I travel with someone who will die within an hour of exposure to peanuts, regularly spend time with people in their 80's and 90s who have been on deaths door for years, ride motorcycles with guys in their 70s and if they have a random spill, they're guaranteed dead. I see women in their 70's thrown from the backs of horses, often twice in the same ride. I drink with guys between chemo appointments, smoke cigars with guys who have colostomy bags, and saw a friend perform a spectacular monologue when he knew it was the last time in his life that he would give it.

These vulnerabilities are not lifestyle choices, and yet they manage. The difference between "I will actually die," and "I could die" is a matter of perception, and the world doesn't stop for any of us. Actual lifestyle choices which are a selective constraint as a substitute for achievement are uniquely prevalent today, and I think, socially suffocating.

Zoomer here, could you elaborate on this?

Okay, gotcha.

Sounds like they're pretty disgusted by those type of people. Especially characterizing that type of behavior as "neuroticism and anxiety" instead of, ya know, trying not to die.

Honestly, I mostly agree with OP, though I think I have chosen to mostly accomoate to the extent possible, just because I still want to throw parties. I mix a shirly temples and buy non-alcoholic rum and beer, get some vegan food if I'm serving food, etc. But it is, indeed, a pain, if maybe not a major one. I think the real issue here is just that people are glued to their screens and their pills. A lot of people don't want to party because they're already on a cocktail of pills (you know the ones) and that isn't compatible with a couple drinks for them.Mainly, though, people are atticted to games, doomscrolling, and TV, kind of in that order, and would prefer to sit getting quietly depressed rather than go out and spend time talking with people.

I mean, come on. Just think about this. We've heard so much of this over the last few years like "some people died from the flu before, so you should accept you likely may die from COVID." Would you really say that to the face of an immunocompromised person?

Having said that, of course I can get upset when society changes! It would be very silly to think otherwise. I bet we would be very hard pressed to find a single human being who doesn't get upset when society changes (in ways they don't like). My being upset doesn't obligate anyone to do anything about it of course, but I'm free to observe changes I see happening and offer my opinion on them. The reason I'm not upset is that I have plenty of people in my life who are not difficult to get together and spend time with, and it sounds like the poster above you does too.

The question in the OP was about what happened to parties, and are there any trends causing them to be happening less. "Motohagiography" identified a trend that he believes is responsible. As best I can tell, you aren't even arguing that he's wrong. You're arguing that the trend he identified is a net good. That's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but I think his point is both clear and correct.

My general point is that preferences aren't identities, and when they are accepted as such, they erode the social fabric and prevent the growth and social opportunity that benefits everyone. It adds a punitive downside to giving parties when suddenly we have to worry about a guest having a crisis because their idea of self gets offended.

To the immunocompromised people I know, if you can't make it out because you are sick, fine, happens to the best of us, catch up another time. If you can't make it because your condition has become an identity that is irreconcilable with other identities, that must be very hard, but it's your responsibility to be interesting and enjoyable to be around, even if there are unique barriers to that, and especially if you want accomodation.

If your diet were vegan because you are immunocompromised, or even religious, own it and take responsibility for your needs instead of making them a condition on your company, and then be worthwhile. Of course we manage things at our own expense, it's what ownership means. You can't blame your disease for your being lame or use your identity as social leverage and expect anyone to find that appealing and interesting for very long.

My point is, the world owes us nothing and thinking it does is part of what has made giving parties less appealing. The (mostly) men who ran massive party scenes during the AIDS epidemic did so in spite of a more terminal and persistent illness than anything we are dealing with today, and so there have been better parties in worse conditions than the medical one your comment refers to, and it was because their general attitude was better than the one I think has been promoted over the last decade.

(Your former comment)

I travel with someone who will die within an hour of exposure to peanuts...

A person who is vegetarian or vegan or pork-free or gluten-free or alcohol-free is as easy - or easier - to accommodate as someone with a peanut allergy. Don't you think?

1) I feel bad for you if you're genuinely sick and at risk, but I'm sure you know that there's a perception out there that many people are trying to milk Covid concerns merely to continue working from home or reaping other benefits that they value: and meantime they go out to restaurants and live life more or less normally. We all saw many of our political leaders who were fear-mongering Covid the worst do that.

2) You have to feel bad for anybody who is scared and feeling isolated, but what else do you want humanity to do? Short of just incinerating the planet, there's no method known to science to eliminate Covid in the wild. We shut down a lot of human activity for years (at massive expense, that we're going to be paying for many years) and even sacrificed part of our children's future to help the most vulnerable. Other than putting humanity in a total economic death spiral (that will be many times worse than Covid) I'm not sure what else can be done to give immunocompromised people a better situation.

3) I don't know how I'd live if I was genuinely immunocompromised, but the really sick people I know such as cancer patients going through chemo who are in/out of hospitals constantly are genuinely trying to go out and live their lives as normally as they can and trying not to be a slave to their illness.

4) Has anything qualitatively changed for immunocompromised people with Covid? Pre-Covid, there was influenza and other diseases that posed some measure of risk to people. Covid seems worse than them and can kill of course, but obviously isn't anywhere near something like Ebola in terms of risk. You're facing maybe a tiny bit more life risk than you would have in say 2018.

How is this "milking" anything? The last few years have proved that lots of white collar jobs don't need to be done from an office building.

>Other than putting humanity in a total economic death spiral (that will be many times worse than Covid) I'm not sure what else can be done to give immunocompromised people a better situation.

This is a false dichotomy. The science is clear on this one. Continue wearing masks in public places, physical distancing, practicing basic hygiene, and continue requiring vaccinations. Yes, all of those things are proven to reduce transmission of COVID as well as other airborne viruses like the flu. Society doesn't need to shut down or enter a "death spiral" to do any of them. Leaders just caved to political pressure and stopped enforcing them.

>are genuinely trying to go out and live their lives as normally as they can and trying not to be a slave to their illness.

Yes, and they probably still have to wear masks and avoid certain places that are likely to carry an increased risk of infection. "Not being a slave to the illness" doesn't mean you go out and take stupid risks.

>Has anything qualitatively changed for immunocompromised people with Covid?

Yes, COVID is significantly more contagious than influenza, and causes more severe illness than influenza.

I strongly agree with you that a lot of white collar jobs don't necessarily need to be done from an office building. I'm referring to people who playact at being terrified of Covid as a justification for working from home while in their personal lives they go out and live life normally. The fear that some people exhibit is an act for personal gain: based on their actions they don't believe it.

> This is a false dichotomy. The science is clear on this one. Continue wearing masks in public places, physical distancing, practicing basic hygiene, and continue requiring vaccinations. Yes, all of those things are proven to reduce transmission of COVID as well as other airborne viruses like the flu. Society doesn't need to shut down or enter a "death spiral" to do any of them. Leaders just caved to political pressure and stopped enforcing them.

I've written responses to this kind of argument on HN many times. In a nutshell my position is the following:

1) I honestly don't think too many people are having major science disagreements: they're having risk-management disagreements. Your risk-tolerance and values are different than others, and you're disagreeing about what's worth doing, you're not actually disagreeing all that much about data. Pretend it's 60 degrees F out: a Canadian might say that it's a scorcher and an Australian might say it's freezing. Same exact science (60 degrees to both), just a different way of looking at things. Neither is scientifically wrong.

2) For what it's worth, suggesting a human action is never the outcome of any science experiment. The science is NOT clear on wearing masks or doing any of those other things because that is not the domain of science. All science can do is provide objective data (to the limits of human ability to measure) and humans decide what to do in light of that data outside of the domain of science.

> Yes, and they probably still have to wear masks and avoid certain places that are likely to carry an increased risk of infection. "Not being a slave to the illness" doesn't mean you go out and take stupid risks.

I honestly don't know the statistics on how immunocompromised people actually live, but anecdotally I've seen that it depends on the person. I knew somebody that died of his illness that wanted to live his life completely normally for as long as he possibly could and was willing to risk being knocked out by Covid.

> Yes, COVID is significantly more contagious than influenza, and causes more severe illness than influenza.

The phrase I used was "qualitatively" changed.

As far as your use of the word "significantly", what does that word actually mean here? I'm curious what the actual stats are. How many immunocompromised people were around in say 2018? What percentage of them died due to a random respiratory illness then? Compare that to Covid time-period as best as possible. How much does that death rate actually change? Does it go from 5% risk of random death to 6%? or from 7% to 88%? I am not sure, but I suspect that the actual difference wouldn't be jaw-dropping to anybody here, but I'd like to learn those stats from you so I can appreciate your situation better.

you are full of self pity.

and it is charmless and icky and will ruin any other good social aspects about you, and your sense of self alone too.

I tell you this bluntly because someone on a zoom call two years ago made an off hand comment like that to me, which kept scratching at me for a week till I accepted it as absolutely true, and so I changed.

I truly had never noticed in my tone, which I thought was 'misanthropic/grumpy' but actually read differently to others-- it made a huge difference once I started noticing the whiny aspect to my communication everywhere and just changed it, since that tone did not reflect how I actually felt inside.

My negativity is in purest form anger and contempt lol and the attempt at softening my cosmic-feeling rage made it come out as whiny 'misunderstood' pity party tone, passive-aggressive twist to hating society in a juvenile entitled sense in my case. Glad I finally forced myself to grow out of that.

(Also dignifies my anger rather than warping it to something lesser and lame.)

Better to figure out how you really feel and strategize if/how to express that than let it turn into repressed soul-deadening whiny sour tone.

I know you'll have a million 'you don't even know me!!!' mental rage at this, so be it. Accept this bitter post now so in a year you may be different.

I'm grateful to the asshole who told me, so I'm passing on the favor ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For example, one of my very close friends is an ultra progressive guy. He’s vegan and talks a lot about personal responsibility to combat climate change. He was condemning people partying at my house for using disposable vapes since the packaging and plastic is wasteful…never mind the 6 pack of beer bottles he brought!

Another close friend is borderline carnivore, and likes to joke about controversial topics.

Having both of those guys around inevitably leads to arguments (mostly friendly) but that shit makes the other guests uncomfortable!

People need to stop caring so much about how others live and speak. Your personal philosophy isn’t special and shouldn’t prevent you from socializing with others!

This is the point. Leave that shit at home so the "other" folks don't have to see your shit. And if they agree to this social construct then you will not have to see their shit either.

Not trying to raise a big point but I just don’t think it’s easy for everyone else to leave things they care about at home as some others. The more passionate, the harder it is.

If you can discuss your opinions without giving or taking offense, then fine. I certainly haven't reached that level of maturity, so it is an ideal for me.

> ... but if you really believe in something...

Let's be clear whether this means you feel a need to persuade the person you're sharing your opinion with. If so, have you given serious thought about how to persuade? What is more important here to you: sharing your opinion or bringing others to adopt it?

I nearly had to throw someone out of a pool party being hosted for a bunch of 10 year old kids. The kids were all having a blast, but Mister Politics just couldn't stop talking about and inserting his political views. In this particular case I was in agreement with him, but it doesn't matter. This shit doesn't belong at an event that's supposed to be fun.

I’m not the type to raise a stink but I usually won’t have as much fun there either. I guess it’s more that my desire to avoid unpleasantries and making a ruckus than leaving my feelings at home.

With regards to the Chesterton fence, I don't discuss vax politics with anyone at this point unless they signal that they have a deep understanding. That goes for most conspiracy stuff too. That's because even if they are totally open and desiring to hear to my position, the information is so segregated based on what media one pays attention to, I'll end up giving a big 30 minute stump speech explaining all the stuff they never heard of because they don't listen to alt. media and it's just annoying and a one-sided conversation that I'd rather not have. Better that they go listen to a podcast or something if they're interested than waste time on that sort of one-sided conversation.

Glass is infinitely recyclable, whereas "disposable vapes" could be referring to just the cartridge (hopefully) but also could mean the full-fledged single-use vapes with a lithium battery inside. If its the latter, they really should switch to the former. If its the former then I think your friend was being a bit excessive griping about that but a 6 pack of infinitely recyclable glass is hardly a comparison to the perma-trash generated by plastic vape carts.

edit: just want to add, those lithium batteries aren't "disposable" because of any innate attribute of the battery, they're only "disposable" because they are sold that way. The batteries could have been reused if the company manufacturing the vape just designed it as such: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsJMj7FtroY

There’s also the bottle caps, the packaging, and carbon cost of shipping a MUCH heavier product. There’s gotta be carbon output for growing barley and producing the actual beer too!

All so my environmentalist buddy can get drunk.

He shouldn’t feel guilty. The point is he’s doing the same thing as the vapers: emitting waste for a fleeting psychoactive effect.

The problem of climate change is so far above everyone’s pay grade. People shouldn’t be chastising others for their carbon footprint. It’s silly and impacts nothing.

I love my homie but Christ he’s gotta stop playing climate change moral arbiter

Source for this being applicable to glass? The news sources I've seen say that it's mostly an issue with plastics.

And we've been recycling glass before recycling was a big thing of course.

Generally, if parties are decreasing, I would argue it is more because there is so much new and very good entertainment that is just way lower effort. I don't know we need politics or ideology to explain it, these things aren't new.

Today its “what is gender”, yesteryear it was “should women vote”. Today its the LGBTQ agenda, yesteryear it was prostitution, porn, infidelity, marriage debates. Today it is political religions, yesteryear it was “Does God allow re-marriage?” “Do Catholics go to hell?”. Today we align along ideologies on twitter, yesteryear we aligned by joining the Elks or the Masons or the unions.

There is nothing new under the sun.

You know - the good old days!

The only really new, big stakes discussion I see on the table today is climate change. Everything else has been more or less hashed out by generations now dead.

Forrest Gump

> Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.

I think we're entering that last cycle again, where people are inventing trivial hardships for themselves, because media teaches them that only a life with some type of adversity is worth living.

In other words, everyone is desperate to be a protagonist in what is an extremely comfortable world, so they invent villains. Then they post about their great protagonism on social media. In part, I think, this is due to the neurosis created by the fakeness of social media.

Also, since all achievements on social media are pixel-thin, it is also turning people into equally shallow reprobates.

The recent trend of unironically calling people "NPCs" and "bots" just reinforces these beliefs, IMO.

[1]: I also find it a bit funny we have to put these types of disclaimers everywhere, since everyone goes out of their way to be offended over trivialities

"Hard times create strong men" - maybe, but starvation doesn't make you strong. Being dead from disease doesn't make you strong. Rising to adversity might make some people stronger, but it will harm others who survive but are damaged. It could be that the already-strong people rise to adversity and the weak get crushed by it, Darwinianly? Or that the weak endure through hard times as much as anyone because hard times are generally about health food or money and even 'weak' beggers can get enough of those to survive. Today's homeless are generally enduring lack of food, poor health, low money, and nobody considers them being made 'strong' by it, they're harmed by it.

"strong men create good times" - warriors are strong, barbarian raiders were strong, unpleasant bosses who abuse their workforce and reign by terror are strong, those are horrible times. Is there a connection between strong people and good times? What about average people who are neither weak nor strong, working in concert? What about people who are generally considered weak, but are thinking long term planting the trees that will shade tomorrow, community building, etc?

"good times create weak men" - do they? Do they necessarily? Why is this framing "good" as "bad"? Wouldn't going to the gym regularly and getting stronger be "good times" for someone? Wouldn't working the family farm hard, being physically strong and providing for your family, be good times and not making you weak? Is it luxury which makes people weak - previous point, do strong people create luxury specifically?

"weak men create hard times" - do they? Plenty of strong people (dictators, for example) have created hard times for millions. Plenty of weak people have had no impact on the times at all. Isn't the history of progress littered with people who were "a weak and sickly child" who spent their lives hiding indoors, thinking about math, died young, and changed the world - were they making hard times?

It's connected to the 'one generation makes family wealth by working hard, next generation preserves it but can't build it, next generation spends it'. In that, the hard times are where you have no money and have to work. The good times are where you have money and no work. The next hard times are where you lose the money and have to work again. But then, getting back into work and earning money is a homeless unemployed person's good times, life on the up.

At the 'level of civilizations' it's far too vague to say the fall of Rome was caused by "weak men" or that the rise of Rome was caused by "hard times".

I would certainly include competence as contributing to a strong character

Or worse, because bad times create broken people. And while broken people can stand adversity, they are much less able to create something non-broken.

Also, whether hardships makes or breaks you depends largely on your outlook and coping skills (this comes from someone who's had CPTSD and had to stop suicidal idealisation and learn coping skills in my late 20s).

All skills diminish, if unused. Having too easy times means there's less need to "cope"

It's very likely most millennials have poor coping skills due to the predominantly emotionally neglectful parenting styles the previous generation

When people say that phrase today, "bad" literally means WWII.

I think that in apocalyptically bad times good people (the "weak") get taken advantage of by ruthless assholes (the "strong") who do better when they act like selfish monsters, but those kinds of people just prolong the bad times. The "strong" just endlessly fight amongst themselves while oppressing everyone else. "Might makes right" doesn't result in favorable outcomes.

Good times allow (and insist) that folks behave like a civilized people who look out for each other and that not only helps promote future good times and advancement but also creates an environment where genuinely vulnerable people who couldn't survive the bad times can thrive and contribute. When people are fighting for survival they don't have time to invent new cool things and learn about how the universe works.

I guess after a while the good times allow some of us to get annoyed by all the good people who keep telling everyone we have to be nice to others and to look around at all the vulnerable people who couldn't survive without our support and wonder if we'd just be better off without them, but I can't imagine that working out better in the long term.

Perhaps things play out somewhat the same in less than apocalyptically bad times too.

I missed that one, though know that I read it I realized there's a lot of bot calling going-on on an FPS server I regularly visit.

By the way, is this site done with calling regular people "normies" ?

I don't think that's even remotely what the quote means. You seem to be taking it as "weak men make up hardships" as opposed to "weakness leads to a broken down system and future suffering for society".

For example, one might say that weakness in facing climate change will lead to hardship in the future. Another example would be that weakness in facing fascism allows it to rise and wreak havoc on society. Coincidentally, that quote is super popular among fascist-leaning types.

And speaking of fascism, it's unfortunately getting worse again

In any case, I don't know what to call it, but the resemblance to witch trials, heresy (and maybe fascism? I'm unsure now) is just uncanny.

It might resonate the first time you hear it (most good propaganda does), but if you contemplate it for more than 10 seconds and you'll realize it's obviously untrue.

Also, you don't have to be macho or physically strong to be strong. That just seems like your own bias leaking into the discussion.

That it might promote contempt for weakness might be true, though, and it didn't cross my mind. I don't like that it does that. At the same time I don't think weakness should be glorified either. Ideally, weak people should be helped to develop their own strong self.

Bret Devereaux has a series of posts where he delves into the history of the idea behind the meme - https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...

It's a thoroughly interesting debunking, and in part IIIb, he talks about how the trope was used to promote racial purity and superiority.

I don't know if it improves later, but they seem to only consider physical prowess as a form of strength. I generally interpreted this as strength of mind.

Also, I've taken the phrase less literally than they did. Man to me implied "human" (ie the same as man kind) because these quotes are usually designed to be succinct and memorable. They seem to think it's exclusive to human males.

But I've not read it in full yet, so we'll see when I finish it

The only reason we don't meet weekly anymore is because I moved to another country, for career growth.

I'm betting my reality is also very common for people who grew on small towns and had to move, or for people who live in large countries where you often move around for jobs (like the USA).

I'm flying to Paris to meet one of those friends this weekend, though. But I doubt a lot of people have the money to do this on a whim like we (tech workers) do.

Yes, 100%. I met with my (high school) friends weekly when I lived at home. And I met with my brother's friends, who were entirely on the opposite end of the political spectrum from me. We partied together, swam together, went out together, no issues. We'd sometimes get drunk political discussions, but usually we just didn't go there because it really never came up or mattered. And, if it did, we'd usually do it jokingly and never really fight about it.

Now I'm half a world away and any time any of them are anywhere near where I'm at on traveling, I go visit. I've planned to fly to Scotland to visit some of them before Christmas but it fell through on their end. They're planning a Euro trip this autumn; I'll meet them wherever they're at.

Not a tech worker, but i'm lucky in that I can afford it thanks to cheap European flights.

Gonna print this on my business cards

> - I'm just getting old (closing in on 50) and people my age don't party anymore

I remember my parents' generation and their friends circle. My parents' friends circle was not only a friends circle, but it was a group of people who studied in the university altogether, in the same disciplines, and got appointed to the same city and actually same organizations after graduation. So not only they were just friends, but they were also work friends, colleagues, a lot of things.

I remember them regularly meeting in each other's houses and having fun, going to places together, taking vacations together and doing many other things up until ~40 years of age. Then such things suddenly became much more infrequent, then altogether stopping by their mid 40s.

Great, bring some over and talk to the paleo-pesco-vegan about how well it pairs with phish and wild-caught twigs and berries.

I've considered going to DEFCON or that one quirky convention at CMU to network in my niche.

This is a weird way to project your insecurities.

> we have encouraged widespread neuroticism and anxiety...

Are they neurotic or are you?

I have friends from many of those lifestyles, while myself, I am a "non-pork". But have never worried about what my friends with different lifestyles. We invite them all and most show up. Vegans may bring their own food. Halal eaters can stick with vegetarian options, if any.

And I never been offended by pork options at my friends' parties. Almost always there are side dishes.

Our parties are very diverse and our friends are very tolerant and curious about different people. We had friends who would get offended by alcohol or non-halal meat but they ended friendship.

You don't need to go crazy for other people's lifestyle. Good friends will stick around, intolerant will leave.