people

[thatoneguy297]

Cliques are inevitable micro-collections of people who like the look and sound of each other. Culture is the foundational broad strokes of beliefs, values, and goals in a group of people, and a healthy culture is inclusive. It seeks out new members who evolve the culture into something new and better.
rands, on dealing with toxic people

and

Comments

[toob]

I think I have to disagree with that. I find that those who are uninterested in other people tend to be self-absorbed and shallow.

I've known some pretty awful people who were very interested in talking about ideas.

EDIT: And the one quote you have is pretty ironic following the other... your first says that a healthy culture is inclusive, and your second details what kinds of people you should try not to include.

[thatoneguy297]

very good points! this post sort of spawned from a conversation i had with a friend about a very bristling individual that we are friends with anyways (not in a "hey look we are martyrs who are friends with even terrible people you should be more like us" kind of way, more of a "this person is in our group and can be fun and infuriating simultaneously how does one handle this person" way)

i'm all for the diffrntstrokes to make up a social blob, but i've found that, personally, people who speak specifically of things (i.e. things they have not made, things that they want, actual physical tactile things that they lust after or have and like to brag about) aren't the most compatible with me. but on the other hand, people who talk of things in order to share them with people, things that bring joy to themself and others, those are people i like exchanging information with! but at risk of sounding elitist and snobby, those sorts of people are few and far between in my day to day interactions. so, statistically, avoid people who talk of "

[athauglas]

toob's got a point here. If talking about people and things means reading tabloids, idolizing personalities and flaunting materialism, and people like this bother you, then it seems reasonable that such a person would need far more redeeming qualities to make a friendship work. On the other hand if talking about people and things means taking interest in people around you that actually matter, and talking about the intrinsic craft, art, or usefulness of things, such a person could be a great friend to have.

The same problem occurs with people that talk more about events and ideas. What events? What ideas? Someone who does this could just as easily be a captivating speaker or a total shitbird.

I think it's better to find a mix of everything in a friend. Somebody that can watch (and enjoy) cheap summer "thrillers" at the cinema and then turn around and argue for half an hour about Tolstoy. :}

[thatoneguy297]

that last bit pretty much sums it up - bracketing people that specifically doesn't really solve anyone's problems (i am 100% against anything "zero tolerance" (PARADOX) in any situation - people have too many variables to say "if x exists, then y is true" for nearly ANYTHING). striking a balance is the best thing, i think, but finding someone that leans one way too heavily might be more taxing on one's sanity in some situations.

that said, every person has intrinsic worth, so dismissing anyone before getting to KNOW them is a disservice to everybody, in my opinion. :3