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

We are all animals at night

hazlitt.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 295 posts

Re: We are all animals at night

#281

Post by memefrog »

tasuki wrote: post #280
memefrog wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is such a thing as low-skill labour. Nobody said 'no skill required'. The term is low-skill. Of the people I have met that do manual labouring jobs, I know many people could do those jobs if they got fit and learnt to do them, and that those people could not learn to do intellectual work no matter how hard they tried. Also working in the forestry industry is much harder than having sex for a living.

> Also working in the forestry industry is much harder than having sex for a living. Have you done both?

Were you in the trenches in WW1? If not, how can you say it was difficult?

Re: We are all animals at night

#282

Post by pell »

matt-attack wrote: post #271
ianai wrote: post #28

This is very well written and gripping even. I don’t see the negatives other commenters are pointing out. Yes she’s talking about her perceptions born from her clients and years worked. That’s an absolute right for all of us, right? To simply relate the experiences we’ve had. She’s definitely seen a side of humanity that, while seen by many, doesn’t quite often get public visibility-sunlight. And lo and behold, it’s…

It’s funny you never see eloquent, well written articles about dishwashers who live in sweaty kitchens of dive Chinese restaurants, existing on the edge of society, jammed into studio apartments in the worst parts of town, just eking by. You never read accounts of backbreaking laborers who dig ditches day in day out, or service sewer systems, covered in refuse. They sacrifice their bodies for their paycheck, and too…

In the world of literature you will find much of what you're describing. Just to name a few: "Hard Times" by Dickens, "The Grapes of Wrath" by Steinbeck, "Germinal" by Émile Zola. "Christ in Concrete" by Donato is another one.

If you want non-fiction, I can recommend "Nickel and Dimed" by Ehrenreich or "Working" by Terkel.

Re: We are all animals at night

#283

Post by strken »

imtringued wrote: post #242
strken wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "for free" part is what I disagree with because it's almost totally the opposite of what I've seen. Men are taught that their work is valuable but they are not; they feel entitled after putting in work, even if it's work that nobody asked for, like going to the gym a lot or chatting up strangers at bus stops. No, they're not actually entitled to sex and attention, but the entire problem is that men feel like they…

Your comment is complete nonsense. Men go to the gym for themselves and secondarily, because it raises their attractiveness and confidence in front of everyone, not just women. They chat up strangers at bus stops, because dating is a literal lottery for the guy.

Your second paragraph is true, but it's not related to entitlement.

When a man chats up women at a bus stop it's because he likes women and wants to date them, obviously; when he yells "fucking whore, you think your too good for me" after getting turned down it's because of entitlement, and part of the reason he feels entitled is that he put in effort to make the first move.

Re: We are all animals at night

#284

Post by xp84 »

johnny22 wrote: post #145
blq10 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The list of things the commenter you're replying to brought up, in addition to "be attractive", is table stakes for receiving an iota of romantic attention from women. We talk a ton about unrealistic beauty standards, "men talking, women listening", etc - but I have to wonder, maybe the world where women marry people one income decide above them is almost guaranteed to be a world where men are just more competitive i…

> The list of things the commenter you're replying to brought up, in addition to "be attractive", is table stakes for receiving an iota of romantic attention from women. that's not true though. I'd say it's not great to be "ugly" (for some definition of the word) but you don't have to attractive. Heck, you can even be pretty poor, but as long as you you're a decent person to be around, it's not that hard.

Perhaps anecdotally a lot of guys find their way somehow (heck, I myself somehow landed a few serious relationships before I was successful, and I wasn’t above average looking then) but when guys read that women expect 6’ and 6 figures which is a very common thing you hear, and you consider that’s like 1% of men that fit just those criteria, it’s pretty off-putting to men who aren’t that and don’t expect to be that.

It’s certainly not all women, of course, but there are women who feel they shouldn’t “settle” for “less” than that. As though men who are 5’9 and make $85k are dirtbags or as though tall rich guys will treat you better or be better fathers. It is contributing to the big decrease in marriage even happening, in my opinion, as evidenced by increased average age of first marriage in the West.

To be perfectly clear: I’m not daft enough to think that no guys who aren’t in this “shallowly-defined 1%” are getting dates or getting married. Rather, I’m saying that culturally we are now saying it’s very okay, or even best practice, to be incredibly shallow in evaluating men, and that’s as wrong as evaluating women by their measurements.

Re: We are all animals at night

#285

Post by ianai »

pell wrote: post #282
matt-attack wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny you never see eloquent, well written articles about dishwashers who live in sweaty kitchens of dive Chinese restaurants, existing on the edge of society, jammed into studio apartments in the worst parts of town, just eking by. You never read accounts of backbreaking laborers who dig ditches day in day out, or service sewer systems, covered in refuse. They sacrifice their bodies for their paycheck, and too…

In the world of literature you will find much of what you're describing. Just to name a few: "Hard Times" by Dickens, "The Grapes of Wrath" by Steinbeck, "Germinal" by Émile Zola. "Christ in Concrete" by Donato is another one. If you want non-fiction, I can recommend "Nickel and Dimed" by Ehrenreich or "Working" by Terkel.

And then there’s Tom Waits, Bruce Springsteen, Johnny Cash, uhh a huge amount of blues, etc.

Re: We are all animals at night

#286

Post by vacuity »

throwawawawow wrote: post #261
throwawawaw wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irrationality (own or others') can trap people in situations where self-destruction is the most rational choice. Furthermore, we have a bit of a scoping issue on our hands: we default to assuming that self-preservation is rational. Self-preservation may be rational behavior for animals. But humans are qualitatively different from animals in at least the following aspects: - We have language, which lets us continue ou…

RE @vacuity, HN limiting depth of discussions and all (oh, the delightful irony!). >Is affecting others for selfish reasons a rational choice there? Selfish reasons or no, in most cases it's not practically possible to do anything that does not affect others. Whether you have affected them positively or negatively, and whether you are to be held responsible, is for others to decide - mostly arbitrarily, that is to sa…

> I didn't really notice you making a distinction. You're free to uphold one, of course - wherever you consider appropriate.

I didn't say you made the distinction. I did. I said suicide is acceptable because it cuts one away completely, whereas behaviors such as alcoholism can have severe negative effects on others that aren't merely emotional turmoil.

> Who said "only"? It's just the default option.

So they have alternatives besides self-destruction and waiting to die but self-destruction is the rational choice?

> It is rare that one pursues addiction with the express purpose of obliterating the self, though it's not unheard of.

True, but upthread, you (or whoever the commenter is) mentioned substance abuse as an example of self-destructive behavior. I just went with it since I don't disagree.

> What's worse, people also tend to mix up their perspectives with their opinions, and, most perniciously of all, with their identities. I don't know what to do about that, sorry.

Opinions are valid insofar as they reflect one's moral axioms and the available facts. I know what you're talking about with regards to identity.

> According to my opinion and perspective, whose else. Why would you imply that I mean otherwise?

I was thinking you meant "rational" in the sense of you being reasonably correct. As in, it's rational to not go to areas with smoke if you're trying to evade danger. Seems I misread.

> Sure, if it helps anyone.

I think it is useful to discuss any harmful actions.

> Where did I say that they find life not worth living, so they kill themselves? If only.

I didn't say you said that.

> I'm saying that they find life not worth living, because the things that are supposed to intrinsically attract them to living, are made unattainable;

And I'm saying that these things aren't truly "unattainable" and they may be attained in the future.

> so they end up living lives that are ultimately harmful to others

I doubt the collective environmental impact of these people is very significant compared to the overall global energy consumption and, more pressingly, the potential preservation to be had in working to fix this mess. It's their choice, but saying suicide is most rational seems nearsighted at the present moment. Maybe in a few decades things will really be hopeless.

> By the time they have the power to change anything, the world would better off without them - but good luck getting them to budge. It's funny, give em a decade or two and Gen Z are gonna be absolutely MASSIVE boomers, the likes of which the world has never seen before.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Re: We are all animals at night

#287

Post by teunispeters »

quacked wrote: post #266
teunispeters wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in the shadows in Canada a time. You're not allowed to leave - the US border blocks, among others. So "going to Omaha, Nebraska" is unrealistic. Experiences of a foreign country where perhaps there's somewhere to go to find low end work, and be paid enough to live somewhere ... that's a dream. One not available in far too much of the world - yes including Canada these days. And the cost of living in most of C…

I was writing with a US-centric mindset, so I agree that neither Omaha or Alaska is that realistic if you're a Canadian citizen. I'm intrigued by your assertion that there is not any low-end work available in Canada, though; my understanding is that Canada is taking on millions and millions of low-end immigrants who live together in tenement-style housing and work low-paying jobs to support each other. I thought that…

I've worked a lot of such low-end jobs in the past. These days it'd take 4-5 full time jobs to make rent.

As for the tenement housing - never seen it - and I have been in a lot of places BC through Sask. I've known families to put up immigrants, friends, family back home to sponsor them sufficient to afford, and way more. I did spend some time in shelters once upon a time - not kind places - and certainly not a place one could hold down a job from. As for me ... I lived in a lot of "low" rent buildings and rough buildings (as well as far more often out of vehicles than actual on-the-street homeless - although did that too) ... eventually I did similar to what the writer did and moved into office work, then remotely and eventually could get my own home.

The old tenements though - some are now museums.

Re: We are all animals at night

#288

Post by andrei_says_ »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #169
andrei_says_ wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And: Seeing rational thinking as a layer serving the primitive needs vs an independent process capable of overriding them explains a lot. All our choices occur in the emotional centers of our brain (in his lectures George Lakoff often mentions research showing that brain injury in emotional centers erase the ability to choose / have a preference). The layer of rationalization deceives us into believing we somehow mad…

It's not really one or the other, clearly there is a level at which we have expanded our rationality far beyond its basic use to serve our needs, and built a society where we in fact never really get to have what we want and if you're sexually frustrated purchasing it is criminalized. We built our own cages because we're afraid we won't be able to wake ourselves up out of bed in the morning.

I agree with your first sentence - it’s not one or the other - because they are so intertwined that they are hard to separate.

I need to say that I have not yet experienced or seen an action which is not driven by needs (I subscribe to the NVC model of action).

We have needs which make us want things. We rationalize based on preferences which is another label for needs.

So, we act on needs, mostly subconscious, and tell ourselves stories. That’s about it.

Re: We are all animals at night

#289

Post by janandonly »

I was wondering why someone in the middle of the night would want a massage?

Then, at about 70% through the story, I realised that in Canada, a massage parlour is not for getting massages but, basically, a whore-house. Why the misnomer?

Post reply on HN