Debunking usual replies to singles'complaints

by Sylvain Poirier

Not only single people are (at least in some cases) the victims of the society's cruel obstacles to finding love, they are also somehow denied the right to complain, as any attempt to complain will be ridiculised by pseudo-arguments that may superficially sound wise and even sometimes nice, but in reality the repetitors of these arguments are the stupid ones. Let's show how.

Well you may say, what the fuck does it change that our complaint is right and the deniers are stupid ? This will not bring us the love we need, and they are in position of force anyway...
Well, maybe it's true that humans have no fucking care for the truth, and the stupid happy will always feel superior to the wise victims of destiny, no matter the evidence. But... Let's try anyway, debunking the stupid insults that singles are usually facing, one by one.

"By the method X or Y you should be feeling okay without a girlfriend; moreover, girls would not like a man that is not feeling well with himself."

Wonderful ! So let's take the boyfriend of a wonderful girl, separate him from her in order to let her to me, then, let's apply your method to him. If he is a good man, he should feel okay with it so there will be no problem. But if he protests, this means that he is not sane, unable to feel well with himself, so that he was not good for her anyway.

"I'm sure you will find your wife ! it will come in its time"

Same as previous case: it should then be no problem to take someone else's girlfriend, you just need to have a strong faith that it will be the chance for him to find a better girl instead, and that he would be stupid or negative-minded if he does not join this faith and rejoice in it.
Indeed, such a remark makes much more sense when applied this way to someone who already found, as this is the very indication of a higher chance for him to find again, than for the case of someone who could never find yet.

"You may tend to overthink some issues, especially when it comes to love"

I understand stupid people can suffer overthinking, so they are naturally tempted to project that pain others. But there is no such thing as overthink for intelligent people like me. For me, thinking much and deeply is normal and vital like breathing. Like seeing. It is like being the only person seeing well and easily in a world of people whose eyes are painful to use and defective. So whenever they hear someone complaining they will naturally give the kind advice to close eyes as the best way to end or reduce the pain. But if I suffer from other problems then it is vital for me to have a good look to see what the problem is even if it does not bring immediate solution (however it remains the only way to bring true solutions in the long term if possible ; if not in one's lifetime then for others). But however well I see it, others won't believe me, and will keep blaming me of looking too much. Of course they cannot see, and they cannot understand the possibility for me to see better than them, so they cannot guess that I may be right. See also Eckhart Tolle criticism by Joseph Waligore

"if you open yourself to the possibility it will occur"

Really insulting is this well-intended "kind advice" (just as kind and well-intended as most genuine evils) of saying such things. It is the same logic which I explained here under the title "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour".

About the necessity of a collective organisation - the firefighters analogy

Imagine a world in which the job of firefighter still never existed beyond amateurism or generally at a certain level of incompetence, and would be generally uncommon. People there would argue against the idea to develop it, by the following arguments:

"Believe me, my house has never burned! And I know other people whose house did not burn either ! So, it should be possible to live okay without firefighters."
"I saw a flame one day or another and it stopped after just 2 minutes, or by pouring a glass of water above"
"A fire is something that occurs only inside a private property and only affects the private affairs of the owners of this property, due to wrong actions done by the concerned people. It is thus not a public concern."
"I cannot see what firefighters could do better than the concerned people. Moreover, they won't be staying at the place where the fire happens."

When facing someone whose house is currently burning or has already burned, the reaction would be to look through such a person, saying:

"Have confidence, sooner or later the fire will eventually end."
"It's your problem, it's up to you to solve it"
"Keep cool and stop thinking about it, as it is usually when you panic and worry the hardest that it will burn the most seriously."
"You have no right to expect anyone to help you stop your fire for free. So, if you want anyone to do something, you must first pay him/her a lot of money. (And then don't come to bother anyone if after payment this person is not able/willing to effectively stop the fire, as it is but your house burning, which nobody else is responsible for)"

"Is this the goal of your life ???" the starvation analogy

Imagine that you live in a world where you have nothing to eat, for example for lack of money. For two weeks you did not eat, you cry famine, you spent some time looking for food in vain. And you have objectively no reason anymore to believe that you can find, so that probably tomorrow you will die. And you see before you a lot of people pass by who could eat as they wished, who have never experienced hunger, or only a little, and who then found to eat without any problem. These people pass by, some of them will even eat before you and ask you, without ever offering you the slightest piece: "Hey, what's this fucky damned expression ? Life is beautiful, the sun shines! I promise you that life is beautiful! You do not have to eat? Why? There is some food in abundance! You will find some ! And why do you need food? It happened to me to skip a meal or two when I was sick and this is not a problem. In fact sometimes when I eat something I find it disgusting and I spit it, so that eating it not always something good either."

Question: is eating the purpose of your life ?

The hostage analogy

In a similar way the situation can be compared to the one of being kept hostage: people commented in my Hospitalityclub profile "finding a wife seems to be the main thing for him in life".
False: the first main things for me in life were to try in vain to escape the persecution by bad mates at school, to understand the General Relativity (which I succeeded at the age of 16), to program the Mandelbrot set and the movement of a particle around a black hole when I was a teenager (which I did successfully), to rewrite all the fundamental theories of maths and physics to make it much easier to hundreds of thousands students to learn physics, and to make a global revolution of internet and politics. I wish so much I could dedicate my life to it, but I can't because the society prefered to keep me hostage of depression and loneliness.
Now, if you are kept hostage since all your life, the main thing for you in life will be to try to escape.
The fact that it currently your main concern does not characterize your personality, but it only characterizes the hypocrisy and cruelty of the rest of the world that feels good to let you jailed there and to not do anything about it.

"Do you think you are the only one facing this problem ?"

Nice argument: it should be no problem to be tortured, provided that many other people are being tortured too.
Stalin said: one death is a tragedy; one million deaths is a statistics.
Stalin's philosophy visibly dominates this world, and at least the minds of the people who come with this objection to the singles'complaints.

"There are miseries in the world much worse than that"

The comparison is absurd. It assumes that we have a defined amount of money to spend on humanitarian causes with which one would be in a position to choose, either one relieves the world out of material misery, or out of the fate of the suffering of celibacy. But we are not facing such a choice. Indeed:

Today everyone thinks that the humanitarian problems to resolve consist exclusively in material poverty. But while they are millions to be convinced, this misery continues; I also do not neglect these problems because I also worked to design a solution infinitely more effective than the current solutions, but nobody cares. So what do they really want ?

The resolution of a large part of the celibacy problem would cost almost nothing financially, except perhaps for the psychological cost to revise some deeply rooted common conceptions of life, and would therefore not be done at the expense of traditional humanitarian objectives;

How can you claim to know, by the way, that's suffering celibacy is negligible, while there is currently no alarm signal to measure it? Indeed it is currently a taboo problem, and the well-thinking reflex is to turn to ridicule the complaint of victims, claiming that everything is going well, that it is up to the singles to put themselves in question to find love, that love ought to be given rather than requested and so on.
The suffering of celibacy can lead to suicide or at least to make suicide something worth considering, in other words making life worse than death. Rather than just pretending that life must be worth living for everybody by physically and morally obliging all people to stay alive at any cost (in particular at the price of environmental destruction to millions of years) and no matter their suffering, would it not it be better to concretely give the present lives the concrete means to truly become worth living ?

"You're not speaking about love !"

Certainly. I only focus on a certain type of heavy obstacle that currently prevents love, and how to remove it. This obstacle especially consists in the fact that people who could love each other, often don't have enough practical opportunities to meet or even know the existence of each other. This is a kind of problem that poetry and litterature are intrinsically unable to understand: no story of litterature can be written to express the idea that there are currently many potential wonderful stories that are not happening because

Nobody has any opportunity to be aware that it is possible, because the people who would have loved each other have never met, or at least don't have the contact address of each other
The world is big and for everyone there would be a very large number of people that could potentially be met, and the good opportunities are lost among this large number, which is too big to be properly known and handled by a single human person; considering that all choices depend on each other (no two people can marry the same person), and what anyone does affects all the people that he might meet and so on... that if we consider in some continent N men and N women (consider N= 200 million), then the number of possible abstract pairings (disregarding any preferences) is the very large number N!, so that no poet can ever represent it.

Only scientific minds can understand such a concept, as mathematics is (as some say) the science of all possible worlds, contrary to litterature that is reduced to tell only one story at a time happening among a reduced set of people.

The problem of putting them in contact is not a human or poetic one but a practical one. It reminds me of one of the themes of a book on capitalism (by Bruckberger ). Namely that, in the early 20th century, two society models opposed in response to the misery of workers. The Soviet model which talked about the dignity of workers, and the capitalist model symbolized by the Ford company, which by the remarkable efficiency of its working methods has once suddenly doubled the wages of its workers which was already the highest in the world; thus providing the real dignity to its workers in practice. You can not effectively run after two hares at the same time: the dream or the reality of solving a problem. The Soviet have so well talked about the dignity of workers that they have left them in misery. Now, some people reproach me not to talk about love. Admittedly, my main goal is not to provide you dreams. But only to provide the real means for love to be accomplished. The people who only care about dreams, are the ones that refuse to see beyond the tip of their noses. They are hypocrites who pretend to incarnate love, but maintain the world deprived of it. This is ultimately irresponsible criminals.

"Love should be something to give rather than to ask for; there is no right without duty"

1) One of the primary goals of these propositions is to provide more dating opportunities, among which will be more chance to find a better match, and such chances will also be given to the timid (unlike what is currently happening). In other words, denying these solutions is: on the one hand, a way of forcing some people to make their choice among the first coming people, thus resign themselves to a less good choice; on the other hand, a way to particularly deprive many timid from any reasonable chances, therefore giving priority to the machos and unscrupulous people, who rush more easily and lead their future partner to accept them, not caring about moral rules and the rest of the world. As a result, the macho men who will beat their wives and who at school age mock their mates, have a priority to reproduce. So you should explain how this law of the jungle will promote the principle of "love is something that is given" on the behalf of which this law of the jungle is maintained.

2) Of course I know perfectly well, since in all this research and web development I precisely devote myself to a quasi-monastic duty to provide love to humanity. If I was trying to catch for myself I would not spend my time trying to change the society: I would just commit suicide to go back to God's love (since it's too late for my life to be worth being considered satisfying on this earth) or I would spend my life travelling or exploring dating sites. But now, it seems that I am but one of very few people in the world to conceive this duty to bring love to others. And with that, there are those who believe to have a good argument against my positions, by stupidly throwing to me the idea that love shoud rather be something to give, as if I'd not considered this. That takes the cake.

"Consider monks, who can live happy without love. Their example proves that you should be able to feel well too without love if you follow their spiritual path"

The lives of monks are not the solution. In fact, precisely they are the problem.
For many generations, religions (Catholicism and Buddhism) have been this way leading as many they could of the most talented and virtuous people that would feel a natural ability of living okay without love, to do so.
As a consequence, these people did not reproduce, so that the genetic characteristics that made possible such a life, were continously selected away. This is what progressively destroyed the likeliness for the intelligent and virtuous people to be able to feel well without love.

Back to Singles Union's main page