I wonder how many questions it takes to get to mutual respect and mild infatuation.
This post is like three news cycles too old and thus falls into the uncanny valley of not-new, not-sufficiently-old. Next! Let's hire a team of younger, more with it millenial OPers and put these dinosaurs out to pasture.
I want people who can really integrate our social media strategy, not see it as a threat to their hidebound ways.
Three news cycles old or not, I actually found those questions (third link in the OP) fairly decent. It's just that that sort of getting-to-know-you normally occurs over a several month period of time, at the very least.
It really does just look like a set of questions designed to force intimacy, which would probably work as well as anything else though in the same spirit as that guy who hacked OKCupid. I'd be more interested in a list of questions that would make people end up hating each other (strangers or people already in a relationship). That would be more interesting, psychologically speaking, and probably more useful too.
Questions that would make people wind up hating each other, or at least finding them foreign entities: political, religious.
I have, for example, recently found my cow-orker a foreign entity for his views on what he calls "people of faith". In this case, he is a person of faith (so-called), and apparently being a person of faith puts you in an entirely other realm from not-people of faith.
Was there a question in the forced-intimacy quiz about this?
The New Yorker had a list of questions people in committed raltionships should never ask each other -- unless they want to break up.
I suppose my dog is a not-people of faith.
This was in my FB feed today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MWA09DG7_M#t=40
Apparently the view is that people who haven't been properly performatively inducted into a given faith (via baptism, in the case of christianity) cannot be people of faith, taking full participation in the life of the church.
I honestly felt like I was in nowhere land listening to these explanations. So that would be a nonstarter, relationship-wise.
12: Most Catholics tend to be pre-conscious at the time that they are baptized. Does that count as "performatively inducted"?
13: Thanks, that's the point I made as well, but it didn't seem to get me anywhere. It was a difficult (interesting!) conversation that went on for about an hour, and something I'd like to talk about here another time, but yeah: my observation that people are mewling infants who have no choice in the matter of their baptism didn't seem to matter.
And it's not specifically Catholic: Protestants are baptized as well. It's all about the baptism. You can't be a Christian unless you've been baptized, a performative act that has nothing to do with your actual beliefs and behaviors when it occurs. It is very hard for me not to find this bonkers.
I actually think this might have something to do with the way my husband and I fell in love; we met online and there's something about the intimacy of chat that leads you to discuss all these sort of things. Then again, we had to wait several months for the 'stare into each other's eyes' bit, so who knows.
That does depend a little bit on the exact flavor of christianity involved - some of them absolutely hold off on baptism until the person is somewhere between teenager and full adult, and full participation in general church stuff (e.g., communion) only happens after that.
But a large gap between being born and baptism tends to push against the person of faith/lesser-person of not-faith distinction because most people's kids would fall into the latter category if it's divided up that way. So I don't think you'd hear much of that kind of stuff from those churches.
16.last: No, it doesn't seem like you hear much about that. It seems as though being baptized as an infant (pre-cognitive) just makes you a member of the tribe.
The tribalism really bothered me.
17.2 -- Then you should certainly avoid the link in 11.
12: but _mens rea actus rea_ types can care about confirmation instead? What's the Anglican approach?
I actually think this might have something to do with the way my husband and I fell in love; we met online and there's something about the intimacy of chat that leads you to discuss all these sort of things. Then again, we had to wait several months for the 'stare into each other's eyes' bit, so who knows.
Right. I know plenty of people who've fallen for someone online, only to meet up in person and have all of the attraction vanish instantaneously.
But a virtual sex grotto is much less fun than the IRL version.
Being a wallflower at a sex party is awful, though, even if you brought a good book.
don't participate in the sietch orgy at your peril
22: Yep. Fortunately, at four years later, I think I can comfortably say it stood up upon meeting in person. (That, or he's just too polite to say otherwise.)
This is stale enough to hijack a bit, right? I was just wondering earlier about cry, cry, masturbate, cry, and TFA are too full of that for me to check, but is there an explanation of the duplicated cry? Does it have to be two separate instances of crying or can it just be longer or more intense than the norm?
It's because of a medical condition.
I'd always taken it to mean something like:
first cry: "boo hoo hoo, well, now I've had some catharsis."
second cry: "I wasn't done crying? Fuck this, I'm going to wank instead."
...
third crying spell because it didn't help
So the only disjuncture is between the first two cries. The first one sets everything else rolling straight downhill.
Read it yourself as if for the first time.
(The key to finding that thread easily is to search for "who says you have to stop crying".)
Huh, I always thought the joke originated with Anna Nicole Smith's death. Whoops.
Now I think I've had this clarified before and still reverted to the prior misconception.