You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

VoiceOfRa comments on Rational approach to finding life partners - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: c_edwards 16 August 2015 05:07PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (127)
Tags: relationships

Comments (127)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 11 September 2015 01:34:20AM 2 points [-]

Remind me, why are you calling the inability of some to find sex a "market failure"? It might well be that the "market" does not think the package they are offering in exchange is good enough.

Let, me translate that into the unemployment analogy for you:

Remind me, why are [we] calling the inability of some to find a job a "market failure"? It might well be that the "market" does not think the package they are offering in exchange is good enough.

Consider what the reaction would be to someone who made the above statement. Heck, I'm not even sure Donald Trump could survive making it.

Instead, the basic complaint looks much more like the classic entitlement narrative

Except have you seen any other instance of the entitlement narrative get the same kind of reaction.

Comment author: Lumifer 11 September 2015 01:55:53AM 1 point [-]

Consider what the reaction would be to someone who made the above statement.

Mild. There has been a mostly polite discussion of the so-called zero marginal product workers, that is, people who are of no use (and, actually, often bring negative utility) to an employer. More generally, the idea that some people can't hold (and eventually can't find) a job is not particularly controversial.

get the same kind of reaction

I don't know what reaction are you talking about.

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 11 September 2015 02:35:07AM 2 points [-]

Consider what the reaction would be to someone who made the above statement. Heck, I'm not even sure Donald Trump could survive making it.

Mild. There has been a mostly polite discussion of the so-called zero marginal product workers, that is, people who are of no use (and, actually, often bring negative utility) to an employer.

That's not what I said. I said, consider what the reaction would be if someone made the above statement (in those words).

Also, most of the discussion of zero marginal product workers is along the lines of, "it is the fault of government regulation that these workers are zmp, hence said regulations should be repealed".

Comment author: Lumifer 11 September 2015 03:05:01AM 2 points [-]

consider what the reaction would be if someone made the above statement (in those words).

<shrug> Depending on the audience, of course. Among smart people, mild. Could it create a Twitter shitstorm? Probably could. So what?

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 11 September 2015 08:08:30AM *  -1 points [-]

(in those words)

Yeah, even statements with uncontroversial factual accuracy can be offensive when worded in a sufficiently disingenuous way. That's a quite general phenomenon, with hardly anything specific to your example. So what's your point?

Comment author: Jiro 11 September 2015 03:57:29PM *  2 points [-]

But it isn't worded in a "sufficiently disingenuous way", it's worded in a way similar to Lumifer's sex statement. If it isn't acceptable because of the offensive wording, why is the sex statement acceptable?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit