![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One of the geek/fannish social fallacies is that because we (almost all of us) have been excluded or lonely at some point, it's wrong to exclude other people. Not "wrong to exclude people for no reason," wrong full stop. That can cause a variety of problems (google geek social fallacies for discussion of some of them; I'm on a little eee and have a breakfast date in half an hour).
One side of this I haven't seen discussed is that if people around you are saying "we can't exclude anyone," you can wind up thinking "they're only hanging out with me because they think it's required." But there is a huge difference between "this restaurant is a public accommodation" and "you must invite that skeevy guy in the corner to sit at your table" or "I will talk to the local bore when I came here to have an intimate dinner with my beloved."
Maybe there are people reading this who do your social lives that way. But I don't have the patience or the amount of energy that would take. I don't even have time to see all the people I actively like, the friends I want to spend time with. I do some of my socializing in the con suite, but my social life is not the con suite. Even the random game of Fluxx with two people I don't know is an active choice, because they and I want to be doing the same thing for the next half hour.
This is a public journal, but if I call you friend, it's because I like you. If I send you a note saying "let's get together," it's because I want to see you. Specifically you, not just any random person in the city you live in, Given the choice between an annoying or boring person next door and one of my not-so-imaginary friends halfway around the planet, I'll be at the keyboard, or making a phone call that starts with 011-. (I'm fairly introverted; I took a break between the GoH speeches and doing anything else last night to sit in my room, read a little, and do my yoga. I needed that, along with the stuff before and after.
[This is not a Wiscon report, though I'm at Wiscon; it's prompted by something I just read online, the seed that crystallized something. Thank you. (I think you know who you are, but it's not mine to call that out.)]
One side of this I haven't seen discussed is that if people around you are saying "we can't exclude anyone," you can wind up thinking "they're only hanging out with me because they think it's required." But there is a huge difference between "this restaurant is a public accommodation" and "you must invite that skeevy guy in the corner to sit at your table" or "I will talk to the local bore when I came here to have an intimate dinner with my beloved."
Maybe there are people reading this who do your social lives that way. But I don't have the patience or the amount of energy that would take. I don't even have time to see all the people I actively like, the friends I want to spend time with. I do some of my socializing in the con suite, but my social life is not the con suite. Even the random game of Fluxx with two people I don't know is an active choice, because they and I want to be doing the same thing for the next half hour.
This is a public journal, but if I call you friend, it's because I like you. If I send you a note saying "let's get together," it's because I want to see you. Specifically you, not just any random person in the city you live in, Given the choice between an annoying or boring person next door and one of my not-so-imaginary friends halfway around the planet, I'll be at the keyboard, or making a phone call that starts with 011-. (I'm fairly introverted; I took a break between the GoH speeches and doing anything else last night to sit in my room, read a little, and do my yoga. I needed that, along with the stuff before and after.
[This is not a Wiscon report, though I'm at Wiscon; it's prompted by something I just read online, the seed that crystallized something. Thank you. (I think you know who you are, but it's not mine to call that out.)]
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Yes, I do think even this inclusion can go too far. For one thing, if the person is actively unpleasant, s/he might be driving some more selective friends of mine away. I would never snub a person I like because s/he is low prestige, but actively unpleasant to other friends, yes, if that can't be reconciled.
Yet in some ways, there may be a nice coincidence between a nerd ethic of not telling people to go away & a nerd set of social skills that lacks the ability to do so kindly. Not every "no" needs to be come across as a personal rejection, but some people don't know how to do any other kind.
Sometimes people are amazed when I say, "I learned social skills through fandom," but it was World Fantasy Cons, which provide a different atmosphere from most sf cons and more role models. I remember noting how awesomely some people, most but not all of them editors and writers, could just shut someone out of the conversation by turning their shoulders away, not making eye contact, and replying to others present. The person just drifted away, with no emotional hurt. That won't work for everyone, but it will for most people.
From:
no subject
I would note that for me, that would be a great deal more hurtful than being asked to go away.
From:
no subject
There are other ways to make turn-downs less hurtful if the approach is more explicit. For instance, saying to someone who wants to tag along for dinner, "I'm sorry, but we have a reservation" or "..the group is already too large" or whatever. And I genuinely am sorry, because I don't like hurting/rejecting people.
From:
no subject
Also, that was the *perfect* icon for this subdiscussion. *grin*
From:
no subject
There must have been times when the whole thing worked out better than planned, but that's not what my brain seems to hang onto.
From:
no subject