[flipgimble]

I think the story highlights a problem irrespective of the messenger. Some people cannot help but judge and opine on other's behavior where they have no context, or any moral basis to render that judement. We do this all the time in private, but politicians, or public figures, use the same propensity to pass devastating and life hampering policies, or inflame public opinion against a group of people. All I'm really hoping for is a wide spread culture of more humility and compassion in how we communicate in public, despite the exact opposite tendencies capturing the current herd mentality.

[brvsft]

I find this argument is utterly destroyed by the fact that the message is a complaint about the 'other side' telling her to modify behavior to spend less money. Yet her behaviors include some really egregious spending. How could I separate the two?

Admittedly, I didn't have to know she made such an egregiously bad decision with her money to know she's wrong. I judged that immediately upon starting the essay because it's yet another angry rant against trivial financial advice that makes no difference and that no one forces you to take. The defensive and personal tone lets me know.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Happens every few months/years, people get up in arms about the Suze Orman meme advice to stop buying $5 coffee. If you're this angry about advice you're under no obligation to take, I know you're getting drunk and spending hundreds of dollars buy Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs or have some expensive substance addiction (e.g., cigarettes or weed) you could cut but choose not to. The anger is just so personal it's impossible that it's not coming from self-hatred.

[deanCommie]

> If you're this angry about advice you're under no obligation to take

But therein lies your flaw, it's advice that is inherently based on an evaluation of the problem.

When someone judges you for the problem that they think you have, then offers advice, you can't simply ignore the advice and remain on neutral ground.

There remains the implicit offense of the judgement made by the person who is offering the advice.

"You are poor because you are spending your money frivolously."

"You being poor is a choice you've made based on your decisions and priorities."

It's not as simple as just saying "Cool, i'll ignore this advice, and remain no worse off." You have to continue to exist in the world where this person gets to believe these things about you and others like you, without being challenged.

So, no, I don't think the people getting mad at Suze Orman (or whoever else is making similar judgements) because they are defensive of their poor spending. I think they are defensive of the character judgement being made and believe it must be responded to.

Lastly, and this is directly at you: Everyone is entitled to some amount of joy. Some joys are cheaper than others. Some joys are more addictive than others. There is definitely a further element of elitist judgement in the "stop buying $5" advice - "you are not entitled to joy because you can't afford it."

But you went even further. By the time you are talking about "substance addiction" the solution isn't just "you could cut but choose not to". That's literally the meaning of addiction - that you CAN'T just cut it. Not without significant help and latitude to go through a pretty dark withdrawal period. Those of us with money and support structures and fewer obligations can just take off to rehab. This is not an option for someone on subsistence poverty. You can judge someone's character for having gotten into that position in the first place, but you have to realize it's not a coincidence that poverty and addiction are such close neighbors. It perpetuates through generations. Substances ease the load of existence for those with the heaviest load, and it's easy to say to avoid the short term pleasure for the long term consequences when you're not yourself in that position.

[darkerside]

The problem is that sometimes humility and compassion are not what's needed. Sometimes a person needs a kick in the pants. A close friend willing to tell you to stop impulse buying furniture, or get a fucking job, or get off your ass and work out.

The tricky part is knowing when which tactic is called for.

[squigz]

Have you ever told a friend that and them respond with something along the lines of, "You know, I'd never thought of that. I'm just going to go get a job. Thanks!"?

Me neither.

[PeterisP]

If your friend is screwing up their life and you are enabling them by validating their bad choices, you're not being a good friend to them. Close friends are pretty much the only ones who are in a position of trust to be able to deliver harsh truths to someone in a way that actually gets through (unlike internet strangers, media, authorities and in many cases also family), so it's the duty of friends to actually do so when needed.

[squigz]

Nobody's making the case for enabling bad choices - I just don't think being an asshole is the only alternative.

I also don't know anyone in a similar situation who isn't acutely aware of the situation - they don't need their friends constantly giving them the most obvious advice in the world, they need support.

[darkerside]

If you're going through a tough time and need compassion, don't mistake that for thinking everybody in every situation always needs compassion

[squigz]

I don't think I said that. Likewise, though, if you're too blind to notice your own bad behavior, don't mistake that for everyone else being too blind to notice their own behavior.

I'm also not really sure why you're playing this card, since I referenced other people in my previous comment... but oh well.

[bradjohnson]

Counterpoint: Literally nobody needs 'darkerside' from hackernews to tell them to "get a fucking job".

[brvsft]

You don't tell your friend to get a job. You tell your friend they sound like a miserable fuck and some of their problems are of their own making.

[squigz]

I'm glad I'm not your friend.

[brvsft]

Right back atcha.

[darkerside]

I have given hard truths to friends before. If you care about someone, there's a point where you need to. Even if they don't respond well in the moment, truth once heard cannot be unheard.

[flipgimble]

Its fairly obvious that an anonymous stranger on the internet, or a politician proselytizing for their punative economic policies is _not_ that type of friend. But it seems some people derive a great deal of satisfaction out of imaginging themselves as knowing better how people should live their lives.

[darkerside]

It may not be a much better approach than pandering and patronizing their feelings, but it's probably at least a little bit better.

[bradjohnson]

Unsolicited internet judgement and condescending advice is worse than nothing and significantly worse than compassion. Too many people on the internet are way too over confident in their assessment of others' situations, and I dare say that with your 'tough love' position on this, you may be one of them.

[darkerside]

Ha! I'm not telling anyone (else) on here to "get a job". I'm saying there may be someone in your life that needs to hear something painful. Maybe just once, at the right time.

[bradjohnson]

Sure, but it requires a relationship and deep knowledge about their situation. I think we're talking about different things. Talk to your friends however works for the situation and your relationship with them.

However, If some rando tells me to do something either obvious or pointless in a condescending way (which is pretty much what the article is talking about, and very common even in this comment section talking about it) it is 100% of the time way more harmful than helpful.