This thread is being started to redirect traffic from FlockofSeagulls' thread questioning the worth of mundane topics. A tangent has formed regarding the questioning the importance of personal disclosures in a public forum, and so, we continue that discussion here rather than hijacking Flock's thread.
Not the point. The point was your initial criticism of eulogies and then you shifting ground to the more easily defensible criticism of undefined "personal things", of which, I think no one here would deny that there are personal things that should not be discussed publicly and it ranges from Social Security Numbers to some bedroom behavior and beyond. But then, no one was arguing that. You're bringing up general "personal things" to knock it down, rather than defending your attack on eulogies, it seems. Hence, strawman.
But that's okay. It's better to let your thoughts evolve and let yourself defend what you mean to rather than to stand stubbornly and try to defend the indefensible.
How do you think those bonds are formed initially if not with some personal disclosures that make you relatable and approachable? Creating bonds requires a give and take of interest, inquiry, and disclosure. Without these things, there would be no friends here, and it would be the digital version of the impersonal street corner you describe, and rightfully so, because no one would know the other.
How do you think people get to know each other here? Not through gatherings and personal meetings alone, I assure you. There's something even before that.
And until you have those disclosures, identify that common ground and build those bonds, you won't have those friends you're recommending that people just contact privately.
Oftentimes, especially in emotionally intense events, contacting friends directly (as you suggest) carries an obligation to respond, and to console -- because they are your friends, and especially because you've contacted them specifically.
Making a more general public announcement obligates no one. Friends can contribute and console, but with it being a general announcement and not one directed toward anyone specifically, it carries less, if any, sense of obligation with it.
You note yourself that anything that suggests an announcement of "TMI" you avoid. Excellent. That's how it should be -- clearly marked and that you can avoid it if you're not interested. No obligation.
I suspect if a friend contacted you directly about a recent trauma, however, you would feel a greater obligation to respond. That obligation is not so much a function of friendship, but because they're specifically contacting you which is demanding of a response by virtue of your friendship.
A general announcement to friends and strangers alike allows friends to be informed but without the specific burden to respond that more directed contact carries. It seems, then, that public announcement is, in fact, less selfish.
But all opinions are welcome.
Capnmad said:
Not the point. The point was your initial criticism of eulogies and then you shifting ground to the more easily defensible criticism of undefined "personal things", of which, I think no one here would deny that there are personal things that should not be discussed publicly and it ranges from Social Security Numbers to some bedroom behavior and beyond. But then, no one was arguing that. You're bringing up general "personal things" to knock it down, rather than defending your attack on eulogies, it seems. Hence, strawman.
But that's okay. It's better to let your thoughts evolve and let yourself defend what you mean to rather than to stand stubbornly and try to defend the indefensible.
How do you think those bonds are formed initially if not with some personal disclosures that make you relatable and approachable? Creating bonds requires a give and take of interest, inquiry, and disclosure. Without these things, there would be no friends here, and it would be the digital version of the impersonal street corner you describe, and rightfully so, because no one would know the other.
How do you think people get to know each other here? Not through gatherings and personal meetings alone, I assure you. There's something even before that.
And until you have those disclosures, identify that common ground and build those bonds, you won't have those friends you're recommending that people just contact privately.
Oftentimes, especially in emotionally intense events, contacting friends directly (as you suggest) carries an obligation to respond, and to console -- because they are your friends, and especially because you've contacted them specifically.
Making a more general public announcement obligates no one. Friends can contribute and console, but with it being a general announcement and not one directed toward anyone specifically, it carries less, if any, sense of obligation with it.
You note yourself that anything that suggests an announcement of "TMI" you avoid. Excellent. That's how it should be -- clearly marked and that you can avoid it if you're not interested. No obligation.
I suspect if a friend contacted you directly about a recent trauma, however, you would feel a greater obligation to respond. That obligation is not so much a function of friendship, but because they're specifically contacting you which is demanding of a response by virtue of your friendship.
A general announcement to friends and strangers alike allows friends to be informed but without the specific burden to respond that more directed contact carries. It seems, then, that public announcement is, in fact, less selfish.
But all opinions are welcome.
Hello to everyone in this thread. 
