LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+60
Save

Snapzu, what instantly makes you think less of a stranger?

When you meet someone new, whether socially or in a work environment, what (potentially inconspicuous) action or opinion immediately turns you off them?

3 years ago by imnotgoats with 123 comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
Conversation 34 comments by 11 users
  • redalastor
    +8

    If someone is religious.

    If I meet an American or an immigrant then I'll kinda expect it but it's rare enough that I meet a religious local to make me pause every time.

    • Katherine (edited 3 years ago)
      +12

      Honestly, I find myself more generally wary of those who are avowed atheists. Generally, I'd say I believe in religious tolerance – being tolerant of all religions. I was raised Catholic, and I know a great many people who are privately religious (go to church on Sundays, live well, aren't especially evangelical) and are incredibly good people. I have plenty of friends I didn't even know were religious until the subject was specifically brought up.

      But atheists? I have never heard as much utter intolerance (and often ignorance) as I have from outspoken atheists. Personally, I don't think it matters overmuch who believes in what, and you don't have to believe in God (or anything else) to be a wonderful person. But the particular brand of hatred I've seen some atheists direct toward people of any faith is appalling.

      I am strongly opposed to discrimination for any reason, including on the basis of religion.

      Oddly, though – largely atheists' hatred (that I've known) is directed toward christians, not muslims, buddhists, hindus, &c. I wonder if it's some sort of America-centric reactionary attitude.

      • redalastor
        +7

        Oddly, though – largely atheists' hatred (that I've known) is directed toward christians, not muslims, buddhists, hindus, &c. I wonder if it's some sort of America-centric reactionary attitude.

        That's because it's generally directed at their own shitty Christian upbringing. People who haven't been harassed as kids by religious nutjobs don't turn into the people you describe.

      • picklefingers
        +7

        What do you mean by avowed atheists? Just somebody who says they are atheist, or things like those atheist street preachers? I'm an atheist and I tend to get annoyed by street preachers of any kind. When I am going about my day, I don't want somebody to be trying to guilt me about my lack of religion or to guilt my family because of theirs.

        I think intolerance comes in all groups, theistic or not. Personally, I have seen a bit more hatred from religious folk than I have from atheists, but that could be due to who I spend time with and my location on the map. While I've seen some very spiteful atheists, I've never seen any true hatred personally, only heard about it online. And usually, the people who do have spite are the ones who have been personally wronged by their religion (e.g. the LGBT).

        The atheist hatred towards Christians would be america-centric. Think of the primary religion around here. Christianity. Even if you aren't Christian you are probably some sort of Abraham religion. Chances are, these atheists are ex-christians and chances are that their journey away was not a particularly smooth one. In most cases, they will lighten up in time after the wounds are healed, but I can tell you from experience, the journey away from the church is filled with an overwhelming feeling that you've been lied to and misled by Christianity your entire life. It is not fun.

        • redalastor
          +3

          I wish I knew a way to get rid of the annoying subway preachers. The ones who ambush you in nearly empty subway stations and just won't let go until you can run in a passing subway wagon away from them.

          I don't meet them often (once or twice a year) but are they annoying. Nothing you can say seems to make them let you be because they have a mission to save you.

          I'm thinking about trying to concert the next one to Satanism to see if makes her run.

    • frohawk
      +8

      If someone is religious.

      Yeah, I found out recently it's very much the opposite in America. I unwittingly let the cat out of the bag with saying I don't believe in God and it eventually ended with someone joking I was a witch and that I should burn.

      I was butthurt for the rest of the day, I'm not gonna lie.

      • redalastor
        +4

        I wouldn't put all the country in the same bag. I don't think you'd get much flak for saying that in San Francisco.

        • frohawk
          +3

          I get that. But I didn't think I'd get so much flak in Downtown LA either.

          • redalastor
            +4

            Good point. Come up here then! :)

            How's your French? :)

            • xg549
              +2

              Up here an how's your french, I'm assuming you're canadian? Religion is really that uncommon over there? I would have expected it to be roughly similar to america.

            • frohawk
              +2

              Non-existent. :(

              I'll just keep to myself then. It's not like I have to make friends with these people.

            • redalastor
              +2
              @frohawk -

              Well... It's not that bad to learn. :)

            • redalastor
              +2
              @xg549 -

              Up here an how's your french, I'm assuming you're canadian?

              Québécois. We have our own immigration process where French count more than for the Canadian one. But with the Canadian freedom of movement you are free to apply to both processes and move wherever you wanted once you are accepted.

              Quebec is also the only province where you'll need French. Even in officially bilingual New-Brunswick, french is second-class.

              Religion is really that uncommon over there? I would have expected it to be roughly similar to america.

              As with the US, you have to be careful about generalizing from coast to coast. English Canada is roughly on par with the US. There are bible belt areas (I live in one for 3 months, it was scary) and you have places that are much less.

              Quebec is a bit different. It is a former de-facto theocracy. The Church had an enormous say in government and society and even the right of life and death on patients (doctors had to consult with the priest, not with the family or patient for that kind of decisions). In 1940 women voted against the man who just gave them the right to vote because they considered doing so an unchristian thing to do.

              The Church really badly abused its power. Enough that some of the clergy would most likely have swung atthe end of rope as was the legal tradition of Canada at the time for truly heinous crimes. And as we say in French, the elastic broke.

              In 1960 we started to kick out the church of every piece of power they held, we got higher education (which the church forbid and they were officially in charge of education before that time), we got businesses (which the church forbid too), we stopped going to masses, we changed our vocabulary so that nearly all swear words became blasphemous agains the Church.

              We legalized abortions 12 years before Canada (actually it was still a federal crime punishable by emprisonment, we just passed a law saying we would never bring someone in front of a tribunal for it which would make Ottawa unable to judge anyone in the province for it). Baptisms started to decline (they are basically for the benefit of grand-parents who care about such things and as the people who care die, so does the practice. It's a minority that does now), Churches are regularly sold because they are in disrepair and the Church has no money to fix them (no churchgoers = no money).

              So today if someone in Quebec that doesn't look like a foreigner shows piety, he'll get a "Are you by any chance retarded?" look.

              Oh and support for gay marriage in Quebec is 87%, the highest in the Americas.

            • Qukatt
              +3
              @frohawk -

              Duolingo gives a strong start in basic, immersion will carry you a long way further

            • xg549
              +1
              @redalastor -

              Very interesting. I had no idea quebec was so different from the rest of canada. There are other parts with french influence right? Is quebec still distinctly different from those areas?

            • redalastor
              +2
              @xg549 -

              Different language, different culture, different legal system, etc.

              The majority of Québécois don't consider themselves Canadians.

    • hallucigenia
      +6

      It depends upon how extreme it is. Wearing a cross will give me pause, but that alone isn't enough to give me a bad impression. If they talk about their church a lot, that might be annoying. The worst, though, are those people who try to shoehorn God or Jesus into any conversation. I will actively avoid those people.

      Oh, and if you believe in any New Age stuff (chakras, crystals, quantum energy), I'm just going to think you're an idiot. Sorry.

      • KingAztek
        +3

        Wait, why would someone wearing a cross give you pause? That seems extremely casual to me

        • redalastor
          +3

          It would give me pause, that's extremely unusual where I live and thus a stronger statement than it would be in your area.

        • hallucigenia
          +2

          It is casual, but it tells me that this person isn't just a de facto Christian (like most people in the US), but more like a card-carrying Christian. It implies that they're religious.

      • double2 (edited 3 years ago)
        +1

        So you mean if someone believes in the affects of glands upon the mind, you think they're an idiot? Chakras are like one of the most plausible "spiritual" things out there.

        Edit: urgh...sorry for that last sentence, removed now...explanation in lower comment, but still no excuse for being unnecessarily shitty.

        • spaceghoti
          +2

          Is there actually science behind the Chakra mythology? Because there's a big difference between "this sounds plausible to me" and "this claim has been researched and peer reviewed."

          • double2
            +2

            Well, mythology isn't science, by definition. But chakras are actual significant glands within the human body, which regulate various hormones e.g. the thyroid - this is what I am calling science btw: the existence of physical things which have traditionally been nominated as the locations of chakras.

            That all said, I think I'm drawing on a personal understanding of all of this and probably not what was being referred to beforehand. I'm reading some stuff off of the back of a quick google and it seems a lot of horoscope type pseudo-science revolves around the ideas of chakras, which annoys me as much as the next skeptic. I guess what I was reacting to is the categorisation of the concept of chakras along with magic crystals, the latter of which I find to be a laughable concept.

            • spaceghoti
              +1

              Please clarify. How do the tradition of chakras correspond to actual glands in the human body? This is the first I've heard of this claim and I'm looking for actual, peer-reviewed research demonstrating which chakras correspond to which glands as opposed to "it sounds right to me so this is what I think."

            • hallucigenia
              +4

              To me, chakras are a laughable concept, and about as silly as crystals, ghosts, or Bigfoot. Chakras, as they are traditionally understood, aren't glands, but some kind of energy centers in the body.

              What I think you're talking about is this.

              Chakras and their importance are posited to reside in the psyche. However, there are those who believe that chakras have a physical manifestation as well.

              So, as usually happens, some people are trying to reconcile religion with science. Predictably,

              These associations remain speculative, however, and have yet to be empirically validated.

            • double2
              +1
              @hallucigenia -

              Fair does. Considering the audacity of my original comment ("read up on the science before making judgement" - whatever I wrote which I deleted in embarrassment) I think I've fallen victim to thinking I knew more about the subject than I do! I think I'm on poor form today...my apologies D:

            • double2 (edited 3 years ago)
              +1
              @spaceghoti -

              I don't know what peer reviewed research you'd need for saying "these glands are what are considered the chakras". I don't really know what you're asking people to prove here... I think wires have been crossed somewhere.

              This page is the kind of description I was working off. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the function of these glands was originally studied by civilisations that included the idea of chakras within their cultural spirituality, thus driving their medical investigation. This was why I was of the understanding that the idea of chakras was in its basic form a scientifically reasonable idea. However reading up on this, it appears that that idea is speculative and could be a ret-con of sorts! :) Also, I enjoyed reading this thread on my searches. I have a feeling that the conversation of chakras is a far more charged/exploited concept abroad than in the uk where it's always seemed quite innocuous to me.

            • spaceghoti
              +2
              @double2 -

              So basically, you're talking about the sort of thing that /u/hallucigenia already pointed out is highly questionable rather than verifiable knowledge. The relationship between chakras and glands is purely speculative rather than something we can say with high confidence to be true.

            • double2
              +3
              @spaceghoti -

              Yea, I'm conceding the point! I don't think I understood the full connotations and claims to the purpose of chakras. I'd agree with the point made in the thread I linked, that the most reasonable understanding of what they would be in reality is a mnemonic type device for use in meditation, and since effects of meditation are unquantifiable for the most part, it'd be unreasonable to claim that any supposed link between chakras and glands is anything more than a placebo effect.

      • redalastor
        +1

        It depends upon how extreme it is.

        It's more a question of how much it contrasts with the local culture. If you grew up religious in Texas or Egypt, I can understand. But if you grew up religious in a culture that's not religious, what's your excuse?

    • Victarion
      +2

      I am so glad that Snapzu is so tolerant of everyone. Like why the fuck do you care. Like if someone pushes it all the time sure its annoying, but if someone just believes something different and it doesn't really effect you most of the time, you automatically don't like them. Nice.

      • redalastor
        +3

        Who said don't like?

        • Victarion
          0

          Well you think less of them, i guess don't like was bad wording.

          • redalastor
            +1

            I also think less of people who believe in astrology or believe blood type influence your personality.

            You also have to take into account I grew up in a laïc culture were religion is not the norm so religious people are rather far between in my day to day life.

Conversation 12 comments by 8 users
  • BucksinSixxx
    +16

    Confederate flag on their person/vehicle/home.

    • Teakay (edited 3 years ago)
      +3

      One of the kindest, most intelligent, and most educated people I know would proudly fly the Confederate flag if it weren't for the implication of racial superiority. I have never seen him be the least bit racist and he appears to lack most of the social biases present in a lot of other devout Christians I've met. While I am most definitely not a supporter of the Confederate flag, I wouldn't say an interest in it automatically makes someone a bad person.

    • redalastor
      +3

      From a Vexillology point of view, this flag looks really good. So good that the confederates kept waving it even though it never was their official flag.

    • xg549
      0

      Well that's the kind of excessively judgmental opinion I wasn't expecting to find on snapzu.

      • BucksinSixxx
        +3

        I'm from the North, and waaaaaaay too many people I grew up with defend it on Facebook. I've never met someone from the South that flies it.

    • [Deleted Profile]

      [This comment was removed]

    Load more
Conversation 17 comments by 7 users
  • [Deleted Profile] (edited 3 years ago)

    [This comment was removed]

  • DCSpud
    +13

    When they carry their pet in their arms, and have their toddler on a leash.

    • Medicine
      +3

      Hey I carry my little dog around sometimes. It's hard on them to walk miles and miles

      • redalastor (edited 3 years ago)
        +7

        And exercise is good for the kids.

        • RedditExodus
          +2

          Idk, man, leashes aren't fun (I get some kids like to run off and you can't be omnipresent but they still aren't fun)

          • BucksinSixxx
            +2

            My dog LOVES hers. (Because it means she's going for a walk)

      • FamousFellah
        +1

        If they've had a lot of consistent exercise it's fine. I've seen a Dachshund summit South Sister, which is a 6-mile hike each way with about 5000 ft of elevation gain. The little bastard was grinning and bouncing around like the hike was just a warm-up.

    • frohawk
      +3

      You've actually seen bullshit like that?

  • imnotgoats
    +12

    For me, it's an overly-strong handshake (especially in a business setting). I think a firm handshake is the way to go, but there's firm and there's "Ahaha! I could crush your hand if I wanted to!".

    It just reeks of inadequacy issues to me, and I find it hard to believe the person is doing it without knowledge. Don't squeeze my hand until it hurts, it's not a pain-causing contest. No one thinks you're more powerful because of it, you just look like a little person who is desperate to one-up people.

  • NerfYoda
    +12

    Littering and loud talking. Now you're a both a stranger and a jerk.

  • FivesandSevens
    +12

    Any hint of condescension, self promotion, or passive-aggressive tendencies. In my experience, if I can detect those traits on our first meeting, that's just the tip of an egocentric iceberg.

  • PushPull
    +9

    Tossing trash outside a proper receptacle, yelling at their kids/spouse in public, lack of emotional control at others expense, talking down, bragging, bullying.

    I know it's far reaching and vague, but it's what I key in on.

    • [Deleted Profile]

      [This comment was removed]

  • trails
    +9

    If I observe a stranger treating someone in the service industry with any degree of elitism or condescension, I pretty much write them off immediately.

    • Civil
      +5

      I came here to pretty much say this. Verbally abusing or harassing those in the service industry in any way will instantly lower my opinion of a person.

      • CrazyDiamond
        +1

        It definitely really disappoints me, especially when someone I know does it. It just seems like a complete lack of acknowledgement of the person as a person. Like in the moment and in the position they're in, they stop realizing that the person that they're talking to actually is alive with feelings and thoughts just like them.

  • [Deleted Profile]

    [This comment was removed]

  • Urbanknight4
    +6

    If it's online, when they misspell words in an atrocious manner or have terrible grammar. I'm not a grammar nazi, but it really bothers me when you can't even bother to use proper English when talking.

    • [Deleted Profile]

      [This comment was removed]

  • Polarity
    +6

    They take social hierarchies too seriously.

  • Adams551
    +5

    Get off the damn phone..... I work retail.

  • ttubravesrock
    +5

    smoking in a social environment.

    littering anywhere.

    people who cut in line. this includes on the roads.

    people who drive dodge rams.

  • [Deleted Profile]

    [This comment was removed]

  • septimine
    +4

    If the person doesn't ask other people about their day or interests or whatever. If they can't take an interest in other people, they're not worth knowing.

    • cailihphiliac
      +7

      That's pretty extreme. At what stage do you expect strangers to start asking these questions?

      • septimine
        +4

        I mean like I'm sitting next to someone I don't know at a rehearsal dinner over a few hours. And this person is talking about what they do for 20 minutes, about their love life, about all their hobbies. Never once asked anyone else at the table about themselves or hobbies or kids, or anything. Just not interested in anyone else at that table.

      • FamousFellah
        +4

        I think the people in question are the ones who talk about themselves and their own lives for hours, but never show interest in others.

        • cailihphiliac
          +3

          They're not really a stranger anymore at that point. Strangers are people around you that you have had minimal contact with and know nothing about.

          • FamousFellah
            +4

            What if you're meeting them for the first time? Do you like someone better if they ask about you or others, or if they just talk about themselves?

            • cailihphiliac
              +2

              I do like them better, I just don't consider them a stranger once you've introduced yourselves.

    • frohawk
      +3

      Eh, sometimes strangers don't get friendly, and that's okay. (But maybe it's because I'm one of those people, so who knows)

      Or they've seen something that makes them think the less they know about someone the better.

  • OldTallGuy (edited 3 years ago)
    +4

    Well basically like y'know the uh person can't um like string more than like three words y'know together basically without actually um using like an unneeded um filler. Yous guys knows what I mean.

    Edit: Grammer

    • Qukatt (edited 3 years ago)
      +4

      My six year old has a stutter where he will start a sentence with "uh-uh-uh" over and over until his words line up. I've got it down to about five before he speaks but it is annoying. I feel a bit less bothered these days it used to make me climb the walls. We try to remind him that if he reaches two "uh"s he has to stop and think about his words then start again. We will get there eventually.

      Locally though everyone ends sentences with "but" and I sit there waiting for them to finish though that was the end. Blurgh. Like "Lah" if you're Singaporean

  • Qukatt
    +4

    When they have a "creatively spelled" name and have no intent to change it by deed poll.

    It annoys me because I have a biblical name that has one common other spelling and a handful of what I think of as "porn star" spelling and I haaate getting letters with my name randomly spelled when it should be default. Even the alternative version is a relief to see compared to the bullshit I've had to correct.

  • PickledRhino (edited 3 years ago)
    +4

    People with rotten teeth. I know that might sound terrible, but I really have a hard time looking at someone as a person I may want to get to know in any capacity if they have rotten teeth. I think it is mainly because I associate it with drug addiction...

  • Xeno
    +4

    If they have a big beard and talk about it within 30 minutes of meeting them like it is this glorious, beautiful thing.

  • TwoADay
    +2

    RVCA shirts, Beats headphones, New Balance shoes, and plaid shorts

    • Inconceivable
      +1

      Why New Balance shoes? Is there some fad that I'm unwittingly participating in? Or, is this just the combo that you're talking about?

  • CrazyDiamond
    +2

    If you're rude to wait staff or retail workers for no reason. Instant disappointment in you, even if you're a stranger. Go ahead, if something was made poorly, complain, ask them to take it back even. But if you talk to them not as an equal, but like you're some sort of king commanding one of your servants, then I have an issue. That's a person you're talking to, don't forget that.

  • Gozzin
    +2

    Being religious and believing in woowoo.

    • frohawk
      +1

      I misread this as woohoo and was confused.

  • Katherine
    +2

    Ugh, a poor handshake. Particularly in a work environment, I guess – I'll still be friendly, but it knocks the "first impression" down a few pegs.