RE: This is gonna be the thread where we talk about stuff
05-06-2014, 11:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2014, 11:05 PM by SleepingOrange.)
It's super shitty and lazy and quite frankly defensive and anti-progressive to respond to every instance of "You/some people/society waste(s) too much time and effort on trivialities*" by automatically generalizing it as "You should feel bad if you're ever doing something that doesn't somehow improve the plight of people less fortunate than you". That's not what I'm saying, and I'd wager it's not what anyone who has ever had a conversation with you has been saying, but if you don't want to actually respond to, you know, points that have been brought up, that's your deal. It's what I expected anyway, because very few people have any interest in actually examining criticism brought against them or their lifestyle; you can equate it to a personal attack and strawman it all you want until it sounds absurd which means you don't have to make any personal changes or even think about it beyond a dismissive reaction. Doesn't really change anything, though. A life lived with resources only devoted to oneself and one's interests is exactly that regardless of how one justifies it.
You will notice that no post even remotely responded to the central question I posed which pared down is: Why does anyone have a right to make a living doing what they enjoy? Why is that something anyone is entitled to?
More saliently, this bears responding to:
Aside from completely missing the point and misrepresenting "Devoting your life and career to entertainment does not meaningfully contribute to society or better anyone's life" as "Devoting any of your time or money to your hobbies is basically evil", this pretty succinctly sums up one of the most toxic attitudes that prevents significant progress being made at even a local or small level: "Why should I devote time and resources to improving things? Other people have way more than I do, they should be doing it.". As long as that thought is widespread, just about anyone can justify not doing anything that isn't self-serving; the majority of people could do something, even if it's as simple as political activism (Facebook and Tumblr don't count!) or volunteering (working in a soup kitchen or hospice or Habitat for Humanity costs nothing but opportunity), but choose not to because other people could do it more effectively or with less hardship.
I live well below the poverty line for a single adult in my part of the country. I'm forced to support myself with the income I have, and have to make choices about what I want and what I need and what I should spend my time and money on, as we all do. Despite that, the fact that I spend as much time on the internet as I do, and the fact that I have opinions about video games and webcomics, and the fact I've discussed hobbies of mine that cost money to indulge in means that I don't live or advocate a joyless life of bare minimums where all of the money I don't eat or shelter myself with goes straight to AIDS victims in Uganda. It would be genuinely stupid to suggest otherwise, because asceticism is both unsustainable and unhealthy. All I'm saying is that people shouldn't spend ALL their free time and money on things that serve no purpose but temporary enjoyment, but the reaction that position consistently gets (illustrated above) demonstrates how little people like to think about the opportunity cost of their actions and how ready they are to protect themselves from even the insinuation that they aren't doing as much as they could. Nobody likes to change and nobody likes to think of themselves as anything but a good person – and I'm no exception – but it's still worth considering what else could be done. Anything more than nothing is something. Don't give until you're broke but... don't be selfish.
*trivialities like, yes, webcomics and video games and TV shows and the majority of arts and entertainment. None of those things lack value because we as a species need stimulation and a measure of distance from our own lives, but Art As An Ideal is increasingly abstract and meaningless in a society where art is as commodified as it is in ours. Nobody needs a Nintendo, nobody needs a Picasso. Lots of people need lots of things, and art and entertainment will happen with or without significant portions of the population producing nothing but that.
You will notice that no post even remotely responded to the central question I posed which pared down is: Why does anyone have a right to make a living doing what they enjoy? Why is that something anyone is entitled to?
More saliently, this bears responding to:
(05-06-2014, 06:37 PM)Loather Wrote: »Spending money on things you enjoy is absurd, how dare you use your relatively tiny disposible income for anything that doesn't somehow change the entire way society is organized. After all, it's you that's the problem!
Aside from completely missing the point and misrepresenting "Devoting your life and career to entertainment does not meaningfully contribute to society or better anyone's life" as "Devoting any of your time or money to your hobbies is basically evil", this pretty succinctly sums up one of the most toxic attitudes that prevents significant progress being made at even a local or small level: "Why should I devote time and resources to improving things? Other people have way more than I do, they should be doing it.". As long as that thought is widespread, just about anyone can justify not doing anything that isn't self-serving; the majority of people could do something, even if it's as simple as political activism (Facebook and Tumblr don't count!) or volunteering (working in a soup kitchen or hospice or Habitat for Humanity costs nothing but opportunity), but choose not to because other people could do it more effectively or with less hardship.
I live well below the poverty line for a single adult in my part of the country. I'm forced to support myself with the income I have, and have to make choices about what I want and what I need and what I should spend my time and money on, as we all do. Despite that, the fact that I spend as much time on the internet as I do, and the fact that I have opinions about video games and webcomics, and the fact I've discussed hobbies of mine that cost money to indulge in means that I don't live or advocate a joyless life of bare minimums where all of the money I don't eat or shelter myself with goes straight to AIDS victims in Uganda. It would be genuinely stupid to suggest otherwise, because asceticism is both unsustainable and unhealthy. All I'm saying is that people shouldn't spend ALL their free time and money on things that serve no purpose but temporary enjoyment, but the reaction that position consistently gets (illustrated above) demonstrates how little people like to think about the opportunity cost of their actions and how ready they are to protect themselves from even the insinuation that they aren't doing as much as they could. Nobody likes to change and nobody likes to think of themselves as anything but a good person – and I'm no exception – but it's still worth considering what else could be done. Anything more than nothing is something. Don't give until you're broke but... don't be selfish.
*trivialities like, yes, webcomics and video games and TV shows and the majority of arts and entertainment. None of those things lack value because we as a species need stimulation and a measure of distance from our own lives, but Art As An Ideal is increasingly abstract and meaningless in a society where art is as commodified as it is in ours. Nobody needs a Nintendo, nobody needs a Picasso. Lots of people need lots of things, and art and entertainment will happen with or without significant portions of the population producing nothing but that.