Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

residentcontrarian.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#91

Post by rjbwork »

Phrodo_00 wrote: post #55
edgyquant wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen this thrown around by Jordan Peterson and his fans but I’ve never met anyone, regardless of how crazy their ideology was, advocate for equality of outcomes outside of basic necessities. I’m convinced it’s a strawman.

Haven't had a refresher on it since high school, so I might be totally out of the loop, but isn't equality of outcome the point of marxism?

Not at all. Marxism is a method of analyzing history and the present through the lens of class conflict.

Generally "Marxism" is thrown around as a boogie man term by people with little understanding for something approximating extreme authoritarianism in which the state owns all the means of production and allocates everyone the same resources.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#92

Post by dragonwriter »

Phrodo_00 wrote: post #50
throwawayboise wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or equality of opportunity vs equality in outcomes.

Genuine question: Isn't this equivalent to equity vs equality?

> Genuine question: Isn't this equivalent to equity vs equality?

Not generally, no; “equity” generally refers to fairness of treatment (as distinct from non-differentiation in equality); while concepts of fairness vary, equivalence of outcomes not the moat common understanding pursued under the banner of “equity”.

Which is not to say that the two are never (especially in particular narrow domains) the same, but they aren’t in general the same.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#93

Post by benlivengood »

tachyonbeam wrote: post #43
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>having a romantic and sexual relationship is not a requirement for a happy life. It is for many, many, many people.

That's one bitter truth about life: (almost) everyone needs some amount of physical intimacy to be happy, but it's not something anyone is entitled to. Those of us who have access to that are privileged. I agree with the author though. IMO the existence of so many "incels" is some expression of a real societal problem. Many young men are suffering, and we don't acknowledge their suffering as genuine. We just tell the…

At least in the bay area there are plenty of cuddle parties for platonic physical touch.

Feminism has a pretty convincing answer to the problem like I edited my original comment to include. Toxic masculinity is the social exclusion of deep emotional relationships between men, including the "suck it up" culture. The key is that only men can really participate in that healing because it's entirely a problem between men. Women, as I've observed, seek out deep emotional friendships with other women and have most of their emotional needs met that way. Men, for the most part, do not do that with other men.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#94

Post by andi999 »

ayyy wrote: post #62
thekashifmalik wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow; sex and sexual activity are a part of the first level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Note, it's not intimacy but sex itself. Intimacy lies on the 3rd level.

You might be confused because Maslow thought sex was on the same level as food and sleep. Of course, today, the idea that men need sex simply because they are alive is repulsive.

Why is this idea repulsive?

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#95

Post by NickM »

thepasswordis wrote: post #67
benlivengood wrote: post #4

> I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy. I imagine some of these men are similar to me in the loneliness and not as lucky in finding someone, and it’s impossible for me to not feel something. This is basically a red flag for any relationship. If the only thing making or allowing a person to be happy…

>This is basically a red flag for any relationship. No it isn't. My grandparents, who were married for 60 years had this mentality. My wife's grandparents, who were married for a similar amount of time, also shared this mentality. My wife's parents still share this mentality (and are obviously completely devoted to one another, which you will notice if you spend about 5 seconds with them). My parents divorced, which…

I would argue that a high level of devotion is not the same thing as codependency. I'm not sure you and OP are actually disagreeing with each other here.

It's entirely possible to have an enduring, meaningful, devoted, monogamous relationship that brings a great deal of happiness to both partners without that relationship being a requirement for the people involved to experience any amount of happiness or fulfillment in their lives.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#96

Post by s_dev »

Supermancho wrote: post #28
benlivengood wrote: post #4

> I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy. I imagine some of these men are similar to me in the loneliness and not as lucky in finding someone, and it’s impossible for me to not feel something. This is basically a red flag for any relationship. If the only thing making or allowing a person to be happy…

> This is basically a red flag for any relationship. If the only thing making or allowing a person to be happy in life is their partner then something is wrong When you get older, a partner (or children) are important to keep you going. Your body will fail you. Your mind will fail you. Your life will end and (statistically) it will be a long downward slope. Binding yourself to the right person keeps that slope more e…

> until some point after the slide begins that has slowly eaten away at your own ability.

Whats your commentary on people who marry and then divorce very late in life like Bill Gates? After all if the primary purpose was to protect against this aggressively lonely stage in life -- no fault divorce has thrown that guarantee out the window.

They seem to now be in the same position as long term single people -- except it's a massive uprooting stressor placed on you in your final years.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#97

Post by vimy »

edgyquant wrote: post #40
throwawayboise wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or equality of opportunity vs equality in outcomes.

I’ve seen this thrown around by Jordan Peterson and his fans but I’ve never met anyone, regardless of how crazy their ideology was, advocate for equality of outcomes outside of basic necessities. I’m convinced it’s a strawman.

Progressives advocate abolishing advanced classes in high school because “they have too many white and Asian students”. Several schools have done so. That is equality of outcome in practice.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#98

Post by fnord77 »

benlivengood wrote: post #4

> I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy. I imagine some of these men are similar to me in the loneliness and not as lucky in finding someone, and it’s impossible for me to not feel something. This is basically a red flag for any relationship. If the only thing making or allowing a person to be happy…

inceldom is a form of covert narcissism.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#99

Post by krastanov »

thepasswordis wrote: post #67
benlivengood wrote: post #4

> I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy. I imagine some of these men are similar to me in the loneliness and not as lucky in finding someone, and it’s impossible for me to not feel something. This is basically a red flag for any relationship. If the only thing making or allowing a person to be happy…

>This is basically a red flag for any relationship. No it isn't. My grandparents, who were married for 60 years had this mentality. My wife's grandparents, who were married for a similar amount of time, also shared this mentality. My wife's parents still share this mentality (and are obviously completely devoted to one another, which you will notice if you spend about 5 seconds with them). My parents divorced, which…

I agree that OP should not have used such absolutist terms, but you are guilty of the same thing. There are couples which are *devoted* to each other. And there are couples that simply have a deep friendship and know that in 30 years they will probably drift apart but continue having respect for each other. Self-awareness and honesty are obviously necessary, but you describing "life-long devotion and complete dependence on one-other" as the only way to build lasting meaningful relationships is simply harmful. Just as harmful as saying that such type of devotion should not exist.

Re: On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

#100

Post by h2odragon »

Our inability to talk about sex is a big problem that enhances all the others. Some people are happy abstaining from sex altogether, those folks might have useful advice for the Incels but they're shy of offering from having been burnt before.

There's plenty of people for whom sex isn't necessarily involved in romance; I personally think a lot of people suffer because they confuse and conflate those two ideas.

Post reply on HN