Apparently I'm the same type of alien that you are, except perhaps more so. As well as all the things you mention, I also prefer to avoid blogs etc. where I cannot respond to the author. My threshold for "worth reading" is much higher without the possibility of dialogue.
I agree. I used to be an avid New York Times reader (I loved the "Weekender" feature articles). But the more I've read Substack, the less I have interest in reading an essay that I can't engage with in anyway. I love to be able to continue the conversation with the author!
I wonder whether this post (inadvertantly?) hints at a key reason so many of us DID have celebrity crushes: no possibility of direct interaction meant no pressure to "make a move" and no danger of rejection. Lusting after, say, Winona Ryder or that "French in Action" woman was pleasurable in part because I didn't have to confront the complete inadequacy of my flirting/dating toolbox.
That's an interesting point, and not an angle I had thought of. I've never been a "make a move" kind of guy, but I'm pretty comfortable just talking to people. In fact, I tend toward being oblivious to flirting in the moment. Those factors are probably all bound up in this, too...
I've definitely never had any doubt about the reality of people online that I've had long-running online conversations with. But I tend to only have those conversations with people who are very very grounded in a consistent personality and sense of presence and whom I have some sense of their real-world situation. I've never enjoyed online environments where anonymity is the predominant norm--I especially dislike the feeling of talking with someone who is claiming strong domain knowledge about something or making strong claims from experience where I have no way of evaluating either because the writer is giving up nothing about who they really are or because I see no reason to think they have any right to claim that knowledge.
Apparently I'm the same type of alien that you are, except perhaps more so. As well as all the things you mention, I also prefer to avoid blogs etc. where I cannot respond to the author. My threshold for "worth reading" is much higher without the possibility of dialogue.
I agree. I used to be an avid New York Times reader (I loved the "Weekender" feature articles). But the more I've read Substack, the less I have interest in reading an essay that I can't engage with in anyway. I love to be able to continue the conversation with the author!
I wonder whether this post (inadvertantly?) hints at a key reason so many of us DID have celebrity crushes: no possibility of direct interaction meant no pressure to "make a move" and no danger of rejection. Lusting after, say, Winona Ryder or that "French in Action" woman was pleasurable in part because I didn't have to confront the complete inadequacy of my flirting/dating toolbox.
That's an interesting point, and not an angle I had thought of. I've never been a "make a move" kind of guy, but I'm pretty comfortable just talking to people. In fact, I tend toward being oblivious to flirting in the moment. Those factors are probably all bound up in this, too...
I've never had a celebrity crush either.
I've definitely never had any doubt about the reality of people online that I've had long-running online conversations with. But I tend to only have those conversations with people who are very very grounded in a consistent personality and sense of presence and whom I have some sense of their real-world situation. I've never enjoyed online environments where anonymity is the predominant norm--I especially dislike the feeling of talking with someone who is claiming strong domain knowledge about something or making strong claims from experience where I have no way of evaluating either because the writer is giving up nothing about who they really are or because I see no reason to think they have any right to claim that knowledge.
Ah, Scary Internet People.
Some of you are scarier than others...