[mandmandam]

I've noticed that visceral hatred of stoners is a common trait with people who define their success in life almost entirely by their career, and other visible external factors - marriage, kids, house size.

... Maybe stoners know something you don't. Maybe part of you sees that, and seethes.

[miningape]

Usually just people of the older generation who contrast themselves to the hippie movement of the 60s and 70s who they call stoners. Younger generations don't have the same cultural context so they just see stoners as chill people that smoke instead of drink.

[mandmandam]

> Younger generations don't have the same cultural context so they just see stoners as chill people that smoke instead of drink.

I think some people, even in younger generations, don't know what 'chill' really means. They see it as laziness, because the idea of not 'producing value' every waking moment actually scares them. That fear is the driving force of their lives. They don't have the imagination/empathy/experience to see past it; and judge people (including themselves!) through that lens.

It's deeply unfulfilling, I'm sure, and not just for boomers.

[jeffhuys]

Telling people I still easily (and sometimes more easily) “produce value” while being extremely stoned, most of the time makes them very angry, or at least visibly annoyed. I’m still unsure why.

[miningape]

Yeah my biggest problem with this is what is "value" - Sure there's the numbers on a spreadsheet kind of value that you can count and use, and our society is largely built around this (because it's easy and fairly accurate)

But there's also other kinds of value, ever had something sentimental that you couldn't pay someone to take? Things like family photos are practically valueless on a spreadsheet level but immensely valuable on an emotional level. How do you price having your family and friends around you as you pass?

You can still produce value without producing economic value - this was supposed to be the idea behind charities.

[_bin_]

marriage and kids are crazy things to stack up against house size

a bigger house and being a stoner are both fairly unfulfilling. a wife and kids are the most meaningful and joyful things a man can have. i think comparing those to a house and suggesting they're unimportant, or no more important than getting stoned, is a great example of why so many of us dislike stoners.

[mandmandam]

> a wife and kids are the most meaningful and joyful things a man can have.

They can be. They're not always. How many deeply unhappy people are in awful marriages? By the fact that 40-50% of all marriages end in divorce, I'd say it's 50/50 at best. How many people should never have been parents?

And also, that's like, your opinion man. There are other views - perfectly valid - on what is most meaningful and joyful. How many childless unmarried women (and men) find great meaning and joy in other activities, but feel pressured to procreate by a segment of society which sees their worth solely in homemaking?

> marriage and kids are crazy things to stack up against house size

I think so too. Yet many people value themselves by how big their house is... Not too common a trait among stoners, I might add.

> i think comparing those to a house and suggesting they're unimportant, or no more important than getting stoned,

I don't think I did that by any fair reading of the comment.

> is a great example of why so many of us dislike stoners.

Stoners tend to think outside of societal norms a bit more often, seeking a broader perspective. They also tend to reflect internally on what actually makes them happy. They might end up thinking, 'wow, I don't think marriage is a big goal in life for me'. Or, 'like, who is a priest to tell me my relationship is valid?', or 'Jesus, is it actually kinda selfish to want more kids on a planet with 8 billion people maxing out it's resources?'.

I think those are valid and important questions + perspectives; and that it's kinda mindless to shit on people for exploring things for themselves.

[_bin_]

i'm trying to interpret in a way that looks favorable but the only way i can read it is "marriage and children are harder and sometimes people fail, therefore they're less valuable." i don't think that's true. optimizing for ease and risklessness seems like a really bad approach to life.

i don't think you need marijuana to reflect on life and societal norms. in fact, a lot of teenagers spend some years doing this. we all have questioning phases where we read a lot of philosophy and argue with adults and wonder whether the way things are is the way things ought to be. most people don't need marijuana to do it, and most people who use it aren't doing so in the pursuit of greater knowledge unconstrained by the defaults we've passed down through the ages.