[clukic]

This reply is perfect. The anger encapsulated in it captures the exact crux of the post. The point, of course, is that advances in personal technology have coincided with a cultural shift where people feel entitled to personal isolation in public spaces.

When I moved to NYC 30 years ago, one of the things that made me fall in love with the city was the way that living in such close proximity to so many others seemed to create so much more empathy. The same effect, I now see working in reverse, minimizing contact with others with by disappearing into technology has the effect of making people less empathetic. Instead of reaching into their pocket for a subway performance, or a homeless person, people might prefer to see them arrested for the crime of violating their all important personal barriers.

[DANmode]

My home is now a place where people are mortified by the homeless, and literally give them things off of themselves, or offer ways to existentially assist, on-sight.

Maybe it’s the crushing disproportionate volume and nature of the poverty that each effective individual is confronted with that’s to blame - I still believe people are inherently good, but they do give up pretty easily if you make it socially acceptable to ignore.

I will no longer choose to live in places it’s socially acceptable to ignore.

[pie_flavor]

I don't feel entitled to personal isolation from people who might want to strike up a conversation. If I'm not in the mood, I'll just say so.

I feel entitled to personal isolation from schizophrenics, who have a good chance of assaulting me if I look at them wrong. (And did you think screaming and playing loud music was disruptive just to quiet, and not to the aforementioned conversation too?)

You are the problem, not the person you're replying to. When you say 'you must exhibit infinite tolerance of antisocial disruption', the easy response is 'or I could always just leave'.