| Covid
| kmtrowbr wrote:
| It's even worse: the views that folks are getting all worked up
| about, aren't their own personally formed opinions -- they are
| being programmed with these opinions via media, advertising,
| etc.
|
| Then we hold these opinions so strongly that if we disagree
| about anything at all -- any nuance, out of the infinite menu
| of "correct" opinions -- we argue bitterly ... driving apart
| friends, families, etc.
|
| We must learn to hold opinions more lightly and to value direct
| experiences & physical relationships with real people, more
| than virtual experience.
|
| It's sad because at the end of the day we all have so much in
| common, but we are becoming convinced that we're so different
| and what's more, that others are in fact evil people. Great
| pain and trouble might come from this trend.
| dexwiz wrote:
| This. Talking to people on both sides, it's all just
| regurgitation of headlines and pundits. Most people know how
| to deal with people who are "with" them or "against" them,
| but don't know how to react to someone who partially agrees,
| or agrees on issues, but not solutions. Anything outside of
| mainstream rhetoric is immediately labeled conspiratorial.
| Which is strange to me. Most people on both sides seem to
| recognize the media is rigged by big money, but they don't
| seem equipped or encouraged to form their own opinions that
| incorporate this knowledge.
|
| Also I think experience has been devalued because its
| anecdotal. Only facts from an omniscient source are accepted,
| no matter their often dubious original.
| kmtrowbr wrote:
| It seems crazy to say but I think it may all boil down to a
| massive influx of inexperienced readers. That plus the fact
| that most content on on the internet is not to be taken
| quite at face value.
|
| Counterintuitively I believe there are more people reading
| and communicating textually than ever before. Way more!
| That would be good except they are doing it all via the
| Internet which is an absolute free for all of weaponized
| content, created for commercial or political purposes.
|
| Critical reading and thinking skills are needed to navigate
| the internet.
|
| -----
|
| This book is kind of funny: [The Origin of Consciousness in
| the Breakdown of the Bicameral
| Mind](https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-
| Breakdown-Bicame...) ... but it is good for hypothesizing
| about how consciousness has evolved. The relevant part to
| this discussion is when he writes about people literally
| being driven insane by the birth of writing. They were just
| unable to integrate the new influx of information quickly
| enough. Imagine your dog for example, learning to read. It
| would be quite the experience for poor Fido.
|
| The printing press, in time, caused the reformation, the
| enlightenment, etc. But it was a bumpy road along the way.
|
| My point is that, everyone having the internet in their
| pocket will have a larger impact than anyone anticipates
| today.
| bavell wrote:
| > massive influx of inexperienced readers
|
| I think you nailed it there. Forgot where I read it but
| there's a similar principle/observation of software devs
| where every year the number of new developers grows
| exponentially larger and so as we move into the future,
| the industry racks up an increasingly larger share of
| novices compared to experts.
|
| Seems to be a similar phenomenon playing out in larger
| society - we who've been around the block know where the
| potholes are and how to deal with them appropriately but
| the flood of newcomers fall prey to them in increasing
| numbers every day.
| mistermann wrote:
| > Anything outside of mainstream rhetoric is immediately
| labeled conspiratorial. Which is strange to me. Most people
| on both sides seem to recognize the media is rigged by big
| money, but they don't seem equipped or encouraged to form
| their own opinions that incorporate this knowledge.
|
| I propose that if you think of a human mind as a neural
| network that is trained by the information it ingests, much
| of the mysteries of human behavior makes _almost_ complete
| sense.
|
| "people on both sides seem to recognize the media is rigged
| by big money" is a bit of a hanging chad, but I suspect
| that is explained by _something like_ this:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_memory
| leobg wrote:
| I think it's a function of information overload. It's all
| just too much for people, so they look for the quickest
| "conclusion" in the truest sense of the word, i.e. the
| interpretation that allows them to end the discussion and
| no longer be bothered about it.
|
| The internet, it seems to me, is the primary cause of this
| information overload. And it also makes it so much easier
| to just "swipe left" on people. In the real world, in a
| local community, you would not have been able to just walk
| away from conflict. But in the internet, you almost have to
| do it to stay sane.
| d0mine wrote:
| Or, crazy idea, facts should matter more than opinions. It is
| the hard path but it is the right one.
| mythrwy wrote:
| What you say seems to be the case. I've been thinking a lot
| about it lately.
|
| It's pretty easy to see this programing in others, but
| remarkably more difficult to perceive regarding oneself.
|
| The thing is (in my opinion) we can't really get by without
| some level of automatic programming. If we had to stop and
| weigh each decision and figure everything out from first
| principals we would have immense trouble operating. So we get
| cultures, religions, customs and ethical "hard facts" to help
| us get by. They work in a limited time and space but often
| break down as circumstances change and many (most?) people
| have a very hard time adjusting to the new reality.
|
| I still think people should be a bit more critical (and
| cynical even), looking at who benefits from masses holding a
| belief and trying to determine "truth" from first principals
| more then they do now, but think I understand why this isn't
| the general case.
| CPLX wrote:
| Just a guess but it sounds like it's the style of discussion
| common online bleeding into real life.
| zafka wrote:
| I just scanned the first few paragraphs, but saved this as I find
| it to be a great reminder. I try to read lists of the various
| human mis-perceptions periodically to build "muscle memory" into
| my consiousness. I first started looking into this about 10 years
| ago when I was baffled by the way people acted at work. Now that
| I realize that "rational" is not default behavior for most people
| I am way less confused in my daily life. Still amazed though. :)
| miobrien wrote:
| Can you share the lists you mentioned?
| hammock wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
| zafka wrote:
| Thanks! Did a quick search for this but used wrong terms.
| zafka wrote:
| The first one I ran across was:
| https://www.harrisonbarnes.com/the-psychology-of-human-
| misju... I also like : https://www.amazon.com/Influence-
| Practice-Robert-B-Cialdini/ Who Munger mentions- actaully
| gave this guy some money as a tip. Also good reading:
| https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/
| Enough to get you started :) Have fun.
| mkl95 wrote:
| If you are an engineer, you could be making more money than your
| manager within months. In the post-COVID era it really isn't that
| difficult not to care about some jerk, unless you are a
| particularly sensitive individual.
| rglullis wrote:
| Sorry, how does that relate to the article?
| mkl95 wrote:
| My point is that work is not that personal anymore. The best
| example is probably Amazon, which is running out of people in
| some areas due to massive churn over the last few years. No
| point in taking stuff personally in a highly volatile
| environment - both you and your employer are expected to be
| replaced.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| Don't just post that without giving specifics. If it's true,
| help developers out and elaborate.
| mkl95 wrote:
| LinkedIn has worked wonders for me lately. So the key is
| something like networking, networking, then some networking.
| There is an acute shortage of senior engineers, tech leads,
| etc. that is not going to go away anytime soon.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| If you have a strongly defined worldview and set of acceptable
| social guidelines and boundaries, then it's much easier to not
| fall into the "mind reading" pitfall. The author broaches this
| angle of the solution with the STUF model.
|
| CBT is definitely the best way to go with changing your behavior.
| If the placebo effect can be up to 50% effective (depends on the
| study), that's scientific proof that mind over matter is a real
| phenomenon. Why not tap into it?
| pantulis wrote:
| I believe the article serves as a nice and quick introduction
| to CBT. That shit works, but I would not say it's a matter of
| mind over matter, it's more like realising that your behaviour
| depends on how you feel and your thoughts --conscious or not--
| are what control your feelings.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Taking something personally does not mean getting mad or assuming
| some motive, but being that you're the only recipient and are a
| person, makes it personal by default.
| dustinmoris wrote:
| Don't take this article so personally.
| fleddr wrote:
| That's not what "taking something personal" means at all. It
| has nothing to do with the amount of recipients or whether
| you're a person.
| pantulis wrote:
| But were you _really_ insulted?
|
| Cognitive biases like the ones that are described in the
| article are the proverbial colors of the glasses with which you
| look at all what happens around you. If they are too negative
| you will react with fear, anger, rage, and then, like a self
| fulfilled prophecy, people around you will start reacting
| accordingly. Or put it another way, if you believe that
| something bad is going to happen, something bad is bound to
| happen but in an unexpected way.
|
| Learning about one's cognitive biases is a powerful tool but is
| also really hard.
| alfonsodev wrote:
| When there is a conflict, poor communicators make it about the
| other person, using labels, rather than making it about the
| situation by indicating specific behaviour in a given moment.
| This is sadly very frequent and people are trained to expect
| things to be made personal.
|
| If someone is labelling you and saying "don't take things
| personally" you can asume ignorance rather than evilness, and
| try to explain the difference, between personal labels and
| pointing a given situational behaviour.
|
| It won't be over, because then the conflict will be about
| behaviours, and people have different expectations for those,
| what's ok and what it isn't.
|
| Culture is a collection of expected behaviours, this is how it
| finally clicked for me that actually defining a culture in a
| startup is important when you think about it.
|
| That's why hiring people you have worked with works so well,
| you don't expend time making expectations explicit.
| Etheryte wrote:
| This isn't even remotely what the article was about. I can't
| help but wonder whether you actually read it before making this
| comment.
| paulpauper wrote:
| the article is 10,000 words ...
| Etheryte wrote:
| If you don't want to read 10,000 words, why do you want to
| comment on the words? It makes little sense to read a four-
| word title and just assume that you know what the rest of
| it says.
| paulpauper wrote:
| do you think everyone commenting on this post read all
| 10,000 words
| Bubble_Pop_22 wrote:
| I have recently come to realize that life can suck pretty bad if
| you don't have a high opinion of yourself.
|
| In short you have to believe that you are the best regardless of
| what the real world feedback is.
|
| Belief in absence of evidence is the very basis of religion ,
| which is something we did ever since the very beginning of the
| specie, so it is certain that the brain is capable of going that
| route.
|
| The extra step is to go from belief in absence of evidence (which
| is typical of religion) to belief in absence of evidence AND also
| absence of real world positive feedback all around you (which is
| needed for strong self-belief).
|
| The person who can master this skill is going to have a hell of a
| good time, the separation between self-confidence and actual real
| world feedback would be so fundamental and pivotal in humans that
| it would completely eclipse the separation between Church and
| State.
| haswell wrote:
| It's unclear what utility this mindset has and how it will not
| lead to self-delusion.
|
| If I convince myself I'm the most visionary product manager who
| ever lived, and I _really_ believe that, it will either a)
| create blindspots and prevent me from proper self-reflection
| and self-correction or b) force me into a state of cognitive
| dissonance where I believe I 'm the best, while knowing I'm
| not, creating a new and unnecessary problem for myself as I try
| to navigate the world.
|
| Feedback from those around you is an important form of
| evidence. While it is true that ideally one should not
| internalize that feedback or bow to its pressure if it's
| related to a moral or ethical stance, it is similarly
| problematic to discard it entirely, and delude oneself into a
| form of irrational hubris.
|
| > _...to belief in absence of evidence AND also absence of real
| world positive feedback all around you (which is needed for
| strong self-belief)_
|
| Belief in yourself is important, yes. Not taking feedback
| personally is important, yes.
|
| Ignoring feedback entirely is problematic.
| mise_en_place wrote:
| I don't think it's about convincing yourself of anything. A
| leap of faith doesn't work that way, you can't just say "I
| believe" and delude yourself into that belief. It requires
| actually having faith, which is experiential.
| haswell wrote:
| A leap of faith and blind faith are not the same thing at
| all.
|
| A leap of faith is evidence of self-belief, and is
| hopefully founded on some reasonable basis. A leap of faith
| takes something you know, and makes a bet based on it.
|
| Blind faith is based on nothing other than a wish, and
| persists even when presented with hard evidence that
| disagrees.
| Bubble_Pop_22 wrote:
| > It's unclear what utility this mindset has and how it will
| not lead to self-delusion.
|
| You gotta believe you are the best and let the chips fall
| where they may.
|
| Matter of fact if self-confidence and faith is high enough,
| you'd be having such a blast that you won't care where the
| chips fall at all.
|
| It's a way of cutting the corner, before you'd need
| accomplishments to be happy with yourself...after acquiring
| the faith you skip to the good part directly.
| haswell wrote:
| > _you 'd be having such a blast that you won't care where
| the chips fall at all_
|
| Why is this a good thing? This sounds like delusion, not
| having a blast.
|
| Humility is required to self-correct when you're off track.
| Humility and blind faith are incompatible. Humility and
| self confidence can co-exist, however.
|
| My religious parents will tell you how happy their faith
| makes them, but they also managed to traumatize their kids
| in the process. Blind faith leads to blind spots,
| predictably. Blind faith leads to dogmatism, which is at
| the root of today's tribalism. Blind faith should not be
| celebrated. Blind faith begets religion, of the god-variety
| and otherwise.
|
| But blind faith isn't required to be confident in oneself.
|
| It sounds counterintuitive, but If you want true peace,
| accepting and embracing your limitations is a freeing
| endeavor. The stoics figured this out, and have quite a few
| wise things to say about it.
|
| Maybe you and I have different interpretations of what you
| mean by blind faith, but the version I've been exposed to
| is a road that leads to more problems than it solves.
| Bubble_Pop_22 wrote:
| You are approaching it like a problem to solve with the
| mindset of somebody who is trying to get self-confidence
| as a step in the direction of building something or
| achieve results.
|
| If you manage to get the self-confidence at a sky high
| level you won't care about building something or
| achieving goals.
|
| Mentally they'd be redundant and sort of pushing on a
| string given that your self satisfaction is maxed out
| already.
|
| You can't grasp it now because you imagine a person like
| that as deluded and 'not going anywhere' or even worse
| regressing, but if you manage to get in that state of
| mind, you'd be the one living it and having a blast
| inside your own head, not being an external observer
| judging.
|
| If you think about it's a way of cheating Mother Nature,
| for the rules are that she releases endorphines and
| satsifaction after a job well done. The person who
| manages to get in that state of mind endogenously would
| be de-facto ambushing Mother Nature and beating her up
| until she releases the endorphines without anything in
| exchange for it.
| Tarq0n wrote:
| Absence of a positive self image is pretty much the definition
| of depression. Normally people have a defense mechanism against
| this in the form of cognitive dissonance. This is why people
| are so good at contextualising as the protagonist, or excusing
| their own wrongdoing, but on the flipside the better you are at
| honest self assessment the more vulnerable you are to breaking
| this defense mechanism.
| mise_en_place wrote:
| Yes, better to be a knight of faith than a knight of infinite
| resignation.
| scifibestfi wrote:
| There's this thing in the culture about taking maximum offense at
| anything and everything possible. It's as though it's a hobby or
| sport. It also seems to be correlated with the number of viewers.
| If it's just 1-on-1, it's rare. If there's an audience, it's
| common, especially if the audience is social media.
| abnry wrote:
| Sheesh, some people are incapable of taking offense at anything
| and would love to. Don't stigmatize those people who have
| trouble feeling feelings. ;-)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-19 23:00 UTC)