Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawayp0rn | Hacker News Reader

> ...want social and interpersonal connections with their colleagues and managers

Many people want it. Say you get a remote position and move from NYC to Colorado.

How do you make friends? How do you get inside the local social circle? How do you get laid in a way that enables you to still look yourself in the mirror with respect (meaning not resorting to Tinder, dating websites or escorts).

Work gives individuals a sense of meaning but also a sense of commonality with others. Working towards a common goal with other people is a very powerful feeling. It's a watered down version of the High School locker room, you get to experience the elation of the wins and the sadness of the losses together, and sure it's watered down but it's still there. A total shift to remote would completely obliterate the concept.

Remote is favored by those whose social life is essentially over (married people with kids)

View on HN

>How do you get laid in a way that enables you to still look yourself in the mirror with respect

By hitting on your co-workers, one of the things that HR departments are notoriously for!

Self respect > reputation with the HR

reputation with the HR = likelihood of remaining employed.

Wait.. I think I can solve this! The implication is: self respect > likelihood of remaining employed!

Then I guess, if you have followed all this chain of back and forth, that you must be on my side?

Slavoj Zizek writes:

> [I]t is structurally impossibl[e] for the power to draw a clear line of separation and to prevent only the misuse of human rights, while not infringing upon their proper use, the use that does not violate the [Ten] commandments.

> There is a somewhat homologous situation with regard to the heterosexual seduction process in our politically correct times. The two sets, the set of the politically correct behavior and the set of seduction, nowhere effectively intersect; that is to say, there is no seduction which is not in a way an incorrect intrusion or harassment. At some point you, if you are a seducer, you have to expose yourself to make a pass, as we usually put it. So does this mean that every seduction is all the way through an incorrect harassment? No, and therein resides the catch. When you make a pass, you expose yourself to the other, the potential partner, and she decides retroactively, by her reaction, whether what you just did was harassment or a successful act of seduction. And there is no way to tell in advance what her reaction will be. This is why assertive women often despise weak men, because they fear to expose themselves, to take the necessary risk. And perhaps this holds even more in our politically correct times. Are not the politically correct prohibitions rules which in one way or another are to be violated in the seduction process? Is not the seducer's art to accomplish this violation properly, so that afterwards, by its acceptance, its harassing aspect will be retroactively canceled?

https://www.lacan.com/zizek-human.htm

I think this is the first time I've ever seen anyone quote Zizek unironically. I'm assuming you're not being ironic.

No, actually.

I mean, he is only so serious. But am I supposed to mock him? I don't think so.

Can I nitpick what he wrote? Sure. For example, the framing as "seduction" is -- I hate this word -- problematic.

Nevertheless, there is a kernel of truth: You have to stick your neck out.

Usually, in my experience, when you do this, it's actually appreciated. But yes, it's a little dangerous. That's life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com