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

The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’

melmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 170 posts

Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’

#151

Post by avisser »

logicchains wrote: post #143
CompelTechnic wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think both connotations are valid and context usually determines the underlying meaning. For a third connotation that is close to the GP's, think of a coach telling his players to hustle on the basketball court. To me, that means they need to play hard and quick, not that they need to try more to bend the rules, take advantage, etc.

>For a third connotation that is close to the GP's, think of a coach telling his players to hustle on the basketball court. To me, that means they need to play hard and quick, not that they need to try more to bend the rules, take advantage, etc. That's interesting, I always assumed the coach was actually suggesting they try to bend the rules and do whatever's necessary to win, but your interpretation makes more sens…

As someone who played a lot of sports, the classic "hustle" play was laying out/diving/getting on the ground for the ball. Be it in baseball, basketball or football.

You could play the game without hitting the ground, but if you wanted to hustle and win, you had to get your clothes dirty.

You weren't breaking any rules, just doing what other people wouldn't.

Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’

#152

Post by kungtotte »

ken wrote: post #149

It's easy to say that this is the best possible time for a human to be alive, when your occupation is motivational speaker. You've got YouTube, and business class, and 7-minute workouts. The message you've got is to disregard the media you're using to send that message. Try working in a field where this isn't true, and tell us if you still think this is the best time ever to be a human. Do high school teachers (who h…

It actually is the best time to be a human in general, that doesn't mean every person has a perfect life.

Things are better now than they've ever been. There's still poverty, war, famine, disease, etc. but way fewer people die to those things than at any point in history. 80% of the world's children get their vaccines. Girls go to school almost as long as boys. Child mortality is dropping sharply in the world, etc.

So does things still suck for the person who gets terminal cancer? Of course it does. But humanity is doing great.

Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’

#153

Post by kungtotte »

jldugger wrote: post #73
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #67

The discussion around the content of the article here is interesting, but the thing that stuck out to me the most was this quote: “No amount of grifting or endless working” will help alleviate the gender pay gap, which, according to the World Economic Forum, won’t close for another 200 years I read on here all the time that the “gender pay gap” doesn’t exist. So which one is it?

I see it as there being two kinds of gender pay gaps. The first one is the gap between comparable men and women in the same job at the same employer. You might call this gender bias, since the only discriminate factor here is gender. This is generally a small gap, though this is not true for all job titles. And it's pretty rare to find the gap disfavor men, so we should probably investigate why this emerges. The seco…

Other things that influence the gender pay gap is that women are typically the ones to stay at home to raise children or work part time, they're the ones to stay home from work to tend to sick children, etc. which lowers their average pay.

Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’

#154

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pluma wrote: post #142
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He told her 'eat shit' for the next couple years and take no vacations I did this for three years. It sucks, and my god is it a roll of the dice with your health, wealth and happiness. But for me, at the time, the risk of breaking was worth the chance at stability and autonomy. It’s terrible universal advice. But if wealth and power matter to you; and you diligently save, take sensible risks, and remain health- and…

It's only ever "worth it" if it works out. It's never "worth it" if it didn't. This is basically the survivor fallacy: you didn't win because you risked ruining yourself, you won because you got lucky. Risking to ruin yourself just meant you increased your chances of winning (while also significantly increasing your chances of losing). Teaching people they'll be successful as long as they're willing to "eat shit" for…

> Teaching people they'll be successful as long as they're willing to "eat shit" for years may create a handful of winners but it will also cause a ridiculous amount of ruined lives (not to mention families and relationships)

Totally agree. Telling people to "eat shit" is terrible universal advice.

> if you lose the roulette, you're probably in no state to lament to anyone how terrible of an idea it was to play in the first place

Agree again.

That said, just because something depends predominantly on luck doesn't mean it is never worth it. Terrible universal advice can be decent advice to specific people. If, as you said, you are fortunate enough to have downside protection from family, it can be less risky than it generally is. On the other hand, if you are sure you'd be happier having tried and lost than never tried at all (and know just how bad this flavor of losing can be), it may be the only choice.

Most people aren't like that. But some are. My point is to avoid over-correcting. Don't "eat shit" because a shithead on the Internet told you too. But if you really feel that's what you must do, don't not do it because someone on the Internet told you not to.

Side note: anecdote comes to mind. Advice is a person talking to their younger selves.

Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’

#155

Post by eli_gottlieb »

logicchains wrote: post #122
exogeny wrote: post #10

There's nothing wrong with hard work. But there is a lot wrong with the idea that you need to work until your health is impacted to succeed; if you need to work that hard, something else is off - the idea isn't good enough, you're attacking it in the wrong way, whatever. To me this ties into the gross, pervasive trend of wantrepreneurism. Shark Tank, Zuck, Elon Musk - being a founder has never been sexier, never been…

People who think hustling is about working hard have a very different interpretation of the word than I'm used to. A hustler is supposed to be a cunning character who uses their guile and persistence to get ahead, taking advantage of the system. Someone who just works really hard at the expense of their health sounds more like what I'd expect to see characterised as a schmuck than a hustler.

>Someone who just works really hard at the expense of their health sounds more like what I'd expect to see characterised as a schmuck than a hustler.

Well, if we're going with Yiddish slang, the term would be freier, meaning "sucker" (https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-word-of-the-day-freier-1.52...).

Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’

#156

Post by Novashi »

roel_v wrote: post #120
Novashi wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I do weight training after work every day. Dunno about that; you're supposed to have breaks so the muscle has time to repair itself unless you're just not pushing.

Not if you're intermediate or advanced and go on split routines.

Split routines to me are back/biceps one day, chest/tri, then legs totaling 3 days a week, but maybe the fitness board I learned that from is wrong.

Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’

#157

Post by roel_v »

Novashi wrote: post #156
roel_v wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you're intermediate or advanced and go on split routines.

Split routines to me are back/biceps one day, chest/tri, then legs totaling 3 days a week, but maybe the fitness board I learned that from is wrong.

Yeah that's one kind of split, but google 'n day split' with values of n in [4,7] and you'll find many.

Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’

#158

Post by braindouche »

jklein11 wrote: post #150
_zskd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This exactly. Or, if not ability, then experience and wisdom. Or relevant skills. Or connections. Or discipline. None of which you can manifest by sheer force of will. I always tell my Jr. Engineers that if you have to work THAT HARD to accomplish your daily tasks then you need to go back to school or go for a more newbie-friendly position.

>I always tell my Jr. Engineers that if you have to work THAT HARD to accomplish your daily tasks then you need to go back to school or go for a more newbie-friendly position. I don't think that this is very productive thing to say to someone. If the Junior Engineer is still able to produce, why do you care how much they struggled with it? If a person truly wants to grow and then struggling on problems that are on th…

I mean, yes there's nothing wrong with engineers struggling and pushing their skills and boundaries, it's how we grow and improve. But persistent struggling with daily tasks is indicative of a deeper problem. There might be missing knowledge, or the mistaken idea that programmers should be hard workers to be productive.

Using our tools of simplification, abstraction, automation and domain knowledge, it's critical to teach your juniors how to be optimistically lazy and do less. That's how we raise great engineers. Otherwise, we're just raising mid-level programmers who only know how to throw lots more code at their problem, and as I hope we all know by now, more code never results in fewer problems.

Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’

#159

Post by kryogen1c »

yesenadam wrote: post #82
kryogen1c wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on if you think people are naturally rational and without bias. In reality, people often have to be forcibly dethroned from their views. Having a judge say no thanks will not have the appropriate effect. The issue is emotional commitment, not accurate assessment.

What depends? on..what?! I don't understand.. (I really tried) uh.. I don't understand your last sentence either. Assuming you meant 'But you have to be brutal to have the desired effect of getting through to the terrible singers, plain honesty - considerate, respectful honesty[0] wouldn't work', well, he didn't get through, did he. Instead they thought he must be just being rude deliberately and didn't mean what he…

Whether or not he is being rude depends on your interpretation of his intentions based on assumptions about how the performer will react.

Are you implying those people are auditioning ironically and know they are bad singers?

It does not seem rude to me to try and change the course of someone's life who is _drastically_ underperforming.

Is the definition of rude hurting someone's feelings? That doesn't follow the implication that rudeness shouldn't happen; sometimes people need their feelings hurt to inspire positive change.

Re: The Dangerous Fetishization of ‘Hustle Porn’

#160

Post by kryogen1c »

nimonian wrote: post #88
fwip wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that they intentionally put through and hyped up the worst singers, right? Like some kid who showed up for the first round on a lark was told "congrats you're great!! You're coming back for the next round when the judges are here," did the whole profiling/backstory thing like they'd do if you were a good singer, and intentionally set you up to fail in the worst way. Just so Simon can make a joke at your expe…

Tail dog wagging. They prominently feature terrible singers because Simon is brutally honest, not the other way around.

Whether or not the singers were hyped up for entertainment doesn't change the fact that they seriously auditioned, unless you think they tried out ironically for the lulz.

In the first case, rudeness can be helpful and in the second case it won't hurt their feelings. Seems like a fine choice to me.

Post reply on HN