The article isn’t saying you can’t or shouldn’t be. Quite the opposite, I’d say.
Wong is a moron. Pretty much full stop. He barely writes anymore, but when it does, it’s always some kind of insane rant that doesn’t seem too connected to real life. For example…
5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women. We went crazy on this piece of work in two separate threads: here and here. Again, it’s written for the 20something douchebags that only exist in teen romcoms.
Then there’s 9 Major Stories Everyone Got Wrong This Year. Let’s see… Leno was scheming to get the Tonight Show back, the Tea Party was made up mostly of angry white racist men, The Social Network was unfair to Zuckerberg with its lies and half-truths, the video game community knew exactly what Kinect was capable of from the second it was announced, the ending of Inception is pretty damn clear (and Wong fucks up the Blade Runner debate too), Lebron James should be ashamed of himself for the way he left the Cavs, and the iPad launch was only a debacle to a small group of tech writers. The only ones Wong got right were the Kanye West one and some Anonymous/4chan bullshit that 90% of the public doesn’t even know about.
I’ll stop with The Day the Gaming Industry Died: Impressions from E3 2010 where he gets angry at the Kinect for existing for the first time.
I read the article and nearly applauded because even though it’s directed toward Cracked’s demographic, it illustrated truths which can be applied to anyone of any age. Some people need that kick in the ass, so to speak.
Interesting sidenote: A friend on another message board commented that he’s noticed that most of those lauding the article are people who have already “made it”, i.e., those who are already gainfully employed, who have found their non-monetary worth, the whole shebang. I’ve noticed that a lot of my friends who are in the same demographic pooh-poohed the article, so YMMV.
Well, what is a “nice guy” exactly? What exactly is it that is supposed to make you attractive to other people?
I think I’m the only woman who ever existed who, when searching for a husband, purposefully wanted someone as down-and-out as I was.
Moved back in with mom in mid-twenties, no job, no savings, no car, no degree, unpopular, social dysfunctions, and no motivation.
I found a man who more or less fit that. We got together, and over the years, our lives have improved. We faced the disapproval of everyone we knew. We’ve faced financial disasters. We never wanted kids, nor can we have them now. We’ll pass from the world and nobody will probably notice, and I’m fine with that.
We have no social life and contribute very little to society as a whole (we’re both pretty introverted–he’s less than me), but we’re pretty happy in our little world we’ve made. I don’t need to learn a new skill every year to make him happy, nor does he need to do that to me.
Maybe the article isn’t for us. But I know I’m worth everything to him and he’s worth everything to me. It CAN happen, if you don’t need much. 
I don’t buy what Wong wrote.
He does make a valid point that you have to contribute something to the world but he fails in the details.
Look at the first guy he makes up - the nice guy’s who’s honest, punctual, polite, good to his family, and has interesting hobbies. And Wong says none of this is worthwhile.
Now I agree that none of this is relevant in a medical emergency. I’d rather have Gregory House in a medcial emergency.
But most of us don’t spend our lives in medical emergencies. And outside of medical emergencies, Gregory House is the one who’s contributing nothing. House isn’t a good neighbour or a good friend or a good family member. He’s not somebody you’d want to have lunch with or spend time with in a social situation. He’s not even somebody you’d want around in a non-medical emergency. In fact, in any situation other than a medical emergency, House is the useless guy who’s contributing nothing.
So why not give credit that’s due to the nice guy’s who’s honest, punctual, polite, good to his family, and has interesting hobbies? He may not be able to perform surgery or solve mysteries or rebuild your transmission, but he has a lot of useful social skills and he clearly does contribute quite a bit in any social setting.
Being a nice guy is a useful skill and the people that have it deserve credit for having it.
I think the point is that the skills he had were of no use for the task he was trying to do. If you want to have a relationship with a particular woman, you need to have qualities that she desires. If you don’t then you need to find someone who desires the qualities you do ave or develop more desirable qualities.
From the Cracked article:
Okay, so I did that. I took a 100-hour massage class, got a certificate, shelled out for a real massage table, and learned a whole bunch of programming languages besides! So NOW the world owes me money, friends, love, and sex! Right? When do I begin getting all that I’m owed now?
Answer: You can do every damn thing that Wong and every other guru says you should do, and the world STILL doesn’t owe you anything. But hey, at least you’re a bona fide Nice Guy™ now! That’s gotta be good for something, right?
No, because being a nice guy is useless - you have to be useful, because… something.
What? No it’s not.
Today–Sunday, a day of rest, right–I got up with my toddler, made her breakfast, cleaned both bathrooms in expectation of family guests, started making a fancy dinner that’ll take about 8 hours to complete, made lunch for my daughter and watched her while my wife went out for a visit with her brother, and am getting ready to start making some Christmas cookies in a few minutes. Most days I don’t do that, though: I just work 9-10 hours to earn a living for our family, then pick my daughter up from daycare, make dinner for the family, sometimes clean up, give my daughter a bath, and do various and sundry household chores.
And my wife has at least an equal workload to mine, and most members of strong couples have (I suspect) an equal or greater workload. If I decided to stop doing all the hard daily work of keeping our family going, my wife would be crushed under the load of additional work. Why on earth would she stick with me then–because, despite my cruelty-through-laziness to her, she loves me?
Bah.
I love her, and she loves me, but not because of some ineffable essentialist soulmate nonsense. We love each other because of who we are, and who we are manifests in what we do.
It’s not permanent probation. It’s life. And life is hard work. Ain’t nothing wrong with that.
Nope. It was his ex-GF. Can’t remember the character’s name, Rachel or something.
The point is that he created a situation where one set of skills were important and then from that claimed that a different set of skills were unimportant. It’s a game that’s easy to reverse.
He could have started his article by describing a guy going out on a first date with a woman he was attracted to. And he could have had the guy telling the woman she should be interested in him because he has a medical degree and can perform surgery and makes a lot of money and buys a new car every year - all the things he does. And she wouldn’t be the least bit interested because she can see this guy has no social skills or abilities.
I’m not sure he’s saying none of that is worthwhile - more like, all of that is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for social and romantic success.
Yep, that’s right. If you want to meet someone who is to be your partner for life, it doesn’t matter what you can do if those things aren’t things that have any value to her. The context is important.
I thought I’d bump this because David Wong is at it again:
5 Popular Beliefs That Are Holding Humanity Back
His whole thesis begins with the argument that 60% of Americans believe a biblical armageddon where angels kill everyone (basically, the plot of Legion) will happen within their lifetimes. To prove this, he cites a site that cites a CNN report that doesn’t exist. STRIKE 1
Then he talks about how atheist and agnostic folks are priming themselves for the apocalypse by watching a lot of movies where the world ends. Wong acts this is a new phenomenon and doesn’t even mention that Cracked favorites like Blade Runner and RoboCop have been playing up the dystopian future for decades. Wait… he mentions RoboCop by name and still acts like this is something new. STRIKE 2
Then he points out that people care more about “the economy, health care, and the situation in the Middle East” over “the environment, natural resources, and education” in the voting booth and that that’s some kind of signal that even more people think the world is going to end soon. Um, huh? This would be STRIKE 3, but any batter who believes this probably stepped in front of the pitch on purpose by this point.
And that’s just from the first entry.
I personally find that telling people “harsh truths” is usually just an excuse to be an asshole. There’s almost always a way of telling people things in ways that are not harsh, and being harsh only engenders a desire to be defensive. (Case in point–see the rest of my post. Had he presented these things nicely or as something up for discussion, I wouldn’t actually have to disagree so much.)
And, no, the OP’s article doesn’t have much value besides. The world does care about more than what they (not it) can get from you. There are a lot of people who don’t produce anything and people go crazy about wanting to save them. The only people who believe that are fucking Objectivists. What the crap is going on when Dopers are agreeing with Ayn fucking Rand’s basic philosophy?
And, no, the hippies weren’t wrong. They had some ideas that were correct and were implemented, and some that weren’t. The hippie movement, for example, pushed an “equality for all” platform that we’ve largely adopted. They completely changed how sex is viewed, and even drugs are not so evil because of them. The example about Chick-fil-A is ridiculous: people didn’t keep eating there despite thinking the guy was wrong. A large number of people stopped eating there, but a large number agreed with him and continued eating there. Only a small minority of people kept on despite thinking he was wrong.
Again, the idea that you have to produce is still Objectivist bullshit. You have to contribute to society, yes, but you can do so without production of any kind. Heck, I’m contributing to society right now by pointing out that Wong is citing debunked Randian truths. If that’s production, then everyone everywhere produces, and his whole argument makes no sense. Even the guy playing video games all day contributes to society by buying those video games/consoles/hardware/etc. He contributes to society when he calls up his friend.
The idea that most non-productive people hate themselves is like that bullshit that says that introverted people are selfish–the idea is just to lie to people by saying they are what they hate so they will be motivated. The people he is attempting to describe (and is pretending like are the only unhappy people who can read his article) actually love themselves so much that the idea of helping others is beyond them, and that’s why they need a wakeup call. People who hate themselves for not doing anything–get this–DO SOMETHING. The only possible exception are people who are depressed and can’t function. But, for anyone else, feeling bad makes you do something to not feel bad. Duh.
Who I am inside matters because all human beings matter. Again, who of you would kill someone because they aren’t producing? Who thinks that someone with a disability doesn’t matter because they can’t interact with the world? No one thinks that way except psychopaths. Normal human beings have an innate level of care about other human beings. Those that don’t are dangerous–ironically, because of what they will do about that belief.
Everything inside you will fight improvement–no, everything inside of broken David Wong fought improvement. Most people have some fight against change, as that’s natural, but most people do want to change and will do what they think they can to improve themselves. And some people don’t fight change at all, and thus are always unhappy because they can’t ever find contentment in their current environment.
By all means, if you are unhappy with how much you produce, go out and fix it. But the idea that all unhappiness is caused by that, and that production is the sole means to find happiness, is asinine. It floors me that so many supposedly liberal people think this guy’s conservative crap is true in any significant sense.
You want real harsh truths? Try something like “You don’t always get what you want.” or “A significant portion of the world doesn’t care about you at all, period, and you need to come to terms with that instead of doing things to try and make them care about you.” Or, one I learned the hard way, “Even though the collective power of people is extremely strong, most people are content to let a weaker power control them, and will not join with you to fight something even if they agree it is wrong.” Or “There are a lot more people out there than you think who really are assholes and are not doing what they think is right.” Those are truths. Not this bullshit.
The least you can do with “harsh truths” is to actually give out truths, not debatable points that you don’t even 100% agree with, but have just used hyperbole to make them seem harsher than they need to be.
All I can tell you, then, is to RTFA. Because that’s not what he says at all. He says that the only thing people care about is what you produce. And, note, he’s calling these harsh truths.
What it really is is an over-exaggeration made overly harsh to make a point. And, honestly, like most of Wong’s articles, designed to be aggressively controversial, so people will link his bullshit and invite people to go read it.
Is there some truth in it? Sure. Is it “The Truth”? Hardly. And, like I said in my debunking/rant above, the only people who think this is “The Truth” believe in some Objectivist version of reality.
I read the article, and evidently miore carefully than you did, gicen that for some reason you are disagreeing with my assessment that his position is that being nice is necesary, but not sufficient.
His point isn’t that if you are an asshole or a saint it doesn’t matter - it is that if you are a genuinely nice person it isn’t enough on its own to get you what you want - such as romantic success.
The reason: because you are competing with other people who are nice and who also also have other things going for them - such as being attractive, witty, or well-heeled.
Being nice is necessary, but not sufficient.
One doesn’t have to agree with his argument, to see that you are straw-manning his argument. I get that you think you are doing that deliberately as a way of critiquing him by imitation of his hyperbole - but it isn’t a very effective way, because you don’t actually “get” what he’s claiming.
Although not available on line now, there are many others that report that the TIME/CNN poll was made in 2002
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/06/70308
Indeed 59% said that they expect the end to follow as the book of revelation said.
I read the latest article and the Robocop reference is directed not only to atheists and agnostics, but to **also **to the good chunk of religious people that follow ends of time thinking. The point was that it is not only some atheists and agnostics that swallow end of times ideas, but that a good number of religious people see the end of times as real.
Regardless of who is following the end of times, with the purpose of fulfilling it like very religious people do or with a “maybe” “possible” view like a few atheists and agnostics do, the author reports that bible or secular sources of the apocalypse are bullshit. And this is not new.
2002? That may as well be accent in poll-ese. In searching for the original poll, I stumbled across multiple polls that put the percentage as low as 20% to as high as 40%. The numbers still aren’t good (and a few didn’t use the “in your lifetime” qualifier, so higher numbers are slightly understandable), but I think the 59% number was an outlier.