The issue is not tolerance, or intolerance; it's the site goal of pursuing "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" and doing so while we all, among other things,
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
None of that precludes us here from criticizing someone or something. It's a matter of how we hold such discussions.
>1. If this is a dinner party (or people are all seated), force people to get up and move in a way that they'll meet new people. Do this when you're about 2/3 of the way through the party.
Better, I've found, for compelling people to interact with others they may not know, is to assign seats. This enables separating couples or others with a preexisting connection. The act of eating offers the benefits of a subject to discuss (if needed) and makes it so it's acceptable to periodically look away from the conversation partner. Just note that depending on the size/shape of the dinner table, it may be necessary to think about who people will be seated adjacent to and seated across from.
It used to be custom (in high society, not anywhere I have dimmed) to sit boy girl boy girl, and for ladies to talk to the man in their left during the first course, right during second... to keep a balanced conversation going
When arranging seating for a dinner (not that often), we tend to separate couples. And when at someone's house when there is not pre-arranged seating, my wife and I tend to sit apart.
Stendhal thought that the 19th Century French custom that married couples should attend the same gatherings had harmed the quality of conversation. I think he said this of the Empire.
People quickly become accustomed to common occurrences that are not threatening (like extreme weather events). Apollo 8 was the first time humans reached the moon, just orbiting it. Sixteen months later, in a time with much less media and information than we have now, US TV networks chose not to broadcast an en-route feed for Apollo 13 because this was no longer seen as interesting. We often seem spoiled, we often seem prone to complaining, and we often seem more enamored with something new. Yet there are so many remarkable things we take for granted.
That’s because it’s called “the news”, not “the olds”.
When I teach people how to talk to reporters I always emphasize this. If it’s the 10th time something happened, you need to explain it in terms of what’s -new- or your info won’t go beyond the pitch meeting.
Thats why your town’s street fair makes a big deal that it’s the 10th anniversary event. It’s “news” that you’ve hit a round number. That’s why Trump breaks the law in a little way before doing it in a big way… the second time isn’t interesting.
>You can participate for years and still never gain access to basic features like downvoting, since karma and visibility are as much about fitting in as about merit.
reply