Comment by moralestapia | Hacker News Reader

Comment by moralestapia | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>There is no pressure from society today, on the contrary.

What!?

The examples you give implies people are ok with being bums on the street (and if you think that life is "easy", boy, you're massively detached from reality).

Have you heard that a record number of people still live with their parents after 30?

Have your heard that a record number of people do not own their home these days? It has never been worse.

Have you heard that entire professions are being rendered obsolete due to AI and other economic factors?

Are you aware that almost nobody who is middle-aged (the demographic of TFA) will retire with enough money to make a living off it?

Explain to me how is that a chill, no-pressure life? I do not see it.

You might try to "akshually" your way into "but I'm talking about social pressure", but all of those things are social in nature.

>So norms and rules are far less pronounced than in any other time in human history, far less so.

Ever heard of "misgendering"?

A guy re-posted a meme (not of his authorship) and went to jail, lost his job, etc[1].

Two parents were arrested in front of their kid for complaining about their school, another guy spoke bad about his past employer (but not threatening behavior) and got arrested and his property seized, etc... [2]

Yeah sure man, quite relaxed times, like never before.

1: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg7pyjxjxrvo

2: https://freespeechunion.org/news/fsu-dealt-with-211-cases-wh...

I think you need to separate these issues. Economic pressure is a separate concern that doesn't stem from a more arbitrary source. A society can and should shield you from it, but doing so will always create societal expectations on someone else.

If you cannot provide for yourself, someone else has to do so. That someone else technically might be subjected to societal expectations to not leave you behind because he has the means to do so. Mothers still have large expectation on them on how they have to treat their children. If those run around freely, you will get a lot pressure in the US. Quite a silly country. But I believe this is an exception to the general development.

I separate purely economic pressure from the moral and ethical requirements you have today and these are clearly declining in my opinion. These were always subjected to change, but usually expectations get exchanged for new ones and old ones are done away with.

Weird gender science, middle eastern war or domestic politics experts are loud and they do indeed put forward expectations. But their ambitions aren't generally awarded by society, on the contrary. Sometimes for very good reason, sometimes not. But generally there are far less expectations for behaviour, expression, opinions. Also sometimes for good reason and sometimes not.

I think most societies lost expectations and care less about their environment (no in the ecological sense, but that too...).

> The examples you give implies people are ok with being bums on the street (and if you think that life is "easy", boy, you're massively detached from reality).

Which part of the comment implies this?

those things are evidence of that societal pressure relaxing...they simply weren't an option before.

He means for normal people, sure if you go around assaulting people like you could in the unenlightened times you get more pressure. What you both mean by "pressure" is oversocialization you are just looking at 2 sides of the same coin. Well his point is more about people feeling uncared for, I doubt that drives people to suicide. One explaination is that is could this mental l strain could increase the liklihood for mental illness, but that's flat for men in the articles age bracket. You posit that people kill themselves because they have a tough life, again that isn't born out in the data. Indeed collecting data for this is akin to hitting a dartboard while drunk and skydiving and the board is 2 miles away.

The point of society you can increase "true freedom" by restricting people's ability to act arbitrarily, so called "naive freedom". If people can't accept that then they can go live in the woods (not anymore), the ocean, the moon? mars? or end it.

From time immemorial the winners shaped society what do you think happened to the losers? Just because we leave them alive now doesn't mean they can live in the new world.

Also "highest ever" among some specific arbitrary demographic isn't very meaningful enough to draw out anything beyond free association.

> "highest ever" among some specific arbitrary demographic isn't very meaningful

It's meaningful if you do actually happen to be of that demographic. It's no longer arbitrary then, sure, but I do care quite a lot if something bad is affecting men because I'm one of those.

Not only that, but many of the people I care most about in the world are men too ! probably a bit over half!

Also, how specific is "middle aged men"? thats a huge portion of society - I'd have understood your point if this was about like, people employed as painters in texas. But this has such a huge N, alongside a relatively unambiguous test (I trust reporting of these statistics more or less)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com