Being alone
jessepollak.me
jessepollak.me
I've done it a couple times now, having no real affinity with national identity, but I sure do love the cooking and language I've managed to collect. And finally, real experience with the people of the world, not just My Own Team™ ..
No, going somewhere on holiday for a few weeks/months is not the same. You have to live and make a living there.
Very 'western' I know, but nevertheless, lots of culture got stripped away, new layers added, and underneath it all I found myself. Soon as my kids get a bit older, we'll probably move to Peru.
In my case I knew that I needed a change and had to force myself out of the mold I had grown into. Moving halfway across the country to a place I had never been, not knowing anyone there was just the kick in the ass I needed.
Having done this 4 times now, I can't tell you how true this is (as is the rest of fit2rule's post).
To anyone thinking about it, find a way to do it and take the plunge. There's no way in hell you'll regret it.
In my experience I can go for about a year without a solid social circle, but after that I start to go nuts.
Word of advice to anyone who might be anxious going out alone: don't bring your phone. If you're just going to distract yourself with it because you feel less awkward, you might as well stay home, because you're depriving yourself of the opportunity to notice what's going on. If you just go and actually pay attention, there will be opportunities to participate.
---
I want to amend this because I feel like it might come across as a little hostile, but that's not the intention. A few points on the reasoning:
* A party will have a host, and it's his job to integrate you. You shouldn't really have to work that hard. Find the host and he'll try to get you involved.
* There are guests that will do the same. If I'm out with a group, I'll happily involve a newcomer.
* Both of these fall apart if you walk in and immediately look disinterested. I'm not going to approach a person on his phone. In my head, he's either temporarily busy or doesn't want to be there, and I'm not going to risk being an ass and interrupting on the off chance that you're just shy. (I've got better ways of looking like an ass.)
If you can't resist the temptation to delve into your phone, you're not genuinely putting yourself out there.
> Preface: As a white, heterosexual, cis, male, I’m granted, from birth, an extraordinary amount of privilege
I wasn't actually aware people outside of the Tumblrverse said things like that. (Over on Reddit there is /r/TumblrInAction for things like this)
Not all racial or gender divisions are obvious; exclusion or denial of privilege is harder to spot.
That's a massive leap in logic. Society isn't a simple one in, one out metric.
As a result, it sounds like you're saying "screw you, I got mine". We can flip the question around: why does this majority deserve better opportunities? There aren't very good answers to that question.
The main thing I'd point out is that unlike your metaphor society is not a zero-sum game.
No, if you make things worse for 90% of the population, and make it better for 10% of the population, the total is worse and therefore the average (mean) is worse.
Edit: an example. Let's say the first 9 people rate society at 10 points, and the last one rates it a 4. Total 94, mean 9.4, median 10. Now change things around so everyone is equal and ranks things a 9. Total 90, mean 9.0, median 9. Even though the majority is almost as happy as before, and the minority is much happier, most measures come out worse.
We're assuming in this totally contrived example that points are a measure of total resources + opportunity in our closed system, since we're implying a redistribution of a fixed pool of resources^1.
So, the total in the "after" picture would still be 94 and thus the mean would remain at 9.4 and the median would be 9.4 - (and down from 10).
I'm not a fan of arguing from averages - realistically, the picture is more like 1 - 1000pts, 2 - 100pts, 3-50pts, 4-30pts, 5, 6-7 - 20pts, 8-10 10pts
~ 1270 total, avg 127, median 20.
But these are all contrived examples (in the above I'm more leaning on income distribution, which I've reproduced from memory and may be skewed). If we equalize the above, the median would go up.
The argument for redistribution can be made on an economic/statistical basis - but the argument for equality, I think, is ultimately moral. It's not about fairness per se, but about justice.
^1 Not quite my stance but for the sake of argument.
>In the argument from justice, you think it's a moral mandate to take money away from people because other people have less money?
Well, not because other people have less money.
My politics are roughly "people should do whatever they want, but they should have to pay the price of the externalities of their actions", sprinkled with "reducing overall human misery is virtuous".
More like, because in order for the massively wealthy to exist there's a strong argument that there has to be a massive underclass to go along with it. In this light, being rich creates the externality of forcing people to be poor, and as a result it's perfectly moral to redistribute some of that wealth.
Another argument goes, we have a more vibrant and stable society if we ensure that a) everyone is healthy and gets a good education and b) no one person or group in particular can amass so much power as to be capable of destabilizing society as a whole.
There are a few other argument, but at the time of writing I think those two are the strongest. We can talk about right wrongs from the historical record, we can talk about the duty to minimize misery, we can talk about private property is a state-regulated right and thus it's legitimate to argue over it, we can talk about theological underpinnings, etc etc.
You may disagree, of course.
Nobody is arguing to make things harder or worse for those with privilege. Generally people are asking for equal consideration and opportunity and a recognition of past and existing injustice.
If you’re a white person with wealth and children, choose to invest in and send your children to a local, public, neighborhood school or at least a private school with a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion rather than a lily-white private place with connections to the Ivy League.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/12/how-to-talk-to-someone-a...
One argument against this is based on the philosophical concept of a Veil of Ignorance[1]. We should create the rules of society as if we don't already know what our position in society will be. No one wants to live in a society where they could be randomly selected for organ harvesting, for example.
That is an argument no one is making. What are you talking about?
I have to pay $20,000 for my schooling. My first nations friends pay nothing, it's covered by tax payers. This includes numerous other benefits that I do not get. In Canada, unfortunately it can often seem like the minority have more privileges. That's not equality, to me.
This smacks of tremendous ignorance of the history of First Nations people and what white Canadians have done to them. It's possibly the most concrete demonstration of white privilege I've ever seen.
"Well gee, I'm just a simple guy, but I don't think trying to balance out the horrible things that people of my race did to people of another race well into the 1900s that irreversibly affected their communities ability to survive is all that fair if I don't get those things too!"
It's all well and good to want a level playing field, but when you've spend the last century digging everyone else into gigantic holes, it kind of rings a little hollow.
My grandparents were not even in this country at the time, it was not my ancestors nor me that hurt anyone. So I should have less because of what someone with the same skin colour as me did decades ago? Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, discriminatory?
I don't know where you live but in Toronto with the exception of university tuition, all those things are provided for children that can't afford them regardless of their background. The concept of not letting a child go on a field trip or go hungry at lunch because they couldn't afford it is just insane to my ears.
> My grandparents were not even in this country at the time, it was not my ancestors nor me that hurt anyone.
Good thing this has little or nothing to do with punishing the descendants of those who may or may not have perpetrated injustice. It's about providing a leg-up to those that have been held down for decades. You had no such disadvantages so you don't receive the leg up.
> Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, discriminatory?
Providing benefits to anyone while excluding anyone else is technically discrimination. That's doesn't make it bad. Not all things are equal. It's discrimination that students pay less than you to take the subway. Also discrimination, also not a bad thing.
As insane as it may sound for a Torontonian, I grew up in Scarborough where many people didn't go on field trips simply because of the cost. Some kids had small lunches. And I grew up in a time where, because of cut backs in education costs, students were required to pay a "course fee" of about $50 at the beginning of the term in high school to pay for additional learning supplies for classes. Which usually amounted to the fee required to print workbooks, provide extra writing materials, or even art supplies.
Except for that it's discrimination based on need and not race.
Everyone should have access to these things, that some first nations people got this while you didn't isn't a problem with first nations people, but society at large not caring for its members. Of course, it is important to remember that first nations people experience that lack of care in unique and often violent ways.
> My grandparents were not even in this country at the time, it was not my ancestors nor me that hurt anyone. So I should have less because of what someone with the same skin colour as me did decades ago? Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, discriminatory?
You or your immediate ancestors didn't have to be there to benefit from that past and the situation it fosters today. You frame this as you being targeted to get less, which is really far from the truth about how first nations people live in Canada today. Finally, no you are not being discriminated against, you are benefiting directly and indirectly from past and current colonialist policies in Canada if you are white.
Just FYI, the last Canadian residential school closed in... drum roll... 1996. Sweet deal indeed.
But the reality is that to get to this point, many immigrant families and first nations families face enormous difficulty to meet their basic needs. To get to this country is one thing, to get here without anything is another. To have everything taken away and having to build it up without a strong support network is difficult. Equality isn't just about the money, it's about the community around you that helps create an environment that allows you to grow and succeed. By just pointing at the price tag, you're oversimplifying so many social factors and issues that play into how you get into university, get out, and start your career path in which, for families coming from difficult situations can simply be solved by some money.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, I am a visible minority myself. I didn't suffer and neither did my parents because the heavy burden was taken care-of by my great-grandparents and grandparents notwithstanding blatant racism by society and even government laws. I'm several generations removed from understanding the economic difficulties, but I'm still very much rooted in the cultural and social ones.
I completely agree with a support system for people who need it, but I do NOT think that system should be based on racial background.
The thing to understand about racism is that it's a societal thing, not an individual thing. Discrimination against an individual can be racist, but only if it contributes to the racism of a society. (I know, the academic usage of "racism" is unfortunately a little different than the colloquial usage)
In your individual case, you might not be as privileged as the students around you, but your race certainly is. I don't know much about Canada, but Native Americans have quantifiably rough lives. On average they make less, are more likely to become alcoholics, and are less likely to make it through college.
It's not about what your ancestors did. People bring that up a lot but you shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of people you never met just because you're related to them. In fact, you aren't held accountable. But you still have to deal with the society we live in as a result of the actions your ancestors took. That society is deeply inequal, and by providing things like scholarships we're accelerating progress in equality that traditionally takes decades to come about.
How do these make you feel?
Also how about someone went up to an old man and said, "You are an old man in your sixties, and I'm a college kid in my twenties. You will die much earlier than me. That's pretty much close to fact. Do you disagree?"
Socioeconomic status is the only real differentiator, and these factions only serve to divide the people whose interests are in reality, quite aligned. Unsurprisingly, this tends to greatly assist those at the top of the socioeconomic ladder in maintaining political deadlock on issues which greatly assist the majority at the expense of the tiny minority. Issues such as the social safety net, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and democratic process.
A cursory review of history shows that this is not a novel strategy.
I understand there are bonus points for this in America. But it also means that rest of the article is very likely going to be a political rant
I'm all of these things except heterosexual. As as adult, I'm also not readily identifiable as homosexual. But as a kid my perceived lack of masculinity (among many other things) definitely made me a target.
I can confirm that being alone now, by my choice, is much more pleasant and gratifying than being alone, by the choice of others.
He's on to something.
No need to downvote 4 times for an "lol".
It was the second paragraph that was equally as powerful for me.
Cheers
Of course there are people in situations for which the advice in this article is a non-starter. But does that preface actually specifically address them, or is it just a cargo-cult disclaimer to keep the responses from being derailed by feel-good plighties? And how should one feel if they are so "privileged" yet still cannot bring themselves to follow this advice?
1. Being racist is bad 2. All white people are racist (by virtue of being born into a racist culture)
Ergo... all white people are bad. And I've seen several facebook posts by people of color that say things like "I'M DONE WITH WHITE PEOPLE." And I'm even somewhat sympathetic to that: All the evidence I've seen indicates I get treated better for being a tolerably handsome white dude. That must be kind of infuriating.
But at the end of the day, it's this culture that is often hostile to white dudes on principal, and just... okay? I guess I won't talk to you at parties if you don't want me to?
So, the premise that this begins with starts not with the notion that you're a bad person who doesn't deserve to live but more from the notion, popular in lefty circles, that your opinion about the plight of less privileged people doesn't matter precisely because you have no experience in the subject matter.
There is a legitimate criticism that people have swung too far into these kinds of identity politics, and that they're ultimately more divisive than not. Ultimately, they prevent the formation of a communal polity that can work together on shared incentives rather than splintering into a fractal set of identities.
It gets trickier because a lot of white dudes parse this as a personal attack and thus get (appropriately, from their perspective) upset. I'm not personally, consciously responsible! What did I do wrong?
The key thing to keep in mind is, if you're not a white dude, you've spent most of modern history totally shut out of the conversation. It's extremely infuriating! And having white dudes complaining that they're not being listened to - with all the attending historical baggage that claim carries - only compounds that frustration. Which is why people lash out.
We're still in a state of flux; things will settle down one way or another. But I think it's worth keeping in mind the difference between "All white people are racist" and "We're really tired of only listening to the opinions of white people". Usually, people mean the latter and not the former.
The key thing you are forgetting when you say 'shut up, straight white boy'[1] is that throughout most of history (and still today), even if you were a white male, you were statistically speaking poor and fairly unimportant, and also shut out of 'the conversation'.
There is a fairly significant difference between accepting additional input from those with a different perspective (inclusive) and excluding input because of perceived privilege based on race/gender/etc (exclusive).
[1] I'm adapting this from the title of a feminist blog post critical of the term 'privilege' as a useful rhetorical device, which curiously cannot be found (404), don't take it literally...
Well, it's not about your individual, direct contribution but your place in that system of power.
Just because you're not directly related to powerful rich white men doesn't mean that their decisions - while mostly targetted at "rich" rather than "white and male" - haven't also and continue to benefit you to this day.
My great-great-great-grandfather may have been a penniless shmuck of no importance - but whoever he was he was still the head of his household and had some modicum of rights. His wife on the other hand, would have been largely considered to be his property. Had he died after her first born son came of age, she might not even inherit anything he leaves behind - or be forced to marry his younger brother, or etc etc.
And woe betide you if you were born black 50+ years ago.
I know the above isn't in question but what I'm getting at is - we still benefit in some way from all of this and the fact that our feelings get hurt, or we aren't personally responsible isn't particularly interesting.
I'm not defending the practice - I too lean towards saying "it's way too abrasive" but I fundamentally sympathize with the underpinning. Anything I say is likely to be in my interests.
This is a really good articulation of my feelings about it; better than I've managed so far. :)
>>It gets trickier because a lot of white dudes parse this as a personal attack and thus get (appropriately, from their perspective) upset. I'm not personally, consciously responsible! What did I do wrong?
Often it is a personal attack. "SHUT THE FUCK UP CIS WHITE MALE" isn't satire; it's something I've seen written by someone I personally know to someone else I personally know. The hostility is exhausting and alienating. It's bad because people confuse that hostility with making the world a better place; it turns into a group bullying activity, and people form identities around performing their animus towards some individual members of a group.
That animus has been poison in my life and my community, and I'm taking steps to permanently separate myself from activism because of it. I know several other people who have quit for that particular reason. Capitalism is destroying the biosphere and immiserating most of humanity on its way out and this is the best we've got. I just. I can't deal with it.
I think it's good to read those frustrated messages with some sympathy. I don't think they're saying they're completely done with ever talking to white people for any reason (like at a party); I think they're just expressing their exhaustion with having to have the same Racism 101 conversations about race with white people. Because white people, as a whole, when hearing about the experiences PoC have, tend to dismiss or question or rationalize rather than listening and considering.
I'm white. I've only recently started paying attention to this shit and already I've seen the repetition of the same tired ideas put forth, especially in HN threads like this one. I can roll my eyes and stop having to think about it for a while (or forever, if I wanted to), but people of color don't really have that luxury.
This gets straight back to the guilt thing, though. This idea that it's a luxury that I have, sure. True. What actions does this observation imply, though? None, as far as I can see, except feeling bad. Should I go listen to people of color voice their experiences because they don't feel listened to? I do, you know, and I do listen with some sympathy, but I don't think it's ever done anyone a bit of good.
Assigning 'privilege' to race and gender seems fairly lazy to me, considering there are so many ways that it may not actually be a privilege to everybody. You know what is always, without fail, a privilege? Coming from money. When I was growing up, the term 'privileged' could be used without argument that way.
Since fewer people are religious and more people are cynically postmodern, different ideologies and beliefs (e.g. 'antiracism', 'social justice', 'Objectivism') creep in to fill the void which was formerly occupied by religion.
Of course, since you skipped the "please remember the position I come from and critically engage with how that effects the thoughts I have," I shouldn't have expected you to.
Reality is it applies to everyone and its just a "woe is me" strategy. I "can't" socialize because I'm not pasty white, well there's a load off my back I don't have to be responsible for anymore.
As a white, cis, straight male (with a good job, I might add) there are few venues you aren't automatically welcome at and compatible with.
Flip any of those variables and "just get out there" is less applicable or harder. It's not like being a white male is a cheat code at life, but you spawn with a fuller inventory and a couple rings of +2 less bulshit.
That looked like a fun skill to have, so I tried doing it on my own - introducing myself to other attendees, asking about their work and projects, etc. And I ran into a bunch of awkward situations where the person responded as if I were flirting with them (inevitably most of the people I talked to were men, since most of the people at those conferences were men). No, I actually just wanted to learn more about your company's business model.
I was copying my male friend's style of talking to other men, and I was interpreted differently. I've adjusted my approach now to reduce the chances of misunderstandings like that.
A subtext that you may have missed is that it's very awkward and uncomfortable to have only one party to a conversation think that the conversation is sexually charged, and the possibility of that happening is a disincentive to circulating and socializing.
I thought it was a pretty straightforward observation, but hopefully my summary helps you. Translating basic human experience to nerd-ese --- all part of the service we provide!
However, my argument was that if the situations were reversed, the outcome would be exactly the same. Go to a place where there are predominantly women (any dance class or even a Yoga class, feminist conference), and if you and I would try to "talk to them like we talk to men", many of them would assume that we're flirting with them. Or do my observations not concur with yours?
Second, I think your response deliberately discards context. If socializing at "dance class" made women think I was flirting with them, and I was thus disincentivized from going to dance class, I'd... what, be a poorer dancer? Britta's story is about a career problem, not a "not fitting into dance class" problem.
Finally, I think your response totally misses the point. You do not win any kind of rhetorical award for coming up with some kind of table-turning scenario about "feminist conferences", because those scenarios don't have anything whatsoever to do with Britta's experience. She wasn't trying to score points. She was explaining why a piece of standard advice given to people about making connections in their profession is difficult for women.
I am also more serious when I'm talking to people I don't know - less smiling, more matter-of-fact, cool instead of warm. This is artificial for me since I'm generally friendly, but apparently it's less confusing.
I spend a lot more time reading the situation to get a better feel for how people are likely to respond, including whether people at the conference/event are likely to already have a reasonable amount of experience working/talking with women as peers.
Or I find ways to meet new people while I'm with other people, such as joining groups that have positioned themselves to be open to others joining in. Or convincing friends - or people I've just met - to tag along with me to meet other people.
It's fairly unlikely in a civilised surrounding, but civilisation is rarer than you think.
As a straight white male, your potential downside from getting into a chat with someone at a party does not include serious bodily harm. Most people are nice to you by default.
Another example: an outgoing, alone woman might be perceived as easy or sleazy by some Neanderthal-like person she talks to, and could end up with a lot of unwanted attention from saying hi to the wrong people. Again, unlikely, depends on the surroundings/crowd, but still.
As a white straight guy, going to a totally random party alone is a much safer proposition.
> Preface: As a white, heterosexual, cis, male, I’m granted, from birth, an extraordinary amount of privilege
This is crazy, intellectually debilitating blabber. And just wrong on a blog[1].
We already allowed lawyers and CYA politicians to slap warning labels on everything (despite the fact that it's counter-productive[2]). Are we now going to put disclaimers on private blogs?
Or is it like a weird way to brag? "I'm not affected by any common affliction." (You forgot "able-bodied" BTW which is much more important that those other things.) Better yet, "I, being of sound mind and body do hereby publish this blogpost."
[1] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html
Would you care to elaborate on what's crazy and intellectually debilitating about the sentence you quoted? I know people that would agree completely with that sentence, so I'd be curious to hear your perspective and why you feel it's wrong.
As much as we all do want racism etc to go away, prejudices are a very real thing. The preface is relevant to his story.
There are even people in technology who are not white, het, cis males.
This works especially well in a situation like a networking event or large party where it is unlikely that attendees will know everyone else.
This scares the shit out of the socially awkward or those the article is referring to. When entering a situation where I know almost no one, I always try to comfort myself by repeating things like "not everyone is looking at you" and "you are just like everyone else here".
However often times I take your advice and seek out other seemingly alone people and you're right, they're usually easy to spot .. if you're looking.
1) Instant connection - we both know {party_host}
2) You learn a detail about them (occupation, hobby, hometown)
3) They learn a detail about you
4) You've told someone why you're there, so then you won't feel like everyone's questioning your presence
5) You've got a starting point for talking to more people (introduce this person to someone else you know, and/or they'll do likewise)
Do you have any old college buddies who live in SF? Email them and ask to meet up for a beer. If you are interested in dating, go on okcupid. If you like playing sports, join an intramural sports team. If you like bar trivia, just go to your local trivia night and find a team of random people to join. All of these things take time and effort, but they will result in a larger, more diverse, group of friends.
The truth is this is probably negative value for ones startup. Giving 100% of your effort to a startup will probably make it more successful than giving it 80%. But you only get one life, and perhaps more friends and a less successful startup might make somebody happier.
Regardless, the point still stands: finding balance is important.
Really, although I didn't explicitly say it when I wrote this, this piece was a lot about finding that balance. For the first time in awhile, I broke away from the people I spend 99% of my time with. I started out alone and lonely, but by the end it wasn't so bad anymore. I wasn't constrained by the settings/people/activities that I've become so used to. I went to the Watsi party, I did a scavenger hunt with strangers, and I made a bunch of new friends. It was refreshing.
- Much greater awareness of other people and surroundings.
- Great opportunity to take stock of what is good/bad in your life (for some reason it's easier to do this outside the house).
- Bursts of creativity (hint: this is a great way to fight writer's block).
These are just the ones I can think of at the moment. One piece of advice for anyone who feels self conscious when alone: since everyone else is amongst friends, they probably won't even notice you. We naturally assume our increased awareness (due to being alone!) is shared by everyone around us - that's not the case though.
I'm typically very busy during the day, so nightlife is my primary means of social activity. When I show up to parties, it's usually alone, and that's something I've had to adjust to. I go to bars, often alone, and I turn my phone off and strike up conversations. At first, it's incredibly difficult, but over time it becomes more fun. Over the summer, this culminated in my attending multiple music festivals where I spent a majority of the day having a blast in a group of complete strangers, most of whom I will likely never see again. But that's now a shared experience that I never would have just watching Netflix.
One of the most interesting things I've noticed, though, is the reaction others have when I tell them I go to parties or bars by myself (or even to dinner or to movies alone). They're taken aback, and they almost try to marginalize you as some sort of loner. I have plenty of very close friends, and I do my best to spend time with them, but embracing being alone has almost made me less alone in many cases.
I've actually had the opposite experience. Sometimes I'll go to bars by myself just to hit on girls. When your friends aren't around to watch, it reduces the downside and fear of rejection.
Usually, if it's going well, I'll tell her I'm there by myself, and they tend to be impressed I had the confidence to go out by myself and approach them.
Absolutely. People follow your lead.
If your manner suggests that you're ashamed of what you're doing, or that you think you're doing something 'wrong' or 'awkward', they will believe that.
If your manner suggests that you're engaged in the most normal activity in the world - being friendly as a human being, going out and interacting with other human beings - then you will put others at ease and they will be comfortable and friendly around you.
Now, that's not to say that everyone will think it's normal. But that's OK - people who find your behavior objectionable or 'strange' are probably not a very good fit as a friend or a lover.
As much as I enjoy the company of my friends, having complete freedom and no accountability to anybody also has its advantages :)
That being said, cities like SF/Boston/New York/... make it easy to keep "alone" from turning into "lonely". I couldn't imagine doing the same in the far out suburbs.
Well, I don't know the US suburbs, but as a rule, the smaller the place, the easier it is to know people.
The huge hang up is getting confused about geography. In a big city, nearly every street corner has a bar, restaurant, "something". So you get a hangup that what makes a city friendly somehow has something to do with street intersections or panhandlers or something, not the bar/museum/whatever found at those intersections. Then you visit a suburb and decide to socialize so you've learned that means finding a street intersection, so you stand at a random corner in your subdivision and ... nothing happens. That's because you need to go to a bar or park or cultural activity, not the mere street intersection.
Its confusing correlation with causation. I had fun; there's a homeless dude living in the alley; therefore you can't have fun without a homeless dude in the alley. Um no not really.
I'd love to get back though, NE is my favorite among many places lived on the East coast.
As for the "doing things alone" I've noticed that people don't like doing that. Traveling, going to see a movie, or attending an event all seem to be things that have a stigma attached to doing them solo.
Example #5 Going to a park, especially an "improved" park with kids playground and you're a dude.
Example #6 Wilderness hiking (although this is really a safety issue, and as a lifelong hiker I assure you your local hiking club is a fantastic way to meet people)
It's like Eleanor Roosevelt said (more or less: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/03/30/not-inferior/): "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
Not doing something you want to do because "they'll all laugh at me" is you giving your consent to being made to feel inferior. Their opinion only matters because you make it matter, by caring about it enough to let it stop you from doing something you want to do.
You may feel like their opinion puts shackles around your ankles, but really the shackles only exist in your mind. Stop believing in them and they disappear.
I disagree. If enough people in your community say that you are unwanted, you will become unwanted.
I remember my conversation with the hostess going something like this:
Hostess: "So...just one today?"
Me: "Yep."
Hostess: "Oh.. Do you want me to bring you a magazine or something?"
This is very true, and why I find myself most comfortable around people I don't know, especially if there is no expectation that I'm going to ever talk to them again. It's very freeing to be able to be your absolute self with no baggage or expectations.
Whenever I'm around friends I've had since high school I find myself acting very different than I normally do, in order to maintain that identity framework I've built for them. It takes a little while to slide into that identity but once I do I'm fairly comfortable.
I really struggle around casual acquaintances. I just don't know what to say to these people. We already know each other well enough, but without a desire to become close friends with them you're stuck simply refreshing each other on what you've been up to.
Like Jesse said, acting Y around someone whose used to you acting X can cause reason for concern and alarm. When you're alone you don't have those checks/balances and can really evaluate who you are without the boundaries that persist in your normal social circle. "Aloneness" can be uncomfortable and confusing, but rewarding if you manage to wade through it all.
On the flipside I regretfully now tend to cause awkward situations by being too casual with people I've just met. Whoops?
We are all social creatures. The inability to be social is most definitely a problem, and leading a lifestyle that deprives you of a stimulating, diverse group of friends is damaging and unsustainable.
I'm happy this guy ventured out into an unfamiliar social situation. People are often afraid of doing stuff like this because they think it will be uncomfortable. And, indeed, sometimes it is. However, that doesn't mean you need to become anti-social.
Again, nice work for getting out there.
> For the life of me I fail to comprehend [...]
You just failed to spot the market opportunity, the problem that people have that needs to be solved.
Isn't "aloneness" what English-speaking people usually call solitude?
You're not alone. You're privileged. You probably don't even know what real loneliness is. You're just a hipster who thinks they're alone, so you can write a blog post about it and get views. I doubt there are any actual lonely people in San Francisco or Oakland who work at a start up. After all, isn't that why you moved there despite how expensive it is? It's a glorious hub of youth and social activity, that's why you moved there. Don't bullshit with real loneliness.
Did you even read the article? He addresses your first point in the beginning, and your second point at the end of the article. No bullshitting here.