On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by sudosysgen » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

textgel wrote: post #158

Loughla wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you're being down-voted, you're right. I haven't met anyone, even in the insanely left and progressive university circles that I run in, who advocate for equality in outcome. It's equality in opportunity that's important. It's about letting 'your freedom as an individual to choose your own destiny' actually be 'free' from the start and not constrained by social mores, ingrained biases or discriminati…

It's a core belief of progressivism; those who claim it isn't know it is but are interested in protecting a movement that gives them a means of attacking those they dislike.

It absolutely isn't. Progressives, when they see inequality of outcomes at the group level, correctly identify an inequality of opportunity. There's no progressive in the world that thinks that everyone should have the same outcomes.

That's different from wanting similar outcomes between groups of millions of people, because those almost invariably come from inequality of opportunity.

I don't know of any left tendency that believes in equality of outcomes. Even communists don't believe in equality of outcome.

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

#172

Post by at_a_remove » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

toomuchredbull wrote: post #124

I think it's fair to say his data shows a high percentage of "incels" are not the incels on the internet that are bad, but just guys who can't get women and they don't deserve our hatred. Similar to the Japanese phenomenon of "grass eaters"

"Not deserving hatred" isn't enough today. Nuance is too much to ask for. Lump them all together and despise them, that is the order of the day.

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

#173

Post by dartharva » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #3

"It’s 2021, and it would be pretty hard to find someone who would come out and say that women deserve to be treated worse than men by default, and similarly difficult to find someone believes men shouldn’t have rights. In that sense at least we are all feminists and men’s rights activists, but nearly 100% of everyone reading this would have felt some emotional recoil from being called at least one of those two things…

> but nearly 100% of everyone reading this would have felt some emotional recoil from being called at least one of those two things

What's the rationale behind this statement? It seems like it's implying "nearly 100%" people are one or the other kind of extremists when it comes to Gender politics. Wouldn't it rather be the other way round, people knowingly identifying themselves as both Feminists and MRAs (redundant, as "Feminist" by itself means someone who strives for equality among genders), since most are normally moderate in their opinions?

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

#174

Post by cushychicken » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

landryraccoon wrote: post #147

scarmig wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having a romantic and sexual relationship is not a requirement for a happy life. This is a bit silly: either it's trivially true but irrelevant, if the claim is that there exist people who can live happy lives without (sexual) relationships; or it's flatly false, if the claim is that everyone can be equally happy without relationships as they would be with them. Relationships bring significant happiness. People who…

Man this thread sure must be depressing if you're single. Single? That's your problem, that your single. Go get a relationship and be happy! Way to dogpile on people when they're down. I say enjoy being single. If a relationship happens, good for you, but don't listen to people that say you're damaged / worse off / going down the drain because you're single. They're just jealous you can travel and play video games wh…

Another way to phrase the original top comment (which, btw, is very deservedly the top comment): "If you can't be happy on your own, there's no way you'll be happy with a partner."

Happiness comes from within. Pegging your happiness on something external to yourself - material wealth, social standing, another human being - is giving away all agency you have over your own happiness.

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

#175

Post by colanderman » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

benlivengood wrote: post #93

tachyonbeam wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Cuddle parties" are not a substitute for sex, for men or women. Nor are "strong friendships", as you insinuate above.

Emotional intimacy, physical closeness, and sex are distinct and separable. Though they are linked for most people, for many no one of those is a substitute for any other.

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

#176

Post by ayyy » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

thatguy0900 wrote: post #138

andi999 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this idea repulsive?

I think they are conflating needing sex with deserving or being garunteed sex.

Yes, I've conflated the idea of "needing" something with the idea of "deserving" something.

For example, some people need food, but they don't deserve it just because they're alive. We call that hunger.

Other people need housing, but they don't deserve it just because they're alive. We call that homelessness.

Some need sex, but they don't deserve it just because they're alive. We call those people incels.

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

#177

Post by jamespo » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #142

void_mint wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but this is the statement that someone pointed out as a red flag, that you disagreed with > 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. Which is basically the exact definition of codependence.

>Which is basically the exact definition of codependence. Well okay I suppose that the people I'm talking about, in their 50+ year relationships would describe their love for their partner as a type of addiction, but what you might be missing there is: that is a joke, and they are being cute. If we're redefining romantic devotion as an "addiction" then I think we have officially lost the plot.

Hmm it seems like you're reframing things to shore up your argument

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

#178

Post by ikiris » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

tonyp2121 wrote: post #101

the_jeremy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having a romantic ... relationship is not a requirement for a happy life Do you think having friends is a requirement for a happy life? It's not strictly necessary, but they are a positive factor, and most people will not be happy entirely devoid of friendship. Having a partner is a friend you commit to and are closer with than other friends (generalization, sure). I have friends who I would not support through dep…

Why would you not support your friends through depression?

Because they're self centered and only want friends when it's convenient for them.

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

#179

Post by toyg » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:13 PM UTC

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?

That's a common misconception about marxism. "To each according to his needs" does not mean "To each the same amount". Societies that reportedly strived to be marxist, still had different people doing different things and being granted different resources - and that's inevitable. It was even a typical complaint of soviet societies, the fact that "connected" people would get more than others.

It just so happens that, given the pre-existent distribution of wealth will have followed other rules, the first step of marxist enaction inevitably ends up being "the big reset" where inequality of outcome gets temporarily removed for everyone.

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

#180

Post by vidarh » Tue, May 04, 2021, 6:13 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #110

NickM wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah man I don't think I would classify a committed relationship where partners end up missing their partner when they're gone as "codependent". And honestly this whole trend of laymen trying to psychoanalyze people with whatever toxic psychobabble their read on twitter is getting out of hand. Codependence is when two people have some unhealthy trait that is reinforced by the other person's unhealthy trait. From wiki…

You're interpreting this very different to how I read it. Missing someone is very different from being miserable when apart because you don't have anything else to give your life meaning.

I'm not miserable when I miss someone. I'd never describe it as that way, because if I'm apart from someone, while that sucks, at the same time it means I have someone. Longing is not misery to me at least.