46
47

Radicalizing the Romanceless (slatestarcodex.com)

Lite-brite が 投稿

全 54 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]TheRealMouseRat 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

I guess the best solution is to be less nice. Do things for yourself, and be more selfish. Say "no" to requests from you.

One doesn't have to beat ones wife though, but thinking more about oneself seems to be the best course of action.

[–]onefyodor 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Easy way- just assume the person you're nice to is a nice guy basher. Problem solved.

[–]rottingchrist 21ポイント22ポイント  (4子コメント)

Niceness is wasted on people who do not value it.

Only offer it to those deserving of niceness from you.

[–]post-pao 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

Or be nice to everybody... the golden rule... etc. You'll be happier if you lower your expectations for people, I promise.

[–]rottingchrist 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

That hasn't been my experience. Usually indifference seems to work better and requires less effort.

[–]a4b 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly.

[–]post-pao -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Forced indifference is just another form of attachment, don't deceive yourself.

[–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]Hot4_TeaCha 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I've recently started to view "niceness" through a different lens. It's kind of like the difference between fasting and starving.

    Someone who is fasting we generally respect because they are exercising an act of discipline and will. That's sexy.

    Someone who is starving we generally pity because they are forced into a situation they don't want to be by circumstance. That's not sexy.

    A lot of people are nice because it's the path of least resistance. They don't raise issues or make hay out of anything, so they sort of fade into the background. Circumstances are just pushing them this way or that and their agreeableness keeps them from pushing back.

    What people want is for you to be nice, but not be sure that the nice route is the one you're automatically going to take. They want your niceness to be a choice that you make. That's when they start to respect you, because they can't take your agreement or favors for granted.

    [–]onefyodor 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

    The problem is nobody mocks or humiliates people who are starving. Especially with the goal of eradicating hunger.

    My point is,dont starve/ don't be nice. Especially when you're attacked for that.

    [–]Hot4_TeaCha 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    My point wasn't to justify anyone's behavior towards anyone, it was to point out why they feel the way they do towards different people.

    And the truth is, people do routinely mock and ostracize the starving. Even if you pity them enough to offer them food, most folks aren't going to be inviting them to their next family BBQ or ask them out on a date.

    [–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK[M] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    broad generalizations [including about feminism or the men's rights movement] will not be tolerated.

    from the sidebar. please remember that going forward - thanks in advance.

    [–]MistakingLEE 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I have noticing this for a while in fact the whole situation is funny. In our attempts to move away from gender roles when it comes to dating it is like the roles have been kicked up to 11.

    I mean obvious women are not obligated to give guys attetention full stop we can all agree on that but here is the kicker.

    It could work in reverse but due to gender expectations in dating and attraction still being in firmly rooted as I man I feel I am technically obligated to give women my attention. Sure I get to pick which ones but if I take the passive approach then I aint getting nothing, I will just get used to flying solo for my life.

    Lets just say when it comes to dating it will stay traditional but I guess so many people want to be progressive they turn a blind eye to that part of their lives and play mental gymnastics.

    The only thing I can see to those out there find that balance people are talking about or just nope on out of all it both completely legit decisions.

    [–]nickb64 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Lets just say when it comes to dating it will stay traditional but I guess so many people want to be progressive they turn a blind eye to that part of their lives and play mental gymnastics.

    People don't want to feel bad about themselves when their actions don't live up to their ideals, nothing new (or surprising, really) about that.

    The opinion which we entertain of our own character depends entirely on our judgments concerning our past conduct. It is so disagreeable to think ill of ourselves, that we often purposely turn away our view from those circumstances which might render that judgment unfavourable.

    He is a bold surgeon, they say, whose hand does not tremble when he performs an operation upon his own person; and he is often equally bold who does not hesitate to pull off the mysterious veil of self-delusion, which covers from his view the deformities of his own conduct.

    Rather than see our own behaviour under so disagreeable an aspect, we too often, foolishly and weakly, endeavour to exasperate anew those unjust passions which had formerly misled us; we endeavour by artifice to awaken our old hatreds, and irritate afresh our almost forgotten resentments: we even exert ourselves for this miserable purpose, and thus persevere in injustice, merely because we once were unjust, and because we are ashamed and afraid to see that we were so.

    -Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)

    [–]solidfang 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Maybe it's a small thing, but I like how this article is put together. Not just opinions, but a well-constructed argument with examples and statistics, as well as an understanding of how people realistically act in certain situations.

    [–]mycroftxxx42 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That aspect of Scott's writing tends to be pretty universal. Check out his other articles on psychology and statistics.

    [–]sarcastic_dumbledore 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This essay was very well written- I think this style of discussion is a format that is crucial to gender relations. How we relate to one another is an evolving conversation that no one person or group has "correct", but that everyone has to struggle with because each and every person has their unique worldview.

    I think the nice guy phrase is a tired one, worn thin by too many different uses as the author points out. The problem is in the taxonomy. Who is a nice guy? Is it the author who has quiet, shy qualities and a great intelligence? What if a person is courteous but doesn't have a high IQ? What would make the niceness tie to IQ? Maybe the "nice guy" phenomena translates to person who does not have lots of sexual activity, but has the quality of being "better than Henry", which in this case translates to higher intelligence too. I don't think sexual activity and being a decent human are mutually exclusive. A wo/man can have many partners and treat all of them with respect. The statistics he presents are interesting, but the confounding variables at play are many, a big one being the isolation of certain socioeconomic situations. I think the loneliness of the nice guy situation is felt by both genders, and it's expressed in different ways in online forums. Thus the animosity, as each gender feels attacked for their lack of attention, in what is really just a human problem.

    I think he was right about most men wanting affection, not just sex. Hunter S. Thompson said it best, "Sex without love is as hollow and ridiculous as love without sex." The guys who want partners do want sex, but also affection. A thing, which as he pointed out with the monkey study, is a universal need regardless of gender.

    Once again I like this article, it was thought provoking, and I think he did a good job of describing the commonality of people posting to online communities with problems. Attacking a person's problems, and not listening to them will result in more fractured communities and animosity. Just giving someone an ear and not immediately judging them because the way they phrase their problem, just as the author described with his patient.