/late/ - Late Nights

Social media is probably a better bet for online friends, and this is probably the first and only time I have ever recommended this. Otherwise hobbies lend themselves well to exchanging info and I have done that myself in the past.

>>3355
There is a matter of different conditioning tough. Years on image boards change you, which also depends on which exactly you have been visiting. If you are a four chan lover, then probably social media for you will be just a matter of getting used to. But for people who spent their years sticking to obscure and quiet communities, avoiding any big or shitty sites, social media is very hard, because people there have such a different view of things. And it could be overcome, if you didn't have to constantly remind yourself just how much spying modern social media do. It's like going into the most crowded place in a megalopolis, full of cameras. At this point you might not even know how to approach the thing and find somebody you can be comfortable with.

>>3357
It's a lost cause for someone like me to try and fit in with the normalfag world. I don't even have what it takes to keep any kind of friendship alive.

>>3353 (OP) 
I have real friends and i have internet friends, if forced to choose i would choose internet friends anytime the reason is 'interest in hobbies'.

I had many issues with real friends about hobbies, they are never into it as much as they say they are. There are many bad stories but the hardest hitting was going hiking with a guy that liked hiking and when we get there, he just stared at his phone. 

Internet people usually are more invested in their hobbies than real people, even if that hobby is very internet unfriendly like cars. You can expect a car guy on the internet to know what his cars engine code is but with a 'bmw guy' irl, you are lucky if they know what their car is actually called. i knew 3 bmw guys that didn't know their cars model code, 2 of them owned a e36 and another had a e21 , the e21 one thought he had a e30 and i thought soo too until he showed a picture of his car. This issues gets more pronaunced more nerd a hobby gets. You have no idea how little a guy irl can know about computers and still think he is into computers. 

Conmans and conwomans are far more active irl, they don't even know they are, they genuinely think they are very good at the hobby and they can talk like they actually do, and if they talk good enough other people do too. The more realish the place the less interested they become. (I joined a ||discord server for faggots|| where people posted selfies, had irl meets etc once and it was the straightest place ever, it was what i thought instagram was like, with mostly bisexual girls and guys, which are girls that party and fuckboys that wouldn't touch men even relatively, faggot rant over). You could not believe the obliviousness some people have for their 'hobbies', tech CEO that gives  talks about his love for his tech job with has about as much tech knowledge as a standart boomer, a guy that everyone said i would love because he is also very into cars who thought his prelude(a car he owned for a years) was RWD, people that constantly talk about their love of walking who start bitching after 5km's. 

I don't have these issues with online people, if they they are into keyboards, they have 90 keyboards, if they say they are into computers they have 5 programs they maintain, if they are into sewing we can talk about patterns. 

This is quite insignificant compared to the first issue but real people are  also very hard to choose and leave, you can just call your internet friends some slurs and never talk to them again. Internet friends just have less danger.

>>3366
I get what you mean. I've always had problems finding people I share interests with. I was really into video games growing up, which you'd think would have been something easy to bond with other people over, but it was more than a simple pastime for me. I was constantly on the Internet reading about them and looking for different ones to play and even reading books about them. Most of the people I grew up around had a much more casual interest. It didn't help that I've always gravitated toward PC games more than anything (although I was definitely interested in console games growing up too). 

I'm not as into video games as I used to be, but that pattern seems to have held true with other things I'm interested in. I remember in high school there was a classmate of mine who mentioned being interested in movies once, but I brought up Plan 9 from Outer Space at one point and I'm not sure he was even familiar with what I was talking about. He made some comment about not liking sci-fi movies, which I think he might have just intuited based on the title, and from what I recall he almost seemed irritated. I can definitely understand not having watched it (I don't know if I even had at that time), but you'd think someone claiming to be into movies would at least know of its notoriety. It doesn't seem to matter what the hobby or interest is. The more knowledgeable or passionate you are about something, the fewer people you'll find who you can connect with on that level. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't even consider myself particularly hardcore about my interests either.

I know I'm a complete autismo, but I find it difficult to hit it off with people I don't share genuine interests with. Or at least people who aren't truly passionate about things beyond a surface level. Most of the time I can respect having a genuine interest in some kind of hobby, even if it's one I don't necessarily share. I think deep down I struggle with people who are intellectually incurious, even when I can recognize that they're probably nice people and have some positive qualities that I don't have. Hank Hill might be a good guy to have as a neighbor, but I don't think there would be much for someone like me to discuss with him.

I have both. IRL friends are good for normie stuff. But if you want to discuss 'taboo' subjects at 3 AM with someone in a different timezone that's what online friends are for.

true friendships can only be built in person, as they require honesty and mutual trust, simple and noble feelings of a sublime nature that, in a more perfect friendship, will be reciprocated.

calling strangers you interact with online "friends" completely ignores what true friendship should be. you cant guarantee honesty or trust through a screen, they are atificial and therefore, not your friends, even your neighbors (whom you barely speak to) are always more important than whoever's on your screen.

>>3393
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship
>Friendship is a relationship of mutual affection between people.
Your social experience seems to be limited to church members.

>>3384
>IRL friends are good for normie stuff
That's my issue. I'm too much of an autist to be into that.

>>3394
you tell me then, wikipedia poster, what affection can we build with a screen? enlighten me about the noble feelings (you know, what makes a real friendship possible) present in this artificial connection.

>>3398
You do not and can not feel affection for anything except what you imagine as being deserving of it. Real people are 3D animated illusions, while internet people are 2D static illusion, in terms of affection there is very little difference, because affection does not relies on any particular geometrical forms, but on perception itself. Real people are thus no more genuine than virtual people and are only more satisfying because that's what mother nature made us to be.
>noble feelings
More like, noble burgers. Nobility isn't something that can be said about most people and affection itself cannot be noble, nor can any other feeling. Nobility is a property of will, and will has no emotion, because will is the governor of mind.

It used to be a lot easier to make friends irl for me. Recently I have just met people that I've needed to escape from. I usually have more than enough people around my life, no matter where I am, to hang out with even though I've moved a lot. But now I'm in a rural area. My friends here all usually game or discord, which I don't. But they've also brought their online friends into real life. They're just mainly online together which makes it tougher to be irl.

My closest thing to online friends would be my moots but it's not like we have overlapping hobbies. Im realizing I have really bad trust issues so even begining to interact with people I can't know in person just has never happened. I never liked the imbalance of interacting with people I knew, more online than irl, which I'm realizing made keeping friends difficult.  Then there's relationship issues thrown in. 
I just don't understand how to make any friends in the middle of nowhere, or how to move again. Most of my hobbies have been irl. So now Im thinking about trying to be a little more proficient in some area of digital creation, or get money to get into digital  music. I assume there's a possibility to make online friends within online communities but honestly it's extremely difficult for me to get over my bias against any kind of digital visual art. Actual artist cooperatives in my region are old ladies and Sunday painters. I've always had the chance to get into music production and just spinning tracks but it was never my thing. I do know a lot of people either for information or getting programs, I just have to do it. There's still just a money curve to get through. This really is my only option to begin having people in my life, online or irl. I can at least deal with the online music communities and have friends that stream sets. 
I don't know how people video chat strangers who become part of their social interaction. It's like their preferred way of online interacting and they just find others like that. In the last ten years I've now had numerous people where I'm one of a handful of people they hang out with (before 2020). It's weird to look back on because now I don't really hang out or talk with any of them.

>>3400
what nonsense, strangers online should not be considered friendships simply because a (non-mutual) relationship of agreeableness or needs is nothing more than an enjoyment, in life the friendship of delusion that consists in reciprocal good wishes without effect is foolish. therefore, a "friendship does not always exist where i love another and he loves me; for i shall not, on that account, simply disclose my secrets to him; and i am not convinced, either, that he will sacrifice something for my sake - we have to be able to assume that his efforts on his own behalf will be made also for us, and ours for his; but that is a great deal to expect, and so friends are few - if i multiply friends, i diminish friendship".

you can't build something this deep with any stranger over the screen, and believing that you can will only serve to isolate and distance you from what really matters (that is, what's around you). friendship is complex, it will require men personally with a sublime frame of mind to flourish properly and principles to be maintained, qualities rare in our current era and that will never be present in any artificial relationship, much less one over the web.

>>3402
So basically your point of view is that people can be genuine in real life and can't be genuine in Internet?

>>3408
if by genuine you mean honest, well, maybe they can be, but would that be mutual? would you be as honest with them as you are now if they knew someone you know personally? in other words, do you truly trust them? do they trust you? is it based solely on a one-sided need for attention? it's hard to predict, but remember, we're talking about strangers you've never met here, and for me, the screen adds another layer of superficiality to our social lives, which in turn, more often than not, are plagued by complacency.

i mean, complaisance; desire or willingness to please.

>>3409
what i mean is that genuine man is genuine everywhere. a fake man is fake everywhere. because genuineness and fakery are mutually exclusive. in real life however people are bound by fears/shame/expectations/their image/etc, so they ration their fakery so it doesn't reach dangerous extents. so they keep their cards for the most convenient moment. this creates an illusion of moral ambiguity, but the truth is that their lack of genuineness is only forgivable because this is what god wanted us to be. but if somebody reaches genuineness, they cannot abandon it just because it's internet. if they haven't reached it, i don't care where they play the social game with me, but i'd rather do it on the internet, because it's easier to keep distance here. as for it being mutual, it can be mutual on the internet as well as in real life, but it's a lot less likely to happen on the internet because it's mostly inhabited by wretched people and underages

>>3355
No way.
>>3393
This is a high schooler type vision of friendship used to exclude people you might otherwise feel too attached to, just put into fancier language.
>>3402
You seem to forget people can be disingenuous liars, users, and fakes in real life.
>>3411
>genuineness and fakery are mutually exclusive
It's not that simple. I have known people who present themselves with a magnificent aire of pomp, and shameless taletelling braggarts, who on their surface are the fakest of fakes, but in truth are the most loyal friends you could find. Most seeming contradictions fall apart in application because life and people are strange and complicated.

>>3411
by genuine you mean real? opposed to fake or false, not sure what to make of that.
>what i mean is that genuine man is genuine everywhere. a fake man is fake everywhere.
while all truthfulness presupposes an idea of equality, we shall not call a man "fake" if he refuses to trust what have been proven to be untrustworthy. i continue, we are not only trusting the stranger on the web, but also the people who build or maintain this infrastructure (third-party software, protocols, operating systems and ISPs), which have been proven to be not entirely reliable.
>moral ambiguity, cards, fakery and expectations
you're describing a choleric constitution of mind, his conduct is artificial since he considers his own value and the value of his things and actions on the basis of the propriety or the appearance. he adopts all sorts of standpoints in order to judge his propriety or actions from the various attitudes of the onlookers; for he asks little about what he is, but only about what he seems. he is honored in his presence and criticized in his absence - he has no friends at all.
meanwhile, a steadfast man subordinates his sentiments to principles since they are the less subject to inconstancy and alteration, hence he troubles himself little about how others judge and what they hold to be good or true since he relies solely on his own insight.
>if somebody reaches genuineness, they cannot abandon it just because it's internet
it's not that simple for we have many mixes of minds, but he whose feeling tends towards the melancholic will certainly hate lies or dissemblance, but that also means that most people will not dare to come close to him, even on the internet. he is, usually, that steadfast man - few companions, but good ones.
>i'd rather do it on the internet, because it's easier to keep distance here.
you don't seek friendship, for we love the presence and not the absence of a true friend.
>as for it being mutual, it can be mutual on the internet as well as in real life
given the above discussion, i'd argue that any relationship here will degrade and extinguish, way before it can be called a friendship.

>>3419
>given the above discussion, i'd argue that any relationship here will degrade and extinguish, way before it can be called a friendship.
same as in real life most of the time. you're making an argument on the nature of a good man, which is not relevant and don't even want to talk about it. i only care for the result of other's studies: a good man maintains his goodness. therefore if somebody is adequate irl he's very likely gonna be adequate on the internet as well.

as for the relevant part of the discussion, you're not making any arguments at all. "deep" and "meaningful" connections don't exist in the real life for the most part, so defining friendship as mutual affection is a good way. defining it in terms if idealized philosophical ideas of loyal and self sacrificing values is just substituting terms. the ideal friends don't practically exist, especially in the church by the way. putting the ideal aside, affection over the internet is just a matter of circumstance, as in real life. real life simply gives more opportunities

>>3421
>self-sacrifice
herder did not mean that a man should sacrifice his freedom or will; if there is inequality involved, if he sacrifices them to a greater degree than his own friends or if he does this with respect to all his actions, he makes himself into a slave.
the rest has already been adressed. note that i never said anything about church or god, if i were you, i'd stop smoking these wiki articles.

>>3423
so basically, i can't have friends on internet because it upsets you and your beliefs?