3 ms·

I get it; a lot of people are dealt a shit hand and it's a given that nobody on this Earth has perfect foresight. The zinger here is that the writer is throwing

I get it; a lot of people are dealt a shit hand and it's a given that nobody on this Earth has perfect foresight. The zinger here is that the writer is throwing stones in a glass room, and does nothing but prove the (misguided) point she's trying to refute. In case you didn't read it, the article is written by somebody who payed her own way through an appreciably expensive college for an English literature degree and student debt, and seriously considered pouring coffee in Seattle for a living a viable option. Unfortunately, the follow-your-dreams approach generally doesn't pan out well when you took on debt for an education of arguably limited use and end up living in a city with an exorbitant cost of living. In many respects, the author had it made in a way that most impoverished people never will; she had reliable access to higher education at a college that feeds most of its graduates into Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon. At that point, you just have to put two and two together, even if you don't like that the result is four.

uoaei 9y ago
Not sure how > a college that feeds most of its graduates into Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon is in any way relevant considering she went there for > an English literature degree . Ironically, you're telling her, pretty much a poor person, how not to live her life by passing judgment on the > follow-your-dreams approach that she elected for in the comments section of a post discussing just that. One would think HN has more self-awareness than this. If she > payed [sic] her own way through an appreciably expensive college then it looks like she > took on debt and seems to have a net worth in the negative. This would make her "poor" during that period by any definition in use today. I agree that > she had reliable access to higher education and that separates her from a lot of other poor people who never got that chance. But this is not the only way to be poor. The perspective she brings is that she has seen both sides: being able to financially handle what life threw at her before and during university, and having a negative net worth following it and making sacrifices to keep the lights on. This grants her not only authority on life in the latter condition, but also can address those still in the former and share her experience of scrutinizing-though-well-meaning people telling her how to live her life better when they have never been in such a situation. The arrogance to believe that they have better solutions than she did during her time in poverty is less than appreciated from that position. I am sure at one time she had the reflex to do the same; she speaks now from a matured and changed mind. --- I'd also like to point out that you have demonstrated a number of logical fallacies by posting this comment. Tu quoque is invoked merely by the fact that you are doing precisely what she criticizes--curiously, this fallacy wouldn't be present if you had refrained from posting this comment. Another is the no true scotsman fallacy, here expressed by insinuating that since she was never _really_ a poor person that she can't possibly know what it's _really_ like. Finally, the black-or-white fallacy is displayed when you imply that someone can only be poor or not poor, and that there is no way to be some complex time- and condition-dependent mixture of both.[1] In summary, I am saddened to see that this is the top comment on the thread for this post. I was hoping that HN would take this as a chance to listen and learn about other perspectives, and not use the pseudonymity of an internet forum to demonstrate precisely what the author warns against, much less promote this perspective to the top of the discussion space. [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

uoaei 9y ago

Not sure how > a college that feeds most of its graduates into Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon is in any way relevant considering she went there for > an English literature degree . Ironically, you're telling her, pretty much a poor person, how not to live her life by passing judgment on the > follow-your-dreams approach that she elected for in the comments section of a post discussing just that. One would think HN has more self-awareness than this. If she > payed [sic] her own way through an appreciably expensive college then it looks like she > took on debt and seems to have a net worth in the negative. This would make her "poor" during that period by any definition in use today. I agree that > she had reliable access to higher education and that separates her from a lot of other poor people who never got that chance. But this is not the only way to be poor. The perspective she brings is that she has seen both sides: being able to financially handle what life threw at her before and during university, and having a negative net worth following it and making sacrifices to keep the lights on. This grants her not only authority on life in the latter condition, but also can address those still in the former and share her experience of scrutinizing-though-well-meaning people telling her how to live her life better when they have never been in such a situation. The arrogance to believe that they have better solutions than she did during her time in poverty is less than appreciated from that position. I am sure at one time she had the reflex to do the same; she speaks now from a matured and changed mind. --- I'd also like to point out that you have demonstrated a number of logical fallacies by posting this comment. Tu quoque is invoked merely by the fact that you are doing precisely what she criticizes--curiously, this fallacy wouldn't be present if you had refrained from posting this comment. Another is the no true scotsman fallacy, here expressed by insinuating that since she was never _really_ a poor person that she can't possibly know what it's _really_ like. Finally, the black-or-white fallacy is displayed when you imply that someone can only be poor or not poor, and that there is no way to be some complex time- and condition-dependent mixture of both.[1] In summary, I am saddened to see that this is the top comment on the thread for this post. I was hoping that HN would take this as a chance to listen and learn about other perspectives, and not use the pseudonymity of an internet forum to demonstrate precisely what the author warns against, much less promote this perspective to the top of the discussion space. [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/