Show transcript
Screenshot of a Tumblr post by nongunktional:
when i first heard about the male loneliness epidemic i was like oh yeah close camaraderie and bonding between men is often discouraged in favor of competition or, if not discouraged, at least filtered through a lens of individualism that precludes deep connections. and then i learned what people meant by it (men arent getting laid) to which i say skill issue
to all the men out there not getting laid: try less hard to get laid and try more hard to be an enjoyable and relaxing presence
The good thing about being unable to get a partner due to lack of social skill is that it doesn’t cost anything other than time to improve your skills. The other good thing is that if you don’t have time to improve your skills, you don’t need a partner to live.
You need housing to live, so it isn’t a good comparison.
It costs money. I dunno if you’ve noticed, but things are getting more expensive, and salaries aren’t really increasing at the same pace. People have less spare money to spend.
So where will you go to meet new people and socialise with?
The bar where a single drink costs 3 evenings worth of dinner?
The cafe where a tea and a sandwich costs more than a supermarket shopping trip?
The social event with an entry fee that makes you wonder if you can skip rent for a month?
“Just fix your problem bro”
I never said that.
The comparison isn’t apt for the need. It’s apt for the insanely vapid suggested solution. Though it sounds like you hardly understand how vapid it is…
What? What is vapid about using time to improve skills?
The part where that is not at all what so ever in the top five primary driving factors of the problem.
Can you clarify what the problem is? I am unsure because this thread was initially about how homelessness is the same thing as being single.
Is the problem that people lack social skills so it is hard for them to get a partner? If that is the case, why isn’t social skills in the top five? What are the top five?
I love this platform dude nowhere else will you find commenters so fundamentally incapable of understanding analogies
I understand good analogies. This one was a bad.
How would you know? You thought they were saying homelessness is the same thing as being single lol
Wait, I think I see what you are getting at. Ok, so when I said:
This triggered you because you because it wasn’t 100% accurate. It should have been something more like this.
Ok, yeah, my wording wasn’t 100% clear there. Sorry for the mistake on my part.
Either way it still is a bad analogy.
Does this not imply that they were equating being homeless to being single? If it doesn’t what were they saying?
Edit: Seems like this wasn’t their issue, see my other reply.
You don’t need housing to live. You need food, safe place to sleep and clear mind. The thing you’re talking about is comfort of living. Comfort of living is not something you always can change on your own. It’s the same, just stop blind thinking about money and use empathy.
To me housing means a safe place to sleep.