The article touches on some good points, but a lot of it gets bogged down in the American-capitalist perspective that others have already commented on (although this was probably the author's intent, as that kind of mock-edginess tends to draw more readers).

The most important point that I think it hits on is that a lot of people have the problem that they live mostly in their heads. In their minds they are wonderful, intelligent, creative people with lots to offer to an employer/girlfriend/society at large. Except, there isn't any actual outward expression of any of this. And as a result no one actually recognizes them as being any of the things they believe they are. This disconnect, which could probably best be described as a form of cognitive dissonance, can result in quite a bit of frustration and unhappiness. And unfortunately despite the frustration and unhappiness it's difficult for people in such a situation to change, since in their minds they're already these wonderful people, and why would they need to change that?

It ultimately comes down to people defining themselves as being certain things even though none of their actions actually indicate that they are any of those things. When interacting with the rest of the world what matters is what one brings to the table in terms of actions, not just vague concepts of what you "are". The exercise at the beginning of the article can actually be quite useful-

"Name five impressive things about yourself. Write them down or just shout them out loud to the room. But here's the catch -- you're not allowed to list anything you are (i.e., I'm a nice guy, I'm honest), but instead can only list things that you do"

Because this can serve to really illustrate the disconnect between one's conception of what kind of person one is, and what kind of person your actions actually show you to be. Once these kinds of internal lies are exposed then it's much easier to actually start taking actions to improve the kind of person you are, outwardly.

I'mI very much against this article even though most of what it says is true and useful. I think it should be renamed "6 reasons why people suck today." or "6 reasons why the world sucks today." This article reveals that most people today are really not so different from Satanists(not the devil worshiping god hating kind but the people who follow the Satanic bible). I believe, simply by being a decent human being, you already offer enough to the world and are entitled to be being loved and treated with a certain level of respect. I believe anyone who doesn't value another person because that person is "useless" in his or her eyes is seriously fucked up in the head. I believe we are not robots. But that is just me, and unfortunately most people are seriously fucked up in the head. So yes, in today's world, if you are simply a decent human being, you are screwed and will probably become homeless. In today's world, you need to be MORE than a decent human being so people don't find you "useless". You need to be "useful".

At the very least we'll make Thomas Hobbes proud.

Could you elaborate on this particular part? I feel like I'm on the verge of understanding what you're trying to say but this part is the key left I didn't quite fully get.

Aside from the capitalistic perspective yes, that's what I interpreted from it as well. I suppose as long as you can find yourself out of cognitive dissonance neither financial success or the idea that you are good as you're matter because you are one with the world so to say, you feel connected.

And back to another paradox (or perhaps linked to the others?) that people who are frustrated and unhappy that they aren't good enough even though they believe they are, they need success to get out of it yet a change may require that but at the same time it's in the hardest situation to try it.

The cynisist in me would say why bother change the world when I can't change myself? with an added hope of If I can do former, I can do the latter.

Being a "decent human being" is pretty much a baseline that should be expected of people, along the lines of putting on clothes when going out or bathing regularly. It's certainly a problem if someone isn't a decent human being, but being one just puts you on the same level as the billions of other people who are also decent human beings. It means most people will treat you politely, but if you want anything more (a job, a relationship, etc), then you're going to have to bring a bit more to the table than just that bare minimum.

It seems, you and me have our own definitions of "decent". Whenever I say "decent human being", I'm not talking about someone who bathes regularly, wears clothes, works, has a place to live and pays their taxes. Decent human beings shouldn't be taken for granted and there aren't billions of other people who are also decent human beings. Most people are not decent human beings. If that was the case, the world would be very different today. There wouldn't be so much poverty, suffering and crime. And I disagree with you. Why should someone have to bring this and that to the table to get a job? If society doesn't want "bare minimum" kind of people to turn to crime to survive, then society should give "bare minimum" people jobs. Having a job is basic human fucking right, I'm not saying, having a good job is a basic human right. I'm saying, having a job is a basic human right. And all those that disagree with that can fuck off.

It's quite possible we have different views of what constitutes a decent human being, but unless your definition involves major and continuous acts to try to change the world for the better (which I'd consider going above and beyond just being "decent") then we're probably not all that far off in our definitions. You also underestimate the extent of the effect that a small percentage of people can have in making things worse for everyone else, especially when their actions are magnified by some of the harsh realities of the world. It's easy to look at the state of the world and believe that it must be because it's filled with rotten people, but when you go out and interact with people regularly at least I find that the vast majority are actually decent people just trying to live their lives the best they can. Also, I'm sorry to have to reiterate this to you, but being a decent person doesn't make you special, and all it will get you is other decent people treating you decently. Again, if you want anything more from people beyond that then you need to bring a bit more to the table yourself.

When I speak of decent human beings, I'm talking about people who don't have cold black hearts who only think of themselves. People who don't go around spreading suffering and chaos when there is no good reason. And no, it's all an illusion. If you go out and talk to people, people put on masks so that they appear to be decent people just trying to live their lives the best they can. If you can see through the masks or do lots of research, you will see that the world is indeed, filled with rotten people. Why do you have to be special to get more from people than being treated decently? It sounds like you don't appreciate people. So someone has to be a rock star or secret agent or an electrician to be your friend? You would turn down a person who isn't special but someone who has a good heart, is loyal, always has your back and would die for you if he asked to be your friend?

Either we're dealing with very different people on a daily basis, or you've got some issues causing you to only look for the absolute worst in people (and this is coming from a dyed in the wool cynic). The more disconnected you are from people the easier it is to find stories of only the worst of humanity while telling yourself not being like all those people you're reading about makes you exceptional. Fortunately humanity isn't quite that bad, and unless you live in a really bad area you'll find that just getting out there and acting like a decent human being yourself will reveal most of the people you interact with to also be decent human beings.

On the contrary I appreciate just about everyone I interact with, and show it through my actions towards all of those people. As for people who I consider friends, that would be limited to those who I share quite a few interests with and also spend quite a bit of time with because I enjoy their company. If I don't share interests with a person and don't particularly enjoy their company then I'll still treat them kindly, but I'm not going to spend much time hanging with them because, well, I don't particularly enjoy their company.

And since this was added to your previous post while I was responding, I'd like to address it now.

There may be an argument to be made for providing an unconditional basic income to everyone (although that's an entirely different discussion), but having a job is not a right. A job is an exchange of money for services- someone needs specific work done (that often requires particular skills), and so pays money to someone who is able to do that work. If there's no work that needs to be done then there's no job (similarly if a robot can do a particular set of work better and cheaper), and if a person doesn't have the skills necessary to perform a set of work satisfactorily then there's no reason that they should be hired (payed) for attempting something they are not qualified to do. Basically, if you want someone to pay you for doing some set of work, then you need to possess a set of skills that qualifies you for doing that work. To flip it around, would you feel inclined to pay someone incapable of doing what it is you need done?

interesting

I didn't say, people should give jobs to people incapable of doing what needs to be done. There will always be plenty of work that needs to be done that doesn't require special people. Replacing these people with robots is just an insanely greedy douche bag thing to do. If that happens in the future, expect the level of crime to reach an insane level. And having a job is a right in civilization if civilization has taken away the freedom to live off the land and punishes crime. People have the right to survive. You are naive, if you believe the world is full of decent people. Like Sweeney Todd said in the movie, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, I'm going to say this to you. "Life has been kind to you. You will learn."...

Let me illustrate first, elaborate afterwards:

There's this animation on YouTube where a character shouts, with exasperation, "Are you a man or a mouse?!". Then the camera moves over to show a fairly unamused horse.
* * *
There's this scene from "Planet of the Apes":
"HONORIUS
Directly, Mr. President. This wretched man, the accused, is only a pawn in the conspiracy. We know that he was wounded in the throat at the time of his capture. The State charges that Dr. Zira and a corrupt surgeon named Galen experimented on this wounded animal, tampering with his brain and throat tissues to create a speaking monster ...
ZIRA (on her feet)
That's a lie!
PRESIDENT (pounding gavel)
Mind your tongue, madame.
ZIRA
Did we create his mind too? Not only can this man speak. He can write. He can reason.
HONORIUS
He can reason? With the Tribunal's permission, et me expose this hoax by direct examination.
PRESIDENT
Proceed. But don't turn this hearing into a farce. Honorius crosses to the defendant's table and favors Taylor with an evil smile.
HONORIUS
Tell the court, Bright Eyes -- what is the second Article of Faith?
TAYLOR
I admit, I know nothing of your culture.
HONORIUS
Of course he doesn't know our culture - because he cannot think.
(to Taylor) Tell us why all apes are created equal.
TAYLOR
Some apes, it seems, are more equal than others.
HONORIUS
Ridiculous. That answer is a contradiction in terms. Tell us, Bright Eyes, why do men have no souls? What is the proof that a divine spark exists in the simian brain?"
* * *
Finally - there's the well known fact that you can't pick yourself up and move even a tiny bit to the side.
* * *

We can make claims, utter so-called "propositions", discuss the veracity of various claims; We can look inside a box and see what is there. The implicit assumption is that we see similar things similarly when we peek into the box. This doesn't have to be the case.
Mathematical truths are largely self-evident, and can be grasped and accepted by anyone who *properly* understands the symbols, words or illustrations we use to convey them. What happens if a person doesn't? Confusion ensues. The reason why this doesn't become a problem is that people who have "deviant" (read: "different from the norm") understanding and no ambition to start an academic revolution usually give in, in an effort to understand the other side, and assimilate the publicly-accepted way of thinking about numbers, functions, etc. This is rarely the case with almost anything else.
Some things are either very tough to properly evaluate, impossible to do so, or even completely substitutional and up to personal preference. People make choices in such matters as they live their lives, repeated choices form "constant tendencies", to use an Aristotelian term. This, at some point, falls into the background - either verge of consciousness or entirely into the realm of so-called unconscious. With that in the background, invisible yet active like the cron daemon on my Linux box, they make further choices, interact with others and build their knowledge and "secondary" preferences up further. As long as they interact only with people who share all or most of the fundamental to a high enough degree - harmony ensues; "Like dissolves like", as my chemistry teacher has taught me.
Once they encounter someone with a different "background" and happen to discuss ANYTHING with a strong enough dependency on either person's paradigm - confusion ensues. Keep in mind - even the "controversy factor" isn't necessarily common. For some people the subject of, say, food is a trivial matter. For others it can be of extreme importance (like for some vegans). As a curious illustration - I had a seminar where the guy kept trolling us in an effort to spark discussion. Having been seasoned Philosophy students - nothing fazed us, and we thus kept trudging on through various discussions, from Hitler, to firefighters, to separation of church and state. The thing that got people talking? Marriage. I kid you not.
When encountering a person with an INCOMPATIBLE view, you can simply declare them anathema and move on ("troll!"), you can convert and become a neophyte of their view, you can convert THEM... or you could try to understand both paradigms. I'm going to be honest here - there was a text written by a guy named Rorty who insisted that we give up on the idea of "objective truth", respect the views of others and try not to wipe each other from the face of the Earth. A modest suggestion, one might think, but I recall fairly well two reactions (I have agreed with):
1* How the hell can we *respect* what others think if we assume that their opinions are as meaningless as our own, or indeed - any other anyone might have?
2* How on Earth are we supposed to be Truth-seekers if we assume that there is no Truth in the first place?
In other words - just because I've said that people have different opinions, just because I said they can have problems understanding each other, and just because I think that they should learn to understand each others' views... Doesn't mean I think there isn't a "corrent" one to be found and that every view is equal. End of disclaimer.
Why do people have the problem with understanding each other? That's because their "boxes" are different. There are similar things inside (because they're discussing the same issue... I assume)(Also - each "box" here contain the world), but they are seen differently. Why is that? If the same things are in these boxes, then there should be agreement, or at least understanding, right? No, that's because the BOXES THEMSELVES are different.
At this point some would argue that the boxes are neutral like a mathematical set, and that this background information shouldn't, in fact, be treated as the box, but rather some peripheral things inside the box that affect other items... A mist engulfing them, perhaps. This is ultimately irrelevant. It's a matter of whether paradigms are, in fact, comprised of implicit views, or whether they are something more, due to being the ground upon which other things grow.
Either way - to understand the other person you need to be able inspect both boxes. Not just the other one - both of them. To do this you need to step back and take a look at your own paradigm... A look from beyond the box. Now the box becomes a thing among others, one that is complicated yet can be inspected. Somewhat unwillingly, however, you have created another box - a bigger one that can contain the previous one in addition to any conclusions you might draw, etc. You need this meta-box to organize thoughts, like you need a folder to put two folders into.
Once you have a bigger box, there is little point in keeping your views sequestered in the little one. Some people do that, I guess - they are the ones who have different ideas at work than they do at home, believe in different things on the Internet than they do at school... Very post-modern, contextual, annoying, and inconsistent.
Once you analyze both boxes you can come to a further, more general understanding, but you can also conclude that the other person... made a mistake, and that their view is pretty crappy and uninteresting overall. Not everything "broadens horizons". If you are right (big if), you tell the other person, and they refuse to accept this fact - they are what I call "unreasonable people" and aren't worth having further discussions with. If they wrote a scientific text on why swans are exclusively white, you show them a black swan, and they refuse to change their mind...
There's probably more I could elaborate upon in relation to this, but this might just be enough to answer your question :].

You don't seem to get the full picture - work is not "good".
Ideally we should get rid of all work, so that we could live our lives in mirth and contemplation, creating and appreciating art, pondering ideas, being at peace.

I do get the full picture. I agree with you that work is not "good" but I don't feel like getting into that whole thing right now. Right now, I'm battling against the you need to be SPECIAL to have a happy life kind of mentality that dominates America. And I'm also battling the naive the world is full of decent people, sunshine and rainbows mentality.

If it happens? It's been happening for decades already. It's part of why you can buy so many goods at such low prices. I'm curious, though, do you research how the things you buy are made, and specifically only buy things that are made by hand, even if that means paying significantly more? Seems like that would be a good way to speak with your actions if you really were opposed to the use of robots in manufacturing.

There very well may be an issue in the future with low-skill jobs disappearing that as a society we'll need to address (I've got plenty of thoughts on this myself, but that's another discussion), but simply claiming that employers should continue to use less efficient methods or pay more than the market requires is a non-starter, and says to me that you haven't actually given much thought to the issue.

As I'm only a mere 31 years into what I hope will be a long life it is quite possible that there may be life experiences ahead of me that will cause me to re-evaluate my position. On the other hand, I've already had innumerable experiences with other people, both good and bad, and yet here I am still believing that most people out there are decent folk. I have to wonder whether your own position is born from a wealth of experience, or a lack of it.