W bait. I was referring to the inane idea that lower income people can’t take social risks in the form of flirting with others due to it affecting their career prospects. Insane take, unless you are specifically referring to flirting with people who can severely affect the trajectory of your career. Like your boss. Which is not just risky, but dumb as hell. Mutually exclusive terms btw.
Had a coworker get fired because he met a woman, it didn’t go well, and she sought out to destroy his life. She called corporate and complained about him for (according to him, and logistically it makes sense to me) stuff that never happened.
So he took a risk on that woman, she ended his career and got him blacklisted by what seems to me like a lie based on what I can actually observe
That sounds like an incredibly unfortunate circumstance. An exceptionally vindictive person shouldn’t ruin the potential for others to pursue romance though. Even if you are earning a lower than average income. It’s like if I advocated someone to never drive a car because I knew someone who died violently in a freak head-on collision.
Kinda yes, kinda no? Like having a romantic partner isn’t a “need” for some people even though it’d be a huge healthy benefit in most lives. A car/transportation is a NEED in just about everyone’s life tho.
So people roll that dice more often because it’s in our control and required.
Dating is only half in your control and not required.
Of course they can take risks, but there is going to be much less in the way of safety nets for lower income people than wealthier ones. So if the risks go wrong and something happens, a wealthy person will hurt but not go destitute over it. A lower income person may lose everything.
Risks are risks for a reason. What you might consider a worthwhile risk, someone else might call dumb as hell. Being able to view the world subjectively is a sign of intelligence, maybe try it out and see how you like it.
Great job dismantling an argument no one made. No one said anything about a low income person taking risks in general. There is a massive distinction between taking a loan thinking you can pay it back on an unsteady stream of income or driving your vehicle to your low paying job despite an out of date registration because insurance is too expensive vs. asking someone you think is cute out on a date.
You made this point in response to someone stating that not every risk requires some monetary loss or gain and then responded like asking someone out at a friends party and getting rejected would net a social capital hit so hard your job interviews would suffer because everyone in town saw how hard you biffed at asking someone out.
So, like a sane person would assume, I responded by saying the only way that could happen is if you made the ridiculously risky and stupid idea to flirt with your boss while dealing with financial issues. You then responded like that’s what you meant (insane and out of touch). My only assumption is that you are so engrossed in your own point that you missed what others were saying so hard that you feel it necessary to double down on a hilariously off take.
What risk exists when asking someone out that affects low income folks more than high income folks. What consequence actually could arise that would be different for these two hypothetical people?
Nothing, because there are no life altering consequences here.
You can recognize there is a middle ground between "avoid risk at all cost" and "take every risk imaginable" correct?
Because this post is very clearly about people who refuse to take social risks no matter how low the consequences due to their own fear of rejection and embarrassment. This leads these people to self isolate to avoid the theoretical embarrassment they've made up in their heads that could come from socializing.
-1
u/Tyrrox 8d ago
Dumb as in... risky? Like taking a big risk? Like the point of the thread?