Social narratives need highly contrasting scenarios and individuals for emotional leverage against citizens. When society frames life as a contest between “winners” and “losers,” it often needs visible “losers” to make the winners feel legitimate. Ill, injured, disabled, unemployed, poor, exhausted, or socially struggling people become the negative reference point: “At least I’m not like them.” Moreover, the narratives need to either devalue or bastardize cause and effect, otherwise the dynamic in the above paragraph would be easily called into question.
Health conditions, especially covert ones, are used to "prove" that society is working just fine. If you ever discover covert health problems like I did (e.g. upper airway biolimiters such as a deviated septum, somewhat common here on incels.is btw), you might notice that NPCs either act with neutrality, dismissal or outright hostility if you consider getting treatment or surgery for them.
This is because your quality of life might improve as a result, and you will not be as much of a "loser" as before - the contrast becomes weaker. This is why my mom spoke against me getting a septoplasty - although she could not stop me from doing it, as I have my own money now - she wanted me to suffer and be miserable for the rest of my life (although she is not much of a winner herself, just a temporarily embarassed winner). Adding insult to injury, she now calls me a hypochondriac. Most other people either acted with neutrality or didn't want to hear what I had to say, and at least one friendship ended, another pending confirmation due to ghosting.
Things like "meritocracy" and "resilience" are often used as smokescreens to placate the legitimate need to analyse and research things on a deeper level, and quietly depend on people staying beneath others. If everyone were healthy, supported, educated, rested, etc , then many status games would lose their contrast... I wish healthcare was more affordable.
Take two gym goers, A and B. They have the same workout plan. Same diet. Same training frequency. However, gym goer B has 5 covert health conditions, whereas gym goer A is mostly healthy. Who has the most progress?
'A' is a 'winner' while 'B' is a 'loser'... apparently?
Of course, caution should be taken with surgeries, especially those categorized as hardmaxxing. Doing too much in a short timespan could cause some weird results. And not everyone can afford them. But isn't it weird that we have all this modern technology and advancements in medicine... And yet it's taboo to use said advancements?
Health conditions, especially covert ones, are used to "prove" that society is working just fine. If you ever discover covert health problems like I did (e.g. upper airway biolimiters such as a deviated septum, somewhat common here on incels.is btw), you might notice that NPCs either act with neutrality, dismissal or outright hostility if you consider getting treatment or surgery for them.
This is because your quality of life might improve as a result, and you will not be as much of a "loser" as before - the contrast becomes weaker. This is why my mom spoke against me getting a septoplasty - although she could not stop me from doing it, as I have my own money now - she wanted me to suffer and be miserable for the rest of my life (although she is not much of a winner herself, just a temporarily embarassed winner). Adding insult to injury, she now calls me a hypochondriac. Most other people either acted with neutrality or didn't want to hear what I had to say, and at least one friendship ended, another pending confirmation due to ghosting.
Things like "meritocracy" and "resilience" are often used as smokescreens to placate the legitimate need to analyse and research things on a deeper level, and quietly depend on people staying beneath others. If everyone were healthy, supported, educated, rested, etc , then many status games would lose their contrast... I wish healthcare was more affordable.
Take two gym goers, A and B. They have the same workout plan. Same diet. Same training frequency. However, gym goer B has 5 covert health conditions, whereas gym goer A is mostly healthy. Who has the most progress?
Let's make this even more fucked up - Gym goer A, who is already healthy, starts taking steroids. They will look like they come from two different galaxies (body-wise). Obviously the use of steroids comes with other complications long term, but by the time that happens, 'A' already reaped the benefits of using them.
Of course, caution should be taken with surgeries, especially those categorized as hardmaxxing. Doing too much in a short timespan could cause some weird results. And not everyone can afford them. But isn't it weird that we have all this modern technology and advancements in medicine... And yet it's taboo to use said advancements?
