Interesting Viewpoint

I tend to agree for the most part with the analysis brought forth in the article:

www.thelastbrokenhome.com/loser-at-20/

I may agree with the overall intended point somewhat but that blog itself is full of tons of misinformation, cliches, presumptions, condescending judgments, etc.
In fact I'm pretty sure the writer is creating some of the very problems he's speaking against. It may be unintentional, but he's still doing it.

In general I just can't agree with the article itself. Overall I think it leaves out a large part of this problem, which is society's own impact on the individual and how certain types of people are almost guided to become so stationary as to create the problem that the writer speaks about. We cannot overlook that, and the writer seems to only be encouraging the commonly held one-sided perspective that the individual is always the cause of all of his own problems, which simply is not true.

that guy doesn't seem very wise, regardless of age.

The writer's syntax and tone is certainly pompous, but his underlying theme: 'there is not someone for everyone' rings true.

His "literal hammering" style stems from his editor, I'll bet, being instructed to cut through the typical platitudes and euphemisms expressed by society. The writer makes an example of someone implied as socially weak to overstate his point. Bringing in the attractive girl is so painfully obvious. And you have to be honest: the majority of people would agree about the guy profiled in the article. Whether or not it is right to agree, or wrong is not the point. Getting by in society won't work that way.

Every viewpoint can be challenged, such is the nature of opinion. I find it mentally refreshing when opinions that are expressed clash with oversaturated and theoretical beliefs; i.e. "There's someone for everyone" in regards to human relationships. There simply can't be. There will always be people who find their partner or partners, and there will always be people who will fail to find any partner. Such is life. That's the main gist I read from the article.

ABrokenMan said:

The writer's syntax and tone is certainly pompous, but his underlying theme: 'there is not someone for everyone' rings true.

His "literal hammering" style stems from his editor, I'll bet, being instructed to cut through the typical platitudes and euphemisms expressed by society. The writer makes an example of someone implied as socially weak to overstate his point. Bringing in the attractive girl is so painfully obvious. And you have to be honest: the majority of people would agree about the guy profiled in the article. Whether or not it is right to agree, or wrong is not the point. Getting by in society won't work that way.

Every viewpoint can be challenged, such is the nature of opinion. I find it mentally refreshing when opinions that are expressed clash with oversaturated and theoretical beliefs; i.e. "There's someone for everyone" in regards to human relationships. There simply can't be. There will always be people who find their partner or partners, and there will always be people who will fail to find any partner. Such is life. That's the main gist I read from the article.

Click to expand...

The main point I was reading was that "Losers" doom themselves because they refuse to think differently about themselves, leading to the very problem that causes them to be "losers". And that 'acting' to change one's viewpoint is the only 'cure'.

The point that 'there is not someone for everyone' was in there, but it seemed to be a secondary point to the above.

And I'd agree with both of those points to some degree. However, like I stated in my last reply, the writer simply executed it very poorly.
For example, he used the old cliche that genetics predisposes everyone to find a mate, mate, and continue one's genetic lineage. Yet, real life proves that this is simply just not true. There are tons of people out there who are fine not having sex, tons of people who never want kids, and tons that are not at all worried about 'continuing their genetic line'. If "evolution", as described, was such a massively contributing factor to human life as it was implied in the article than these sorts of people would never exist. But they do, and their existence denies all truth to that argument entirely.

It's an old cliche that's often used for arguments such as this one. And it's even less true than the old cliche that "there is someone for everyone".
So I don't see the point in trying to dismiss untrue cliches in the manner of which brings brings about even less true cliches. Not to add that he was so judge-y towards the very "losers" he seemed to be trying to sympathize with. That is poor execution, PC or not.

If I must generalize why I think this writer did this, I'd say most people make these assumptions probably because they want a simple answer, and if a problem is complex enough, like this one, they boil it down and hope the watery broth they create is pure truth. Because it's easy to solve an easy problem with an easy answer. And that's what they hope for.
My thought is that maybe the writer is stuck in that very situation he was speaking of himself, hoping the answer was just as easy as to 'push' himself and suddenly find love.