You're talking at cross purposes. You are talking about how you think the world ought to be, and the person you're responding to is talking about how the world is. They're fundamentally different conversations, and it's not particularly useful to mix them, especially in such a critical manner.
> You're talking at cross purposes. You are talking about how you think the world ought to be, and the person you're responding to is talking about how the world is.
This whole thread is about a pathology of the modern world that is harming a large segment of the population. The original poster responded to this argument by saying, "well, that's just how the world is", and further added that all young men ought to be taught this same view, further reinforcing it.
I think my post properly addresses the OP's response in this context.
not quite. OP described how the world "is" (according to their particular worldview, which is subject to their biases as everyone's worldview is) and then prescribing what one ought to do in the world. The person responding is cautioning readers to consider what fitting in really means if the thing you're fitting into is profoundly malformed.
