/gist:dead25324e4f74ccc183

## gistfile1.txt
There's been some movements in recent years/decades to simply be where people are, to preach more publicly. But that has limits, and generally it's understood that it's very bad form to catch someone in a rush or in a compromising location (where they'd feel trapped/rude to simply walk away). And all this is learned empirically - causing mayhem in the process perhaps - and while there is certainly a lot of data, most of these hueristics propagate via word-of-mouth, at least initially. Expect frequent errors in the interim.

None of the rules governing this behavior are explicit, and a lot of discretion is typically left to the individual. That leads to the unfortunate outliers who are vocal to the point of rudeness and uncompromisingly insistent (most people will shrink back on the first rejection). But these also tend to be the ones who are genuinely worried about others' well-being, and are willing to shrug off the humiliation if it means someone receptive listens. (It's the mother of all confirmation bias rationales, but like Penn's comment, the game theory says they've got no choice - either you forget your pride, or you're a hypocrite.)

In short, my experience of it was just as Penn notes: the world's in the path of a truck, and they've *got* to do something about it. Even if that means people find them annoying, it's worth it for the few who listen.

And frankly, the initially annoyed are often among the converted (after all, most find it at least mildly inconvenient), so that certainly helps confirm it's worth it to them. There's volumes on how to do this without being alienating; it's just people are often not very good at it. But they're usually acting in a good faith effort to not be awful.
	There's been some movements in recent years/decades to simply be where people are, to preach more publicly. But that has limits, and generally it's understood that it's very bad form to catch someone in a rush or in a compromising location (where they'd feel trapped/rude to simply walk away). And all this is learned empirically - causing mayhem in the process perhaps - and while there is certainly a lot of data, most of these hueristics propagate via word-of-mouth, at least initially. Expect frequent errors in the interim.

	None of the rules governing this behavior are explicit, and a lot of discretion is typically left to the individual. That leads to the unfortunate outliers who are vocal to the point of rudeness and uncompromisingly insistent (most people will shrink back on the first rejection). But these also tend to be the ones who are genuinely worried about others' well-being, and are willing to shrug off the humiliation if it means someone receptive listens. (It's the mother of all confirmation bias rationales, but like Penn's comment, the game theory says they've got no choice - either you forget your pride, or you're a hypocrite.)

	In short, my experience of it was just as Penn notes: the world's in the path of a truck, and they've got to do something about it. Even if that means people find them annoying, it's worth it for the few who listen.

	And frankly, the initially annoyed are often among the converted (after all, most find it at least mildly inconvenient), so that certainly helps confirm it's worth it to them. There's volumes on how to do this without being alienating; it's just people are often not very good at it. But they're usually acting in a good faith effort to not be awful.