Which part is not tenable? That the self-described nice guy is identifying with the hypothetical nice guy? How else would you interpret it? That he wants to tell you about nice guys because he’s a nice guy but by the time he gets to the end he’s no longer identifying with the nice guys he’s talking about?
Seriously, how else do you interpret it? Obviously he’s sharing in this “cynicism and resentment,” the whole missive is built around it.
People don’t threaten in the first person to unleash cynicism and resentment , at least without clear wryness or self mockery. That is incredibly jarring to imagine—particularly since he in no way claims to be speaking for himself anywhere in the message.
That the self-described nice guy is identifying with the hypothetical nice guy?
Only in a historical sense. He doesn’t appear to be identifying as a nice guy now. He is displaying none of the hallmark submissiveness that the nice guy persona is based around and is actively making assertions that he knows will prompt a certain subclass of women to attempt to shame him. ‘Nice guys’ notoriously (and almost by definition) let their actions be determined by fear of disapproval from women. Hence the unattractiveness.
Seriously, how else do you interpret it? Obviously he’s sharing in this “cynicism and resentment,” the whole missive is built around it.
He seems to be sharing cynicism and contempt. That is, the following seems to be a reasonable caricature:
“Are you serious? You’re asking why there aren’t nice guys? Of course there are no F-ing nice guys. Nice guys don’t get laid or in any other way treated well. Nice guys existing wouldn’t be a Nash Equilibrium. I am so much smarter than you—except for the thing where I interpret your complaint as a literal question that can be subjected to reason rather than verbal symbols used purely for signalling.”
Only in a historical sense. He doesn’t appear to be identifying as a nice guy now.
Right, which is why when he says “The nice guy you claim to want has, in reality, shed his nice guy mantle” I think he’s speaking for himself.
But in any case, you describe him as contemptuous and I’m happy to accept that characterization—contempt vs. hostility isn’t a hair I feel the need to split.
But in any case, you describe him as contemptuous and I’m happy to accept that characterization—contempt vs. hostility isn’t a hair I feel the need to split.
You would, I assume, ‘split the hair’ between women and ‘perpetration of a specific perceived hypocrisy’. It isn’t the class women he is judging here.
Lest there be the slightest hint of implied agreement here allow me to assert that in terms of (indications displayed here of) prejudice, hostility and generic unwarranted expressions of the contempt/resentment/anger towards a group of people ‘letter guy’ comes in third. Blog author and then yourself come in as greater culprits.
I don’t expect you to agree with any of that or even to consider my perception at all important, I’m just being clear that this is in no way a hair splitting disagreement.
Which part is not tenable? That the self-described nice guy is identifying with the hypothetical nice guy? How else would you interpret it? That he wants to tell you about nice guys because he’s a nice guy but by the time he gets to the end he’s no longer identifying with the nice guys he’s talking about?
Seriously, how else do you interpret it? Obviously he’s sharing in this “cynicism and resentment,” the whole missive is built around it.
People don’t threaten in the first person to unleash cynicism and resentment , at least without clear wryness or self mockery. That is incredibly jarring to imagine—particularly since he in no way claims to be speaking for himself anywhere in the message.
Only in a historical sense. He doesn’t appear to be identifying as a nice guy now. He is displaying none of the hallmark submissiveness that the nice guy persona is based around and is actively making assertions that he knows will prompt a certain subclass of women to attempt to shame him. ‘Nice guys’ notoriously (and almost by definition) let their actions be determined by fear of disapproval from women. Hence the unattractiveness.
He seems to be sharing cynicism and contempt. That is, the following seems to be a reasonable caricature:
“Are you serious? You’re asking why there aren’t nice guys? Of course there are no F-ing nice guys. Nice guys don’t get laid or in any other way treated well. Nice guys existing wouldn’t be a Nash Equilibrium. I am so much smarter than you—except for the thing where I interpret your complaint as a literal question that can be subjected to reason rather than verbal symbols used purely for signalling.”
Right, which is why when he says “The nice guy you claim to want has, in reality, shed his nice guy mantle” I think he’s speaking for himself.
But in any case, you describe him as contemptuous and I’m happy to accept that characterization—contempt vs. hostility isn’t a hair I feel the need to split.
You would, I assume, ‘split the hair’ between women and ‘perpetration of a specific perceived hypocrisy’. It isn’t the class women he is judging here.
Lest there be the slightest hint of implied agreement here allow me to assert that in terms of (indications displayed here of) prejudice, hostility and generic unwarranted expressions of the contempt/resentment/anger towards a group of people ‘letter guy’ comes in third. Blog author and then yourself come in as greater culprits.
I don’t expect you to agree with any of that or even to consider my perception at all important, I’m just being clear that this is in no way a hair splitting disagreement.