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.

Viliam comments on Open thread, Sep. 14 - Sep. 20, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 14 September 2015 07:10AM

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

Comments (192)

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

Comment author: Viliam 17 September 2015 08:43:32AM 8 points [-]

Men without families have always been considered expendable. The whole concept of army is built around that. I'm not saying it's right; I'm just saying it's old as history.

The new thing is that "having sex" has been completely divorced from "having a family", so now some stigma (less) is associated with not having a family, and some stigma (more) is associated with not having sex. It makes sense this way, because being unable to attract someone implies being unable to start a family. Again, I'm describing here, not making a moral judgement; I don't have a problem with people not reproducing.

It sucks to have low status. But it is stupid to needlessly tell strangers "hey, I have low status".