I wanted to add, in a separate post, that writing here, it is never mindless. I always learn from whatever I write, as well as from conversing with the people here. I never consider it a waste of time, but rather a very well invested time. (Writing gives a certain focus to the reflection as one has to be, at least somewhat, clear. And knowing this is a beginning of a conversation, gives me some freedom in not having to develop it too much but just enough to get things started, similarly as I would do with myself.) It's not that I don't waste time elsewhere, but mindless things scare me, and society, with the use of technology, has perfected that art. The same tools which freed it from slavery are enslaving it in turn.  

Hi Hugh!

I read your post earlier but have been thinking about it for some time ... I have been trying to decide whether there is actually some special subject called "Life", that we are talking about on THINQon, which does not perhaps include my breakfast; and whether I feel freer to discuss this subject here than I do elsewhere.  I didn't arrive at a very good answer, because I was distracted by writing the following list.  It's relevant to your question about political oppression and why peoples' twitter is mindless.

7 reasons not to talk about Life:

1. I might not want to express opinions that could hurt others, by implying that their way of doing things is ethically wrong or signifies a personal flaw.  Thus, I might hesitate to state whether I think toilet paper should roll off the top or the bottom.

2. I might not want to express opinions that would alienate others, by revealing that we think about things so differently that we cannot benefit from listening to one another.  For instance, if the post above me is Marxist, I should not quote Ayn Rand.

3. My ideas about life might reveal something about me that I don't want others to know.  During a conversation about cinema, I might choose not to give an example involving Japanese animation, if that would make others think I am too otaku.*

4. I might be unaccustomed to interacting with a certain worldview.  When the conservative ex-marine sitting next to me on the airplane asks what I think should happen to the prisoners from Guantanamo, am I well-informed enough to address his concerns in a non-dogmatic way?

5. I might be unprepared to have a certain kind of conversation, because the topic doesn't fall within my life experiences.  It may be that although I play guitar, I don't feel qualified to discuss the chord structure as it relates to the life and science of Erwin Schrodinger.

6. I might not want to offend a 3rd person who is listening, or who might hear about the conversation later.  Thus, I might conceal my checkered past not only from my girlfriend, but also from her friends and acquaintances.

7. My style of speaking might turn people off, if I am perceived as arrogant, long-winded, fanatical, fascist, too earnest, or given to expressing myself in numbered items.  Likewise, other peoples' style of speaking might antagonise, constrain or inhibit me.

Some of my examples are flippant, but one could invent plenty of scenarios that are embarassing, inflammatory, or shameful enough to prevent dialogue, especially when they are about relationships, personal flaws and failures, ethnicity, gender, religion, or politics.

Now the question is, does any of this correspond to a political oppression?  That doesn't seem so unlikely.  Of course one gets interesting questions like: does my girlfriend's surveillance in #6 constitute oppression of men by women?  Or am I oppressing her by keeping secrets?  Does it matter whether the checkered past has to do with class (I was homeless for a year) vs. sexual morality (I slept with a minor)?

* the closest English equivalent is "nerdy" or "geeky"