Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diamonds Suck (2006)

diamondssuck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#411

Post by nirvdrum »

jakewins wrote: post #174
MustardTiger wrote: post #152

>Sorry about Trump, BTW. Why on earth do you think that sort of random political non-sequitur is appropriate?

Uhm, well, because I'm having a conversation about cultural differences between the midwest and the north-east. I think it's appropriate to segway into another topic that way. If it's the sarcasm you find inappropriate, I respectfully disagree. If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves i…

FYI, "segue" is the word you're looking for. A "segway" is one of those Dean Kamen scooters. Apologies if raising that is a jerk thing to do, but if I were on the other end I'd appreciate it. I can't tell you how long I went spelling "carotid" wrong, despite being aware of the printed word (I thought that one was pronounced differently, oddly enough).

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#412

Post by tjalfi »

coldtea wrote: post #375
Ironchefpython wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign It's deeply ingrained in Western culture. Think about it like eating dogs. There's no rational reason not to use dogs for meat, but most Westerners would throw a hissy fit rather than eat dog meat. So don't assume the prospective bride is unreasonable. In fact, assume the opposite, as she was able to read a rational explanation of the iss…

> It's deeply ingrained in Western culture. It's only "deeply ingrained" in the US. In most of the Western Europe etc it's negligible. And from what I've read it wasn't some deep rooted tradition in the US either -- it took a lot of advertising from diamond companies to instill it... http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you... has some details on the ad campaigns.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#413

Post by joesb »

Can_Not wrote: post #276
morgante wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. The problem with every diamond critique I see is that their very first argument against diamonds is that they're expensive when that is, in fact, the entire point. Likewise, all the people who cry foul about the De Beers conspiracy are neglecting the fact that this does absolutely nothing to reduce their signal value. If I spend a large sum of money on something which I know to be worthless just to star…

> If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals Why do we need signals? Why does the social contract of marriage need an expensive down payment on essentially nothing? These are things modern cultures should be distancing themselves from. The down payment should be for a house or apartment, or just anything useful.

Saying you are married to someone is also a kind of signal.

Why do you propose? Why do you say "I love you"? They are all signal.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#414

Post by joesb »

burfog wrote: post #305
somestag wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, I don't think it's that simple. For one, the "respect your values" arguments goes both ways: she values a diamond, he doesn't. If she insists on a diamond, she's not respecting his values. If he insists on no diamond, he's not respecting hers. It's very easy to justify going the no-diamond route, sure. From a financial point of view, it's just a bad idea. Some say the finances aren't the point, so you can tu…

Going the no-diamond route is also a way to test the relationship. The more she expects a diamond, the better the test works.

It goes both way.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#415

Post by joesb »

Grishnakh wrote: post #395
somestag wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, I don't think it's that simple. For one, the "respect your values" arguments goes both ways: she values a diamond, he doesn't. If she insists on a diamond, she's not respecting his values. If he insists on no diamond, he's not respecting hers. It's very easy to justify going the no-diamond route, sure. From a financial point of view, it's just a bad idea. Some say the finances aren't the point, so you can tu…

There's also another argument: what exactly is the woman's role in this relationship? Is she merely a possession? If she insists on a diamond, then I think she should also be expected to be treated as a possession, and an inferior person. Because she's not acting like an equal partner by insisting the husband spend a ton of money on a worthless rock to "prove" his dedication and love for her. A woman who's really an…

just because I buy someone a gift doesn't make them my possession.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#416

Post by joesb »

NumberCruncher wrote: post #265
bluedevil2k wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a wife is a net loss monetarily. I guess you shouldn't get married then

You seem to get emotional. Because a guy on the internet does not want to by her GF a diamond ring? Why do you care at all?

Getting married is emotional.

Shouldn't get married.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#417

Post by Cyph0n »

pessimizer wrote: post #125
Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #34

So people do this to signal (both to their spouse and their friends) they are both financially capable and care enough about their spouse to burn a large amount of money on a pyre. It's also a very useful signal that you are serious about the commitment and unlikely to back off of the marriage. I would prefer to replace it with a certificate that proves you have spent X thousand dollars on said certificate from Moche…

How would she wear the certificate? Across her chest like a sash?

Why does it need to be flaunted? As long as the couple is happy, that's all that matters.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#418

Post by j45 »

lacampbell wrote: post #218
ejcx wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. It's very difficult to respond to you civically. We've been together for a long long time. It is amazing what people you don't know on the internet will assume about you. There was no alternative before this article. Cubic is cheap and tacky. Diamonds are overpriced and awful. Lab diamonds not much better. This article has a real alternative. That's a huge contribution to all diamond haters everywhere.

Right, I read that as your SO dictating to you that you must give her a diamond. My apologies.

I think it would be helpful if people who are giving their thoughts on a diamond can state if they've been married/engaged before.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#419

Post by lacampbell »

mythrwy wrote: post #403
nikatwork wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey mythrwy are you pregnant, you're looking a lot bigger? And also you should dump your partner because they conform to mainstream social standards, total red flag. Oh and you're raising your kids wrong. Hey why are you offended? I was trying to help! You could be gracious about it.

Are you teaching me a lesson? Or trolling? Real question. Because your approach isn't very constructive. The guy apologized and maybe he thought his advice was good. I admit though it was blunt and the part about divorce was rude.

Ok, at this point I have to comment.

For one thing, I never said he would get divorced. I said "if you get divorced".

For another thing, if you are going to divulge details of your personal relationship online, you should not be surprised or get upset if someone comments about it. If it's a sensitive issue for you - keep it to yourself. This isn't your journal.

I take my apology back. I did absolutely nothing wrong, and people seriously need to develop thicker skin.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#420

Post by kristianp »

beaner wrote: post #9

A diamond purchase is a type of proof-of-burn. It's a way to display how much you value the person by being willing to sacrifice a large part of your savings for them. It's not really about the stone itself, it's about the cost.

What's actual marriage in Cryptocurrency terms? Multi-signature?
Post reply on HN