Hooooooo boy. There is no way for anyone - of either gender - to read this, take any of it to heart, and not end up bleaker than when you started. Unless, of course, you can pull back the curtain. 1) If you read XOJane or Jezebel you get what you deserve. These are journals of small-minded snark whose pageviews are generated largely by controversy. None of that controversy will be at the expense of the audience. It will always be at the expense of the other. 2) There exist women who will marry wifebeaters, divorce them, then cheat with them on their new wives after the wifebeater gets out of prison. These women are tragic, these women are unfortunate, these women show poor judgement, and dollars to donuts, neither you, me, or anyone but "Henry" wants to date them. This may not be obvious to someone who doesn't work for a state mental hospital but trust me - back when CorrLinks had an unofficial facebook page, you could see the sort of people who would take to social media to complain about the prison email system. It was not an assemblage you'd wish to add to your dating pool. Simply put: lots of lonely losers are single because they're picky. And that isn't a bad thing. 3) Men objectify women physically. Women objectify men socially, financially, emotionally and physically. I have no doubts that twice as many MIT grad students are virgins as are high school seniors. I also have no doubts that there's a correlation between "have you used a weapon in a fight" and "how often do you get laid." Fuck, marry, kill. How many older women can say things like "I cashed the 40 for a couple 20s?" Yet we joke about it. Can you name anyone besides Madonna who ever took a "trophy husband?" Those MIT grad students will have social status, wealth and security in 10, 15, 20 years that the average high school senior can only dream about. In fact, one might surmise that the dedicated MIT grad student has reasons not to be weighed down by the pursuit of chicks. Sure, we all want tail but a lot of those guys who get a lot aren't really pursuing anything else. They don't have a grad thesis weighing them down. The reality is this: there are people who are attractive in the short term, there are people who are attractive in the long term, and there are people who are not attractive. Do not presume you are the last. You might be the middle. And to someone, you might even be the first. But the primary thing to take to heart is this: Only an idiot lets the generalists of the Internet determine the specifics of their love life. Both sides aren't debating humans, they're striking out impotently at ideas and the cardboard cutouts that present them. The staunchest defenders of both sides are the least happy humans who interact with the opposite sex on the rarest of occasions. Arguing about loneliness on the Internet subjects you to worse than an echo chamber; it traps you in a feedback loop that can only cull you from the gene pool. I mean, really - who THE FUCK is going to give useful, measured discussion to someone who thinks "men's rights activists" have eliminated the ability to gripe about being lonely? Why would you EVER have that discussion on the open, unbounded Internet? How is that line of questioning NOT going to attract the bitterest of haters? I mean, we know the Internet. We've seen it. We've been on it. Ostensibly, it's a network that connects human beings from far-flung corners of the world. So why are we astonished every time something good happens but drearily expectant whenever it reveals the lowest common denominator of human behavior? Honestly? This whole discussion is an argument about which is worse: anthrax or smallpox. THEY'RE BOTH BAD. Clever people avoid both of them. Happiness lies in NOT bathing in weaponized agents, in NOT asking the violent, other-hating masses why you, the other, are violently hated. A group that identifies via exclusion will NEVER provide viable, reasonable, useful discussion about the excluded. You engage them at your peril.
With regard to 1. Is it simply a matter of knowing the author / editor / website / blog creator's bias? I would never imagine nuance coming out of Cosmo, but I also wouldn't imagine hate speech. Also I think recognizing clickbait as clickbait is an integral part of being Internet saavy. But I also think there's a certain amount of 'know thy enemy' required. There are people who share the opinion of those listed sites in positions of authority. Extremists with power of any variety worry me, albeit these less than most. 2. I'm not sure I buy that entirely. The argument is essentially that the MIT students and 'Henry' have 0, or effectively 0 overlap, when it comes to populations of single women, right? If that were completely true there wouldn't be as much heartache among nerds. They wouldn't be exposed in such numbers to close friends telling them about some latest asshole. More than anything I just appreciated reading a defense of guys who were emotional doormats because they thought it was how they are supposed to treat women they were interested in. There's a disturbing trend to label every misled social inept as an Elliot Rogers in the making, and I haven't seen any indication of the slowing down until very recently. And that recent concern is definitely about guns, not why people use them. I mean, when you say it like that the anthrax analogy seems apt, or something. There's some part of me that wants to continue to engage with, for lack of a better phrase, dangerous ideas. Then days like today happen. I appreciate the perspective, and the hand up.Arguing about loneliness on the Internet subjects you to worse than an echo chamber; it traps you in a feedback loop that can only cull you from the gene pool.
1) I've recommended this book before. Simply reading the short little article will show you why. Rhetoric is important because it teaches you that how something is being said is as important as what's being said. Jezebel pretty much writes "guys suck amirite" while SSC pretty much writes "our tortured genius is our lofty cross to bear" and no matter what they have to say, it's always couched in these postures. "Know thy enemy?" Thy "enemy" is telegraphing their fundamental intent with every word. You don't need to hide under a rock, but a nice person who wanted to change your behavior would never link a Jezebel article to convince you to do it. Is SSC far more persuasive? Perhaps that's because it's written to persuade you, as oppose to persuading those who hate you that they're justified in hating you. 2) What's the pursuit? Is the pursuit the type of woman who will value an MIT physics student? Can we recognize that comparing the pursuit of this girl's affections with the pursuit of the affections of Henry's girls is akin to comparing fly fishing with frog gigging? Sure, an aquatic creature is being removed from the water but the similarities end there. "Why can't I catch any fish? That guy's catching lots of fish!" Because you're decked out in Orvis and sitting two miles up a trout stream while "that guy" is chumming for crawdads. Your skills are meaningless for his pursuits and his are meaningless for yours. Why are you comparing your love life to his, rather than your social life? Your intellectual life? The fact that you've never done a stint in prison for beating a woman? Because you're deliberately looking for comparisons where you fall short while ignoring comparisons where you fall long. I didn't read that. I read a long, roundabout essay complaining that you can't even complain about being single anymore without someone painting you as a cad and a villain. Yeah, that. Certainly. When we're down, we want to wallow in it. For some, it helps them process. For others, it petrifies. Look - If you're having a bad day, there's no shortage of wisdom on the internet that will make you feel worse. Seek it out at your peril. Whatever you do, recognize that in the end, it's you CHOOSING your outlook on the matter, nothing more. The only person in the entire conversation is you; every other party is busily engaging shadows. Don't let the bastards drag you down.More than anything I just appreciated reading a defense of guys who were emotional doormats because they thought it was how they are supposed to treat women they were interested in.
There's a disturbing trend to label every misled social inept as an Elliot Rogers in the making, and I haven't seen any indication of the slowing down until very recently.
There's some part of me that wants to continue to engage with, for lack of a better phrase, dangerous ideas.
I wish he'd use that tag. Or hubski had the ability to only filter people on certain tags, like people who like my posts but hate my book prattling could filter rinx+books or something. I love that you guys support a friend but it's unhealthy for me to read this stuff. Last time I tried to filter (just filter) him it muted him instead, and I really don't want to exclude anyone from conversations.
The tag.user system was in place for a while but was cancelled because of lack of interest. You still see it on older posts, but nobody ever really gave a shit about it, and it this got canned in favor of more tagging options. Cases like this would support its reinstatement, but I think that shop has sailed.
What do you mean it was cancelled? Because I use #music.Existentialist so others can filter my poor music taste. It looks like it works.
I don't really mean something similar to that, although it would work. I essentially mean ability to "and" filters. Lets say your vegan and I'm vegetarian. I like your posts normally, but we keep butting heads in #vegetarian because you and I disagree over the ethics of eggs. Right now I would have to filter (b_b) or filter (#vegetarian). Or try to guess which sites you'll post from most and ban them (eggsaremurder.com). These options kinda suck. If I could filter only when both conditions are met (b_b+vegetarian), then I could enjoy conversations with you without us getting into ideological battles. You could post your daiya recipes and I could post mac and cheese recipes without either of us needed to butt heads.
If you've got a user who you always butt heads with over a certain topic, you could try not always rehashing the same topic because by the third or fourth time you should know where it's gonna end. If you keep picking a fight with someone, you might kind of be a douche. Like, let's say you and I disagree about eggs. We hash it out on 3 posts you put up. By the time I see a 4th post about a similar topic from you, I shouldn't need to reiterate everything I've already said or make the same arguments I've always made because we've been through it before. If I do, then I'm more concerned with blanketing you with my pedantic viewpoint than having a discussion. I mean, go ahead, give a post a chance and give posters chances too. But you don't have to click every link in your feed. You don't have to pick a fight every time you see a comment you disagree with. There's a lot to be said for saying, "Nope, not worth it" and moving on. I think there's more value to strengthening your ability to do that, than removing any potential arguments from your view.