3 ms·
Tell me again why we're listening to this guy?
by gometro33 17y ago
Tell me again why we're listening to this guy?
- asciilifeform 17y agoTell me again why we shouldn't?
- mquander 17y agoBecause most of the content is insultingly inane. I don't need some single guy with no kids telling me about how Love is not eternal. It is a simple state of endorphin chemistry. It serves a single evolutionary purpose. It lasts about three years. Fathers being suspicious of their young daughters' boyfriends and dates is really just sexual jealousy. Parents care less about their children than they do about their careers, their socioeconomic status, and what the Joneses think. That's why we have public schools instead of home education by one parent who doesn't have a "career".
- a-priori 17y ago1. Just because a mental state like love has a known chemical or evolutionary basis doesn't make it any less real. 2. I say the father is concerned about his daughter's mate selection because she carries his genes. She is a proxy for his reproductive success. He wants her to choose a good mate (e.g. someone who's more likely to stick around to care for the children) so his genes are more likely to survive. 3. No comment here, but I think it underestimates the effects of social proof in a parent's decision.
- mquander 17y ago1. My primary target of ridicule on this one was the apparently arbitrary cutoff of "three years." 2. I'm not a parent, but what you just described is not at all what normal people would mean when using the words "sexual jealousy." 3. I personally think it speaks to a pretty unbelievable sense of privilege; there are a hell of a lot of jobs that don't support a reasonable standard of living for a family of four on one income.
- a-priori 17y agoRegarding #2, that's exactly my point: the father's behaviour can be explained completely without resorting to a sort of reverse Oedipus complex.
- mfukar 17y agoI think the list's only purpose is to attack that way of dismissive, unconstructive thinking.
- mquander 17y agoThe only reason I phrased my comment as a dismissive ad hominem was because this guy is a troll. A couple dozen intentionally offensive opinions presented as fact do not make incisive social commentary, and presenting them with no further citation or defense is not a sincere presentation. I have no interest in sitting here and making some point-by-point rebuttal to the first 27 insulting things that came off the top of some guy's head.
- unignorant 17y agoAdd to that: "No one actually cares about anyone else." Seriously?
- radu_floricica 17y agoThe point of such lists is not to be accurate. We accept that society is 90% right, so 90% of such lists will be either wrong or not even wrong. The point is to be aware that of the 10% we can miss if we stick to the conventional wisdom. As for your examples, the first may be inane, but the second is at least taboo and the third actually has some truth in it, and is also more or less taboo.
- unignorant 17y agoWe are not (hopefully). But I would support the making of such lists in general, if only to encourage discussion.
- jimbokun 17y agoIn order to discuss whether these are things that are not socially acceptable to even utter, regardless of their empirical merits. I think the point is not whether these things are true or false necessarily, but whether even discussing them are socially permissible. At least, that's what I took to be the intent behind the title of the submission.