5 ms·

Maybe you didn't realize this, but the "dying in the ocean" is analogy is because ocean water isn't drinkable. So while, on the surface, it seems great to be su

Maybe you didn't realize this, but the "dying in the ocean" is analogy is because ocean water isn't drinkable. So while, on the surface, it seems great to be surrounded by water when you're thirsty, it doesn't help if that water isn't drinkable. That's the exact problem this article discusses for women -- being surrounded by "un-dateable" men. It's why moderation tools are mentioned repeatedly in the article.

Rinzler89 2y ago
Yes, i know ocean water is undrinkable but the analogy is still incredibly stupid since you can't tell me with a straight face that absolutely all men on dating platforms are undatable(the undrinkable ocean water). It's more accurate that women on dating apps are far too picky and have far higher standards online (it's been well documented by percentile of sipes) and therefore in their eyes see most men as undatable even if that's not the case (someone might not have the most exciting or handsome profile but he could still be a fun date or a great dad and yet never get any dates). But women being too picky online is a completely different issue to not being any datable men out there, which can't be true, and the fact still stands that they have the oversupply which lets them be choosy, which is still better than men having an undersupply issue which is the life of men online dating. So the more accurate "water analogy" would be that online dating women are surrounded by loads of drinkable water but they refuse to drink it because most of it is average tap water which they see as undrinkable, as they all go online looking for the VOSS/Evian water which is indeed in short supply not just online but also IRL, except IRL they're more aware of it and mostly go online looking to find what they don't have IRL.
- 331c8c71 2y ago
  > It's more that women on dating apps are far too picky. Not only that but I guess many of them are there for ego boosting pusposes and such rather than dating.
- godelski 2y ago
  The point is that it's difficult to differentiate salt water from regular water. I think you also misunderstand. If given the choice, I'd rather die of dehydration in the ocean than in the desert. They both suck but that one seems better (having spent significant time in both regions). You'll get sunburned in both but in the desert there's nothing to cool you off. You'll be much more likely to survive longer in the ocean than desert, even if we ignore food availability. So you're giving a really unfair interpretation because no one is saying they're equally bad. They're (I'm) just saying that you're going to die in both situations As with anything in language, remember that your job is to figure out what the person means, not what they say. The words they use are a signal but it's compressed and fuzzy (especially on the Internet where we have many cultures -- big and small -- interacting with many different expected commission and decompression expectations). It's always possible to gravely misinterpret anything anyone says, no matter how carefully they say it.
  - megadal 2y ago
    > It's always possible to gravely misinterpret anything anyone says, no matter how carefully they say it. > So you're giving a really unfair interpretation because no one is saying they're equally bad. They're (I'm) just saying that you're going to die in both situations It is also possible for a person to simply contradict themselves. What you are saying is they are equally bad outcomes. You're also simultaneously implying that one is objectively worse than the other in every possible way.
    - godelski 2y ago
      There's no contradiction. Equally bad outcomes does not mean that they paths to those outcomes is also equal. As a clear example, in both these cases the outcome is "death" right? I think we all know we'd rather go out in our sleep that have our intestines ripped out. Both these have equal outcomes but I'd call you a liar if you didn't have a strong preference. You might say these don't compare. I'd say that they do. If we come to that conclusion, one of us must be misinterpreting the other.
      - 2y ago

Rinzler89 2y ago

Yes, i know ocean water is undrinkable but the analogy is still incredibly stupid since you can't tell me with a straight face that absolutely all men on dating platforms are undatable(the undrinkable ocean water). It's more accurate that women on dating apps are far too picky and have far higher standards online (it's been well documented by percentile of sipes) and therefore in their eyes see most men as undatable even if that's not the case (someone might not have the most exciting or handsome profile but he could still be a fun date or a great dad and yet never get any dates). But women being too picky online is a completely different issue to not being any datable men out there, which can't be true, and the fact still stands that they have the oversupply which lets them be choosy, which is still better than men having an undersupply issue which is the life of men online dating. So the more accurate "water analogy" would be that online dating women are surrounded by loads of drinkable water but they refuse to drink it because most of it is average tap water which they see as undrinkable, as they all go online looking for the VOSS/Evian water which is indeed in short supply not just online but also IRL, except IRL they're more aware of it and mostly go online looking to find what they don't have IRL.

331c8c71 2y ago
> It's more that women on dating apps are far too picky. Not only that but I guess many of them are there for ego boosting pusposes and such rather than dating.
godelski 2y ago
The point is that it's difficult to differentiate salt water from regular water. I think you also misunderstand. If given the choice, I'd rather die of dehydration in the ocean than in the desert. They both suck but that one seems better (having spent significant time in both regions). You'll get sunburned in both but in the desert there's nothing to cool you off. You'll be much more likely to survive longer in the ocean than desert, even if we ignore food availability. So you're giving a really unfair interpretation because no one is saying they're equally bad. They're (I'm) just saying that you're going to die in both situations As with anything in language, remember that your job is to figure out what the person means, not what they say. The words they use are a signal but it's compressed and fuzzy (especially on the Internet where we have many cultures -- big and small -- interacting with many different expected commission and decompression expectations). It's always possible to gravely misinterpret anything anyone says, no matter how carefully they say it.
- megadal 2y ago
  > It's always possible to gravely misinterpret anything anyone says, no matter how carefully they say it. > So you're giving a really unfair interpretation because no one is saying they're equally bad. They're (I'm) just saying that you're going to die in both situations It is also possible for a person to simply contradict themselves. What you are saying is they are equally bad outcomes. You're also simultaneously implying that one is objectively worse than the other in every possible way.
  - godelski 2y ago
    There's no contradiction. Equally bad outcomes does not mean that they paths to those outcomes is also equal. As a clear example, in both these cases the outcome is "death" right? I think we all know we'd rather go out in our sleep that have our intestines ripped out. Both these have equal outcomes but I'd call you a liar if you didn't have a strong preference. You might say these don't compare. I'd say that they do. If we come to that conclusion, one of us must be misinterpreting the other.
    - 2y ago