I wouldn't deny the premise that talking to strangers has social benefits, but there are absolutely disproportionate risks and costs inherent in being willing to converse with strangers. Many, many, many times in my life, I (a woman) have responded with mild/basic politeness to a strange man who spoke to me, and the encounter turned either aggressively sexual or aggressively aggressive (or, often, one and then the other). I've also had lovely conversations with strange men, but it's always a roll of the dice, and I often just don't fucking feel like risking it. I'm willing to set aside the benefits of talking with strangers in order to stay safe, or even just conserve the energy I'd have to spend in an encounter gone bad. I'm very sure that people from any visibly marginalized group experience similar risks and costs in conversing with strangers who have more social power than they do (as @matjef points out downthread, the transgender woman in conversation with a Georgia Republican is a pretty solid example of mismatched risk and cost in a conversation with a stranger).
If the thesis is that there are overall benefits to society when strangers are able to speak and share ideas, failing to look at who benefits more, and who risks more, is overlooking a key dynamic.
i've always been way into talking to strangers. unless they're unbearable. and i don't want to piss on joe's optimism parade, because i tend to believe he's right about the amount of progress that interacting w/ strangers can foster, but this anecdote that he points to as an example of successfully bridging a divide:
I spoke to one of the participants in a workshop, a Georgia Republican. His partner in one conversation was transgender, and while he always believed you’re either male or female and that’s it, the conversation complicated his perspective in a good way. “She’s a very nice woman; we had a lovely conversation,” he told me on a smoke break outside. “It made me think that people have these experiences that I can’t relate to, but I should be open-minded about it.” Likewise, he thinks he may have informed her opinion on his big issue, “the proper role of government.”
is, to me, a perfect example of the flawed and inequitable nature of this approach. this fucking guy had to be convinced that transgender people exist/have the right to exist and after his conversation partner put herself at risk and undertook the emotional labor to do so, she was rewarded by having to listen to his theories on small government or some bullshit. i'd love to hear her perspective on their "lovely conversation".
I wouldn't deny the premise that talking to strangers has social benefits, but there are absolutely disproportionate risks and costs inherent in being willing to converse with strangers. Many, many, many times in my life, I (a woman) have responded with mild/basic politeness to a strange man who spoke to me, and the encounter turned either aggressively sexual or aggressively aggressive (or, often, one and then the other). I've also had lovely conversations with strange men, but it's always a roll of the dice, and I often just don't fucking feel like risking it. I'm willing to set aside the benefits of talking with strangers in order to stay safe, or even just conserve the energy I'd have to spend in an encounter gone bad. I'm very sure that people from any visibly marginalized group experience similar risks and costs in conversing with strangers who have more social power than they do (as @matjef points out downthread, the transgender woman in conversation with a Georgia Republican is a pretty solid example of mismatched risk and cost in a conversation with a stranger).
If the thesis is that there are overall benefits to society when strangers are able to speak and share ideas, failing to look at who benefits more, and who risks more, is overlooking a key dynamic.
i've always been way into talking to strangers. unless they're unbearable. and i don't want to piss on joe's optimism parade, because i tend to believe he's right about the amount of progress that interacting w/ strangers can foster, but this anecdote that he points to as an example of successfully bridging a divide:
I spoke to one of the participants in a workshop, a Georgia Republican. His partner in one conversation was transgender, and while he always believed you’re either male or female and that’s it, the conversation complicated his perspective in a good way. “She’s a very nice woman; we had a lovely conversation,” he told me on a smoke break outside. “It made me think that people have these experiences that I can’t relate to, but I should be open-minded about it.” Likewise, he thinks he may have informed her opinion on his big issue, “the proper role of government.”
is, to me, a perfect example of the flawed and inequitable nature of this approach. this fucking guy had to be convinced that transgender people exist/have the right to exist and after his conversation partner put herself at risk and undertook the emotional labor to do so, she was rewarded by having to listen to his theories on small government or some bullshit. i'd love to hear her perspective on their "lovely conversation".