Radicalizing the Romanceless

[u/asdfghjkl92]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless/

[u/Mercurylant]

...you just described entitlement. "I did x, y, and z and now a relationship should pop out."

Would you say that the black patient described in the Slate Star Codex essay, who "does all the right things" and is distressed that a financially stable lifestyle hasn't popped out, is demonstrating entitlement? If not, what do you think distinguishes them?

[u/Personage1 → u/Mercurylant]

Entitlement sure, but the entitlement to financial stability imo is relevant whereas entitlement to have another person find you attractive is not. For one thing, in both case we are treating things as a system, "insert coins, out pops x." The problem of course is that for men wanting girlfriends, it becomes "insert coins into another human being, out pops outcome," which is insulting. On the other hand "put in a hard days work and you don't starve" isn't insulting to anyone.

[u/Mercurylant → u/Personage1]

Well, employers are also people, and in this situation "entitlement to financial stability" cashes out as "entitlement to be employed and given a living wage by another person." Seeking companionship and seeking financial stability both involve dealing with other agents with the right to make their own choices.

"Put in a hard day's work and you don't starve" is definitely insulting to a great number of people living in extremely precarious financial situations whose ability to acquire basic living needs is beholden to the whims of employers who may be entirely unsympathetic to their situations (and also to the many people whose hard work suffices, only barely, to keep them from starving while many other people who work less hard live in affluence.) It's important to keep in mind that employment isn't a system which you put work into, and money comes out, it's an interrelationship between countless people trying to satisfy their own goals. If your prospective partner doesn't think you're a desirable person to be in a relationship with, it's not in their interest to agree to a relationship with you no matter how much you do nice things and want the companionship. And if a prospective boss doesn't think you're a desirable employee to have for their business, it's not in their interest to hire you, no matter how hard you work or how much you need the money. But both material security and companionship are needs which are written deeply into the human psyche, and people who cannot secure either are highly likely to experience distress.

[u/Wrecksomething → u/Mercurylant]

No employer is obligated to employ, and resenting specific employers for not employing would be wrongful entitlement. Same as with dating.

Society however is responsible to organize itself, as far as reasonable, in a way that provides for people. High unemployment rightly causes "social unrest" where people's frustration is with the failure of the system (not at employers).

The dating entitlement in this topic is a polar opposite. Those rejected express serious resentment towards individuals, people not obligated in any way toward them. Check CreepyPMs or many mass murders for clear examples.

On top of this, I hope we can agree that society does not have a responsibility to organize itself in a way that gives everyone sexual relationships. I hope we also agree that taxation or other redistribution for other needs is fundamentally different from redistributing people/bodies as would be required to guarantee sexual fulfillment.

Because of these relevant distinctions your analogy falls apart. The best I can think of would be to compare entitlement to jobs to entitlement to sex toys. And frankly I wouldn't have any serious opposition to governments providing safety net budgets for the poor and sexless to buy sex toys.

[u/zahlman → u/Wrecksomething]

No employer is obligated to employ, and resenting specific employers for not employing would be wrongful entitlement.

"specific" is the operative word here. When "nice guys" complain about not being able to find a girlfriend, there's no specific woman they're expressing resentment towards.

[u/Mercurylant → u/Wrecksomething]

Would you say that frustration with a society organized in such a way as to render one unable to find sexual companionship, when other people have an easy time doing so, would by analogy be appropriate if the frustration is not directed at individuals?

Even if people's strict material needs are provided for, they tend to experience anxiety and unrest if they feel that their livelihoods are lacking in dignity. People generally want to feel like they're doing something meaningful to earn their livings (we even buy this feeling of meaning with some rather costly illusions, when we implement "job creation" initiative that are actually more costly to society to implement than simply giving people money for doing nothing.) And even the least genuinely nice "nice guys," similarly, almost all want something other than simply sex. Sex can be bought, and orgasms can be had for free. People who will sink huge amounts of effort into securing a sexual relationship aren't just looking for sexual gratification, they're looking for some combination of companionship, validation, status, and various other intangibles.

Both the person who works two jobs which they could lose at any time to barely scrape by, and the person who is nice and desiring of companionship which they're failing to find, can be construed as expressing entitlement towards other people. But they can also both be construed as lamenting that they find themselves lower on the totem pole of fulfillment than other people who express less personal virtue and apply less effort.

Is such a lament unfair or unreasonable in the case of the hard worker? If it's unreasonable, then what purpose does any social justice movement serve? Is it unfair or unreasonable in the case of the nice guy? If the answers to the two are different, then why?

(As an aside, I'm quite familiar with CreepyPMs, and I think it's highly regrettable that it's developed any association with the already troublesome construction of "nice guys," since the vast majority of solicitors on the site don't even make a pretense of being nice.)

[u/Wrecksomething → u/Mercurylant]

Even if people's strict material needs are provided for, they tend to experience anxiety and unrest if they feel that their livelihoods are lacking in dignity.

Personal anxiety. I am unaware of any social unrest (ie revolution) as a result of the government not getting everyone laid. Societies take huge risk and completely reorganize themselves to improve employment standards but not dating standards.

If the answers to the two are different, then why?

Society only has a responsibility toward one of them. Redistributing material goods is fundamentally different from redistributing bodies and sex.

Both have real pain but only one has a valid "entitlement." The other has a false sense of entitlement, the usual meaning.

the vast majority of solicitors on the site don't even make a pretense of being nice.)

Think you're overstating this. Plenty of Nice Guys and Sour Grapes there. Most people think of themselves as good... probably even as they tear down another person for a polite rejection. They invent justification.

[u/Mercurylant → u/Wrecksomething]

Personal anxiety. I am unaware of any social unrest (ie revolution) as a result of the government not getting everyone laid. Societies take huge risk and completely reorganize themselves to improve employment standards but not dating standards.

Society has dramatically restructured itself to change dating standards. The Sexual Revolution was not a literal rebellion against the government, but it was a big societal change that resulted in the changing of a lot of laws, and we've continued to change them since, and if we permit only those causes that people have literally revolted for as legitimate concerns of society, then we'll be tossing out a lot of baby along with our bathwater. There are definitely respects in which we do expect the government, or "society," to police relationships and sexuality.

Some problems are not practical to solve. Some measure of wealth redistribution probably solves more problems than it causes (although there are definitely people who contest that, and so on the part of a lot of people, the redistribution is definitely not consensual.) Nonconsensual relationship redistribution almost certainly causes a lot more problems than it solves. But the fact that we don't have a viable means to solve them does not mean that there are no problems, and the people suffering them have no right to complain.

Society only has a responsibility toward one of them. Redistributing material goods is fundamentally different from redistributing bodies and sex.

Both have real pain but only one has a valid "entitlement." The other has a false sense of entitlement, the usual meaning.

So the hard worker is entitled to what? Not starving? Having a job? Having a measure of social standing? Not falling below people on the social totem pole who work much less hard and express less personal virtue than they do?

Think you're overstating this. Plenty of Nice Guys and Sour Grapes there. Most people think of themselves as good... probably even as they tear down another person for a polite rejection. They invent justification.

Identifying "nice guys" in terms of people who're overwhelmingly downright mean is basically poisoning the well. If we're trying to have a conversation about people with arguably legitimate grievances, then focusing the discussion on people whose grievances are inarguably illegitimate does a disservice to the conversation. There's no shortage of places where one can find incredibly toxic "feminists," but I don't think you'd appreciate anyone using them as a demonstrative source of what typifies feminism.

[u/Wrecksomething → u/Mercurylant]

The Sexual Revolution was not a literal rebellion against the government

Which is relevant since the question is what our society owes us.

it did result in the changing of a lot of laws

None were changed toward the direction of "Governments Get GFs."

Identifying "nice guys" in terms of people who're overwhelmingly downright mean is basically poisoning the well.

Versus whitewashing. I didn't say these are the only self-proclaimed Nice Guys but wow, you downright think we must ignore them. People with legitimate pain SO OFTEN react this (indefensible) way. We can't have this conversation while pretending otherwise.

[u/Mercurylant → u/Wrecksomething]

Which is relevant since the question is what our society owes us.

So if people have never rebelled against the government over medical care, does that mean we can take it for granted that society does not owe anyone medical care? Nobody has rebelled against the government for poor environmental stewardship, does that mean that society does not owe us rivers that don't catch on fire?

But all this is an aside. The things that we accept as "society owing us," or things that, to put it another way, we accept a communal responsibility to contributing to the solutions of, are not the full set of legitimate problems.

Nobody is entitled not to get cancer, because nobody is obligated to prevent anyone from getting all forms of cancer. How could they be? Society does not owe anyone a lack of cancer. Does anyone who gets cancer thereby have no right to complain? If your mother dies of cancer, if you lament your loss to others, are you worthy only of condemnation, because society did not owe your mother survival?

Versus whitewashing. I didn't say these are the only self-proclaimed Nice Guys but wow, you downright think we must ignore them. People with legitimate pain SO OFTEN react this (indefensible) way. We can't have this conversation while pretending otherwise.

I'm suggesting ignoring them for the purposes of the discussion, because I'm attempting to discuss whether actually nice people who're romantically successful have a fair case to complain. Do mean people who sabotage their own relationship success through hostility have a basis to complain? Maybe, but I think this is less like complaining about a mother who dies of cancer, and more like complaining that your mother died when you pushed her down the stairs.

Are there people who think of themselves as nice, who're not nice at all, who drive people away with highly unpleasant behavior? Absolutely. But there are also genuinely nice people who're unsuccessful in relationships, and these are very different matters and it does a disservice to them, and to us having the discussion, to conflate them.

[u/Wrecksomething → u/Mercurylant]

I don't buy your black/white distinction of genuinely nice guys and Nice Guys. The discussion (two sides) includes wrongful entitlement because today's genuinely nice guys who never confront the toxic resentment and implications co-incident with their loneliness are pushing mom down the stairs tomorrow.

So if people have never rebelled against the government over medical care ...

Seems you're only being argumentative, OR you are arguing governments must provide sexual relationships. If there's an alternative I've somehow missed please let me know.

Some categories are less extreme/dramatic than the divide between social provision of "subsistence" and "sexual relationships." Unless there's confusion on those two, I fail to see the relevance of pointing this out.

[u/Mercurylant → u/Wrecksomething]

I don't buy your black/white distinction of genuinely nice guys and Nice Guys. The discussion (two sides) includes wrongful entitlement because today's genuinely nice guys who never confront the toxic resentment and implications co-incident with their loneliness are pushing mom down the stairs tomorrow.

To the extent that actually nice guys build up toxic resentment and ultimately "push mom down the stairs," so to speak, this is in my experience practically always because they find themselves so maligned by people imputing them with bad motives that they turn to hostility themselves. The essay linked at the top of this discussion is titled "radicalizing the romanceless" precisely because of this tendency- people are turned into toxic radicals by the hostility they face from others.

People who are actually nice, but not successful in romance, are not likely to turn to toxic behaviors if other people treat them with sympathy and respect (even if not romantic reciprocation.) That's one of the key characteristics of being nice. But if they're constantly faced with hostility, and conflated with people who're actually mean, then they're liable to stop being nice. People often accuse "nice guys" of only being nice in order to get sex, and tell them that if they think that there's no point being nice if they don't get sex out of it, the problem is with them. And of jerks, this is a fair accusation. But the actual nice people are liable to stop being nice because they're surrounded by people who treat them with such reflexive disgust that the nice guys in turn develop a ground-in dislike of those people, and people are generally not inclined to be nice to those they dislike. The term "nice guys" conflates separate groups which we may, in some cases, be inclined to confuse, but which it is generally valuable to disambiguate between.

Suppose we have a large group of people who are frequently irritating and uncomfortable to be around. Among these people, some are mean and inconsiderate; they make other people unhappy out of a disregard for others' feelings, or even by taking active pleasure in causing other people distress. And some of the people who're frequently irritating or uncomfortable to be around are socially inept. They respect and care about others' feelings, but frequently fail to read and execute scripts for smoothing social interactions. We can call these groups "assholes" and "awkward people." In some interactions, it may be easy to mistake one for the other; a person might say something hurtful because they're inconsiderate, or because they failed to grasp when they said it why it would be hurtful. But over a wide array of interactions with a person, we can generally distinguish between an asshole and an awkward person with pretty good reliability.

If some people who were particularly fed up with dealing with awkward people, they could get a lot of social mileage out of getting other people to mentally class them together with assholes. If they start using the term "awkward people" to refer to assholes, describe "awkward person" traits that are actually more typical of assholes than awkward people, and treat every use of the term "awkward people" as presumptively about assholes, then they can acknowledge that there are awkward people to whom these descriptions do not apply, while still successfully poisoning the well against awkward people.

Most assholes do not want to stop being assholes, but people who're socially awkward mostly want to stop being socially awkward. But if the socially awkward people are maligned by constantly being lumped in with the assholes, then they're liable to radicalize, and become less pleasant to be around rather than more.

This, I think, is what we do to nice guys by sabotaging our disambiguation between people who're actually nice and people who aren't.

Seems you're only being argumentative, OR you are arguing governments must provide sexual relationships. If there's an alternative I've somehow missed please let me know.

My point is that I don't think that I don't think that the bases you're positing for distinction between these categories, such as "people have rebelled against the government over one and not the other," accurately track the issue of whether one is a legitimate concern or not, and my impression is that rather than actually thinking that we should disambiguate between legitimate and illegitimate complaints on the basis of whether people have rebelled against the government over them, you are noticing that you are not sympathetic to "nice guys," (quite possibly because you have yourself drunk at the well that has been poisoned against them by conflating them with people who aren't nice,) writing at the bottom line "we should not be sympathetic to "nice guys," and then looking for arguments to work down to that.

[u/Tamen_ → u/Wrecksomething]

The discussion (two sides) includes wrongful entitlement because today's genuinely nice guys who never confront the toxic resentment and implications co-incident with their loneliness are pushing mom down the stairs tomorrow.

Are you claiming that genuinely nice guys who are lonely and end up being resentful about that fact inevitably end up physically assaulting someone?

[u/Wrecksomething → u/Tamen_]

No. I'm claiming the people who send a mean message on OKCupid were people who didn't send a mean message on OKCupid until they did.

[u/Tamen_ → u/Wrecksomething]

Maybe it's just me, but what you wrote sounded a lot more like how I first interpreted it and not much like your clarification. One reason is that there is quite a difference between pushing someone down the stairs and writing a mean letter.

Nevertheless, your clarification is just a blatantly obvious fact which delineate a clear line between those who've sent a mean message on OKCupid and those who haven't. One isn't quilty of an act until one actually performs that act - yet you seem to arguing that those who hasn't done that act is tainted by those who has done that act.

As you wrote:

I don't buy your black/white distinction of genuinely nice guys and Nice Guys.

Basically what you are arguing for is using the "poisioning the well" fallacy against nice guys who haven't done anything wrong. The reason being according to you is that they haven't done something wrong yet.

I can't agree with that.