[protonbob]

> The fence isn't there. It never was. It's just the memory of some childhood rejection, some social rule someone made up, some fear that caring more makes you matter less.

Chesterton's Fence would say that maybe there is a reason and you should tread carefully. Sometimes a relationship died because it should have. Maybe you feel uncomfortable messaging someone because they have given nonverbals that they don't like your company.

[anal_reactor]

Yeah. I went to my high school reunion. It was a nice evening, but ultimately, I remembered why I was an outcast back then. Recently I reached out to a few old friends. I spent an hour talking to one via phone, and at the end I was like... I don't want this. I set up a meeting with another guy and the moment he walked in I knew this was going to be a very long and very boring evening. Yet another dude called me and invited to visit him and god christ I was happy when it was over because I couldn't get him to smile even once.

Dead friendships should stay dead, unless they naturally come back to life because of other circumstances.

[kelnos]

That's true, but absent psychological manipulation or something truly devious and nefarious, a short text message is low risk, and is unlikely to open up a painful can of worms.

And I don't think the point of that statement was that you should be contacting anyone and everyone, just because they entered your mind. It's not saying you should get in touch to say hello to that abusive ex just because you thought about them. But firing off a quick text to someone you found interesting but lost touch with is pretty much always going to be harmless.

[d4mi3n]

This can sometimes be the case, but barring something tangibly dangerous or concerning, talking is cheap and communication is hard. If someone really is a problem, I'd rather know and consciously decide to not associate with them than I would risk losing a potential great relationship because I was nervous about something I couldn't quantify.

YMMV. It'd be a learning experience either way.

[ethan_smith]

Chesterton's Fence applies to institutional/societal structures with unknown origins, not personal relationships where the history is known to you. The principle encourages understanding before removal, not perpetual inaction when reasons are already clear.

[protonbob]

Tread carefully doesn’t mean inaction

[samrus]

I dont like chesterton's fence. I think we should revalidate these structures. In a low risk situation of course, but still prod at them a little. Its very dangerous to lose intitutional memory because of a dogma of never questioning things

[jhbadger]

To be fair, in the analogy Chesterton wasn't saying we shouldn't question things but rather that we should understand why things are the way they are before assuming that we can change them for the better, and a lot of tragedy in the world comes from people who think we can just tear everything down and make it better without consequences.