In some cases it tried to make observations in an objective or granular way, while at the same time mixing in sweeping generalizations and hand waving,
> You’re in love.
> Critically, you get everyone to agree that it’s gauche to discuss the strategic logic of all this.
I'm thinking no. Lots of people talk about the expense of marriage. Some go so far as to say "it's just a piece of paper". Everyone doesn't agree there is strategic loss or that "you're in love" is a singular recognizable concept to justifies anything in particular.
> You secretly guess that the group is sustained by a minority of true believers who make up critical mass for a larger group of people you, but you never talk about this and neither does anyone else.
Nobody talks about this except every atheist from high school forward. Rather than have a nuanced or an informed insightful analysis we get these short statements that both seemed lazy and misrepresenting a supposed underlying zeitgeist.
I got something different out of both of your examples.
Its not that many people talk about the expense of marriage, its that people would invalidate the people who talk about the financial intertwining and folly of marriage as both a cultural institution or contract.
Just like you pointed out that only people in the religion of anti-religion are the ones who talk ad nauseum about it, instead of just being non-religious people.
To me, this reads like smugness and egotism. The author clearly passes off his personal opinions as detached explanations and "neutral" contextualizations, while writing in a way that places him above the rest of the human population, as if he were looking through a lens over the anthill.
Sometimes I like to collect some of my online comments into documents so I have a reference the next time I need to repeat myself. This article reads the same way. The difference is that I wouldn't publish them in an article, because online comments rarely do an issue justice.
My first thought was that these were the personal thoughts of a stranger whose values I do not share and who does not do a good job of sharing or explaining those values.
I don't know who the author is, I tried to find out but I couldn't find anything interesting. On the other hand, I did find the Reddit and Twitter links in the header of the site.
It turns out that indeed, most of his tweets are of identical quality. In fact, each of the points in this article was posted as a thread on Twitter.
Looking closer at their Twitter, it seems that the author of this article just read Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons and decided to write his own version, using the same format. However, his version lacks depth and is too transparent about his own beliefs and not exploratory enough. I believe that this format should be used to challenge the writer and thus the reader. It should not be about finding stories to explain your deeply held moral principles.
I honestly wonder why this content has received so much attention on HN. Linking to the Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons on says, archive.org, would have generated a much better conversation.
