Hacker News Reader

Comment by naasking | Hacker News Reader

> The world at large doesn't care what you need, only what you can offer. Realizing this (and acting on it) would help vast majority of these "socially excluded young men" to be included instead.

Is this fundamentally different than telling women that since most of the world only values them as property, that accepting this fact would help oppressed women feel more comfortable with their positions in life?

Maybe you think you're doing people a favour by telling them a harsh truth about the reality they currently face, but here we're talking about how the world ought to be because of the pathologies caused by our reality. A great quote comes to mind:

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti

View on HN

You're talking at cross purposes. You are talking about how you think the world ought to be, and the person you're responding to is talking about how the world is. They're fundamentally different conversations, and it's not particularly useful to mix them, especially in such a critical manner.

not quite. OP described how the world "is" (according to their particular worldview, which is subject to their biases as everyone's worldview is) and then prescribing what one ought to do in the world. The person responding is cautioning readers to consider what fitting in really means if the thing you're fitting into is profoundly malformed.

> You're talking at cross purposes. You are talking about how you think the world ought to be, and the person you're responding to is talking about how the world is.

This whole thread is about a pathology of the modern world that is harming a large segment of the population. The original poster responded to this argument by saying, "well, that's just how the world is", and further added that all young men ought to be taught this same view, further reinforcing it.

I think my post properly addresses the OP's response in this context.

"only women, children, and dogs get loved unconditionally" --Chris Rock

"What you can offer" is not the same as "what others think you can offer". So it is absolutely different.

Not really, because you can do quite well based on what others think you can offer and not what you actually offer. So we're back to square one and there is no meaningful difference.

That makes absolutely no sense. You are saying that because person A offers nothing yet succeeds, person B is unable to succeed whether or not people think he offers anything.

As long as you can succeed in spite of what other think you can offer, they are not the same.

Nice try on changing the goalposts. Success is not the value being compared, so your argument is immaterial. I had thought you were making a different argument in my last reply.

What is the value being compared?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com