6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You A Better Person

[The Βoston Crab]

Nice Guy Syndrome is a less serious syndrome than whatever it is Mr. Wong suffers from. Given more than once he implies people can improve their chances by reading books about techniques and implies there is a set type all women will go for. Bear in mind for half the page his harsh life truths are entirely male-centric. Maybe this is through blind ignorance of his own chauvanism or he knows full well if he addressed women in that way people would find him to be a misogynistic psychopath.

He can only maintain his angry hectoring tone by targeting those who are already a hugely maligned group. Nice Guy Syndrome isnt exactly the ball-busting intellectual epiphany it was several years ago. As I keep suggesting, how would you allfeel reading an article targeting feckless, indecusive self-pitying women, of which there are just as many, also confused and lost when it comes to forming lasting male relationships? There'd be a flipping uproar.

I think it's unreasonable to criticise the article for targeting a specific readership. I don't feel that Cosmopolitan is invalid because it excludes my views or lifestyle - I criticise it for its perpetuation of implausibly extreme social and gender pressures. I think that's a more legit angle to come at this guy/article, in fact.


It's clearly directed at a certain 'type' which this guy has identified and which both you and I evidently recognise to some extent. It's not chauvinism to speak to men about men's issues, to the complete exclusion of women - indeed, I think it's very healthy to do so. Likewise, I would have no problem with an article written by a woman, for women, highlighting similar 'harsh truths'. I would rather take issue with the point where 'truth' becomes truism.

This article does not merely focus on the pursuit of women/romantic relationships and I think that your own focus on this aspect of the article is imbalanced, perhaps because you have a strong opinion about relationships and men's behaviour towards women. In any case, this is not an argument against what he's suggesting. It looks more like a personal bugbear which you're highlighting to dismiss the article as a whole.

I also fail to see the power of the defence that it's not making any points you've not heard before. This is an argument you've used on several occasions to which I will repeat my counter. There is an enormous difference between a 'rational' comprehension of a concept and an empirical 'understanding' of lived experience.

To refer back to a previous discussion on here, to break down the experience of eating barbecued chicken's feet in a village in Sichuan province into notions of perceived flavour and nutrition, socio-geographical knowledge of the region and its people, plus measurements of local climate and a whole host of other measurable variables is an incredibly shallow understanding of eating barbecued chicken's feet in a village in Sichuan province. An emotionally and intellectually-engaged understanding can only come from first hand experience. My point is: criticising a point of view for its lack of novelty may simply mean you once again miss what you've previously failed to understand.

[Deader Kata Mosser]

To refer back to a previous discussion on here, to break down the experience of eating barbecued chicken's feet in a village in Sichuan province into notions of perceived flavour and nutrition, socio-geographical knowledge of the region and its people, plus measurements of local climate and a whole host of other measurable variables is an incredibly shallow understanding of eating barbecued chicken's feet in a village in Sichuan province.

Of course. You'd have to mention how totes amazeballs deep and stuff the whole thing was too.

[Buelligan]

Would anyone really want to be with a partner who chose them, not because they love the "inner you", but because of your "fruit", the fact that you wore a hat, had a job, brought home the bacon?  Bollocks to that.

[Default to the negative]

The hungry, sloppy-bottomed, sluttish worship of Alec Baldwin somewhat takes the sting out of the article.

[Deader Kata Mosser]

Would anyone really want to be with a partner who chose them, not because they love the "inner you", but because of your "fruit", the fact that you wore a hat, had a job, brought home the bacon?  Bollocks to that.

Some people would rather take that route than having nobody, but if its Mr Wong's advice that the path to a quality partner is by having a well-paid job, he is talking out of his arse. It can be a factor. It can also attract the exact type that will leave you two weeks after you have lost that job. Don't know if he mentions that in his article.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The Boston Crab- I think I've criticised it on two fronts, as we've already both discussed the other issue regarding the merits of the sagacious self-made man generously offering people to model themselves on his own life.

The relationship issue is more interesting because I feel lifestyle potentially isn't a factor in being in a successful relationship, and the two arent connected. I also dislike the article being gender neutral and then assumptively heavily male-centric.

As for a point of views novelty factor, I'm the first one to criticise people's sarcastic apathetic reactions to events like 'Tory MP being  cunt shocker' as it is intellectual cowardice and disengagement. I'm clearly giving it  chance because I read it and have put  lot of thought into my responses.

[Ginyard]

Its an article that strips away the layers to reveal a tiny but effective penis.

[Buelligan]

Its an article that strips away the layers to reveal a tiny, self-regarding, penis.

Fixed for you.

[Deader Kata Mosser]

if its Mr Wong's advice that the path to a quality partner is by having a well-paid job, he is talking out of his arse. It can be a factor. It can also attract the exact type that will leave you two weeks after you have lost that job. Don't know if he mentions that in his article.

Ah, I read enough of the article to see that he doesn't exactly say that. He says being creative, being able to play the guitar or anything you have to offer (including maybe a promising career) is going to be more important than what some might consider their rare but in fact quite common attributes of being 'nice' or 'a good listener' or 'not a racist.' So, while I think this 'harsh truth' is kind of not news or an original thought, I suppose it still bears repeating.

[The Βoston Crab]

Of course. You'd have to mention how totes amazeballs deep and stuff the whole thing was too.

You're attacking the author instead of the point. That doesn't discredit the point in the slightest.

I should also point out - both for fairness, transparency and to invalidate your skewed narrative - that life in China was the least spiritually-awakening experience anyone could ever have. I only became interested in the philosophy of religion well after I'd come back home.

China certainly did change my outlook, though, in that I found the pervasive laziness of people at home absolutely appalling after five years living and working alongside people whose families devoted their whole lives to sending them through high school and possibly university, just to see if the mad gamble would pay off and they'd make something of their potential. It makes a mockery of free education for First World people who do little with their enormous advantages beyond complain about their lot.

[Nobody Soup]

you're not being aspirational enough, stupid!

[The Βoston Crab]

As for a point of views novelty factor, I'm the first one to criticise people's sarcastic apathetic reactions to events like 'Tory MP being  mimsy woowoo shocker' as it is intellectual cowardice and disengagement. I'm clearly giving it  chance because I read it and have put  lot of thought into my responses.

Fair point. I agree with this but it's something you've said previously when I've felt you've dismissed ideas with which you've not shown any engagement. No point discussing that tangent, though.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

If someone is familiar enough with a particular argument, and the main differentiation between that and the previous times it's been read is that the author of the argument comes across as a priapic bellend, it's more or less...expected/acceptable to point that out. It doesn't affect the quality of the argument, no. But if you place value on the quality of someone's social interaction (I do), then it becomes a valid talking point.

Don't you think his list of unacceptable responses at the end, dictating to people what classes as a reasonable response to what he's written, is outstandingly arrogant to the point where yes, what sticks out is what a dickhead this person is being!

[The Βoston Crab]

you're not being aspirational enough, stupid!

A concise and convenient dismissal of the article.

Shoulders, I agree with those criticisms of the article and of the writer. Putting words into the reader's mouth devalues his argument. It's something which happens a lot on here. SNG has done it a couple of times in this thread, as has the fella a couple of posts up, Nobody Soup? I'm on the mobile skin.

I actually think the article is weak and unpersuasive, on those terms, but I think the basic points have some value. Perhaps if they were more accessibly-presented, it wouldn't wind people up as much.

[23 Daves]

Would anyone really want to be with a partner who chose them, not because they love the "inner you", but because of your "fruit", the fact that you wore a hat, had a job, brought home the bacon?  Bollocks to that.

People keep harking back to this point, but he rejects that idea several times, and is quite specific here:

"What, so you're saying that I can't get girls like that unless I have a nice job and make lots of money?"
No, your brain jumps to that conclusion so you have an excuse to write off everyone who rejects you by thinking that they're just being shallow and selfish. I'm asking what do you offer? Are you smart? Funny? Interesting? Talented? Ambitious? Creative? OK, now what do you do to demonstrate those attributes to the world? Don't say that you're a nice guy -- that's the bare minimum.

As I've already said, I don't necessarily feel that engaging with lots of interests and being an active busy bee does necessarily attract the opposite sex like a magic spell.  I do know that it never worked for me, although at least when I was at my most active I wasn't as distracted by how little sex I was getting, and I probably seemed less desperate - so there's one advantage.  Some people are always going to find it naturally easier to attract the opposite sex.

But I digress slightly.  Whether I agree with his advice or not, I don't think he's necessarily talking about money in the above, you can be creative and also completely fucking skint.  It's about being more than the 'bare minimum', which is a presentable, run-of-the-mill, agreeable human being.  You can't make a virtue out of society's default option.  That's a very blunt thing to say, but I can't find any fault with the logic. 

[Retinend]

from the article:

Let's try a non-money example so you don't get hung up on that. The demographic that Cracked writes for is heavy on 20-something males. So on our message boards and in my many inboxes I read several dozen stories a year from miserable, lonely guys who insist that women won't come near them despite the fact that they are just the nicest guys in the world. I can explain what is wrong with this mindset, but it would probably be better if I let Alec Baldwin explain it...

He declares that he will address this section of his audience, but only for a particular part of it. The rest of the article can be read as general advice.

[Deader Kata Mosser]

You're attacking the author instead of the point. That doesn't discredit the point in the slightest.

Maybe. Maybe I was responding to the suggestion that anyone, apart from maybe Data off Star Trek, would need teaching that being ridiculously reductive about an experience that might be beautiful might mean you miss out. I wasn't really out to attack you, as it came off though. Just joking.

[Retinend]

edit:nm

[biggytitbo]

Never mind all this self improvement bollocks, take these two for a walk in the park and you'll be beating the girls off with a stick

[Consignia]

... beating the girls off with a stick

You've been reading too much 50 Shades of Grey.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

He declares that he will address this section of his audience, but only for a particular part of it. The rest of the article can be read as general advice.

He was already assumptively addressing that audience for the full length of the article, as he points out himself:

The demographic that Cracked writes for is heavy on 20-something males

(Never mind that the internet itself is err, pretty heavy on 20-something males.) As you say, it can be read as general advice, apart from the bit that can't.

[Danger Man]

China certainly did change my outlook, though, in that I found the pervasive laziness of people at home absolutely appalling after five years living and working alongside people whose families devoted their whole lives to sending them through high school and possibly university.

Good luck getting any British person to understand how lazy and bloated with entitlement their country is.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

You seem to, you're British aren't you?

[Danger Man]

You seem to, you're British aren't you?

Hmmm....I suppose I am, but being mixed-race and having spent so much of my adult life overseas I probably don't feel as British as most people.

I prefer the term international playboy.......

[Buelligan]

People keep harking back to this point, but he rejects that idea several times, and is quite specific here...

I did read the article in the end.  And I did think that he did say that people[nb]women?[/nb] aren't interested in the "inner you", it's just your "fruit" that counts.  I was (rather obscurely) quoting DEVO, trying to point out that hiding, ignoring or disguising, the "inner you[nb]with a tasteful display of plastic "fruit"[/nb]", is, in my opinion, an unhappy and usually, unsuccessful, path to set one's feet upon.

[TrenterPercenter]

Firstly what is going with this site? Google malware warnings and unable to load pages galore....

Secondly, i thought Alec Baldwin made it abundantly clear that the article is a load of shit.

I mean it doesn't even make sense, but anyway, i rammed pack with MSG and procrastinating from getting started on preparing xmas dinner tomorrow so meh why not;

6 Harsh Truths about The 6 Harsh Truths

#6. The World Only Cares About What It Can Get from You

No, the world doesn't care about anything because as far as we know it is not sentient, if in some way it was sentient it would probably give a more of a fuck about humans not destroying it.  Also the patient doesn't exist either it is just a shit metaphor that makes no sense.  Equally we could say how about a soldier that is in a trench being paid for the big push, if he goes over the top he will be shredded by machine gun fire if he stays the "world" will not get what it can from you.

It's meaningless - the man with pocket knife could say "i'm not a doctor, but I am a cunt, a go getter, a risk taker, i once fired my own brother etc....." His skills are in question not his character.

So in conclusion.  Bollocks the "world" is varied and un-uniform with some people valuing something's over others - there not so impressive now is it....

#5. The Hippies Were Wrong

Oh yes, because Alec Baldwin playing a character in a movie says so........at this point we have to ask ourselves who has been smoking here?  Were the hippies right? Who knows and in what context.  A hippies value system is different from a generalised right-wing perspective, just think if a hippy was actually happier than a banker then, then they wouldn't be wrong.  Who cares about happiness when you can have money i hear you sneer.....the answer is hippies.

Oh and also your "job" depends on society/culture not any innate "usefulness", that cheap tat made in china not "useful", that CEO commanding a large salary not "useful", to society at least.  Money has not intrinsic value to work and there is  no evidence that jobs are anything other than constructs.  That is not to say work isn't good it is but success measured in money and job titles does not make you a "good"(your good i.e. respected at large) person.

#4. What You Produce Does Not Have to Make Money, But It Does Have to Benefit People

Alec Baldwin playing a character says your a douchebag and stop basing your life philosophy on a 1992 movie you fucking loser.  This harsh point basically reads "I don't like nice guys, nice guys suck at getting chicks"  it doesn't even explain why what you produce just has to benefit people but i'll skip that for the bigger point. 

The partners we look to attract in life maybe into different things but having a nice personality is actually something that women and men like, that is not the same however as being apathetic, you can be passionate about good things in life and be a nice person and garner self-confidence from that making you desirable.  All this stuff anyway works on a idealised version of a woman who seems to be suggested that because she is pretty means that she will get/needs a good successful man, she doesn't.  Women are invariably idiots and so are men, and they attract and mingle in concordance with there tastes.

#3. You Hate Yourself Because You Don't Do Anything

Actually some good points here.  It's the journey not the finish line.  Well it's the staple of every positive psychology book for the last 30 years "where you been brotha!?".  The problem is of course, that it pisses all over your other points.  Life is hard not every attempt succeeds, and this isn't just confined to "dweebs trying to pick up chicks" it happens to all of us, and through this we empthaise and respect others for it.  So we respect Para-Olympians for percervering in adversity, we support our friends through tough times even when it is detrimental and "unproductive" to ourselves, and by extension we respect people that try and do GOOD THINGS FOR THE SAKE OF DOING GOOD THINGS! There it is nob-chops, actually ensuring a hierarchy does not become top heavy and destroy itself is useful by your terms and in the terms of so called "nice guys".

Of course people become disenfranchised to taking part because cunts like you make it harder for them, there is also very plausible arguments for enforcing this apathy in capitalist societies to control wages.  If you really want an economy where everyone "does" something then go for Marxism, problem is though that in those systems "usefulness" is planned so you would be digging fucking trenches rather than writing pop-psychology articles for a living (you'd still be getting paid the same as Alec Baldwin though).  How to get people into fulfilling work and improving their confidence is much harder than saying "Get confident stupid".

#2. What You Are Inside Only Matters Because of What It Makes You Do

Straight back to the bullshit I see.  So your a writer, you know about writing right? Because you do it right? You pour over it right? You care, it's in your "dirt" (eugh)?  Well what the fuck do you know about people? Degree in psychology no? sociology? studied any group of people in any scientific objective way ever?  No you just write your opinions based on shit that you think is relevant.  People are incredibly complicated things, its more complicated than rocket science, the equations more convoluted and permutated than theoretical physics. 

In short, we don't know "what" people are inside but we do know that they are very hard to predict in their behaviour, even cunts like yourself change "inside" and realise that they have devoted their life to some cock-swinging scene in a movie that even the actor (being a fucking animal rights activist) thinks is a pile contrived shit aimed at getting goons like yourself to pay up and live with the unicorns for as long as reality can be kept at bay.

It does matter what you are like "inside" because you have body that has to keep going, that means being strong in ways that are not on your radar.  People that we call type-A personality are more likely to get heart attacks that the chilled hippy-type-B wasters - there is dispute but less disputed than any bollocks you've written so far.  People that are uncomfortable inside themselves (through a variety of things but a large one being high expectations of themselves) are the people that mainly end up on the couch, fucked and messed up on years of unsatisfying adrenaline buzzes. 

But hey why do i care, your paying my wages so please continue.  Nice to be useful and all.

#1. Everything Inside You Will Fight Improvement


Hey Alec Baldwin called he said he wants his cut you fucking plagerising cock-boil, when are you actually going to do some proper fucking work and stop being one of those consumerist-hippy-types. Look at them smiling there with their "friends".  Yes resist to change is common but again that is a daily battle everyone has from making their child eat their greens to talking your friend of harming themselves.  It takes energy and support.  Its hilarious how you in order to make this point come across as a whiny bitch douchebag that you previously shunned.  "

Oh why won't the people just stop shooting the messenger, it will make them a better person, i'm being nice! ME!"

Change is harder to do than not its true, toddlers get that fact, how this discovery in personal development arrived so late on your mental doorstep is a question i would seek an answer too, perhaps with a paid professional.  The problem is endeavors do not always pay of and hindsight is great for judging what was a worthy expense of energy and what wasn't.  So again we go back to why it is important to be nice to people to help them achieve their goals, lets not conflate nice with lazy or apathetic as you keep doing.  You can be nice, assertive, confident and successful still having time to help other people, just like you can be a massive cunt and still not rely on that to bring you anything but mental anguish and the vague sensation that people hate you.


Adaptation is the key to survival, but what "survival" is, is different for different people.



Right that is the world back in balance now where is that fat feckless turkey..

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Hmmm....I suppose I am, but being mixed-race and having spent so much of my adult life overseas I probably don't feel as British as most people.

I prefer the term international playboy.......

Mixed race? YOU CROSSED THE STREAMS?! Did your parents remember to underlay the segue with a consistent kick beat to create a more seamless transition? I hope to fucking so.

[Deader Kata Mosser]

It's also worth remembering that real-life Alec Baldwin is apprently a bleeding heart liberal and people like him, while his brother is the right-wing nut that hasn't done so well in many many ways. But hey, whatever the cartoony charcter in that movie said, that you weren't supposed to agree with anyway.

I will point out that I'm pretty sure if you read other articles by this Wong fella he says contradictory stuff to what's in this article, so he may just know what to regurgitate to make a snappy piece yeah?

[monkfromhavana]

I don't know if anyone else is getting this, but when I try to click on pages 3 and 4 of this thread it gets blocked by Chrome because of some bad malware shit that it says has been entered onto those pages (maybe a link or something). I'm really sorry that I cannot "close" and read the last 2 pages, but there you are.

Dunno why i'm posting this as I won't be able to get onto the pages to read your thousands of replies calling me amazing.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Typical self-pitying shit from another passive-aggressive beta loser.