211–220 of 774 posts
Maybe I'm spoiled as a nerdy (and interested in nerdy) gay guy, but I pity those in this thread saying that their fiancee wouldn't listen to reason about this. It slays me that "tradition" is so important to people that they will waste such vast amounts of money and prop up such a gross, violent industry in the face of reason.
What do gay people do (in general) for things like this? The most I've seen (with male-male couples) is gold wedding rings; I'm not sure about female couples.
The lack of social traditions and traditional obligations seems daunting at first but it's kind of fun to be unencumbered (especially when I read reynir's replies and go white-faced from the ridiculous sexist pressure put on men and women to be macho and feminine still today).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its' really hard to live life stepping on eggshells worrying about injustices to other people. At the end of the day, I bet most people on this thread drive, and there is very little else that humans do that does more violence to the environment and to other humans than the use of fossil fuels. It goes far beyond that. If you're an American, your comfortable life exists because of the American government's willingnes…
You talk about oil and injustice, but there is no reasonable cost effective substitute to oil at the moment, while there are better alternatives to natural diamonds - man made diamonds - which could easily become cheaper too. > "If you're an American, your comfortable life exists because of the American government's willingness to inflict violence on other people to maintain our status in the world" There are few alt…
The negative externality caused by diamonds is tiny in comparison to the ones caused by fossil fuels.
For individuals, there are reasonable, cost-effective substitutes to reduce oil consumption. I take an electric train to work and walk everywhere else. I own a car, but drive it maybe once a month. People choose to drive, they choose to live in places like Silicon Valley where driving is part of the culture, they choose to live in suburbs, etc. We could use a lot less oil if people chose to life in places like New York. But the choice to live a car-centric lifestyle probably won't engender as much vitriol here on HN as the choice to buy a diamond engagement ring, even though in the grand scheme of things it's far more damaging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to say that but that's not how human nature works. When you buy things for other people, it is generally a positive for your relationship with them. In general, they are happier and think better of you. Getting upset about it and saying they don't 'really love you' is not true and not super helpful. Human nature is very hard to change, no matter how intelligent / introspective we become. Do you never buy yo…
Infidelity is also human nature. Is that also just to be expected in a relationship? If someone isn't willing to compromise in the face of reason (e.g. "we can't afford an expensive wedding or a ring", or "I'm concerned about supporting conflict in Africa and supporting the diamond cartel") then I'd say the relationship is probably not strong enough to last.
And you're moving the argument here - previously we were talking about buying an expensive ring, not supporting armed conflict or purchasing something you can't afford.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do gay people do (in general) for things like this? The most I've seen (with male-male couples) is gold wedding rings; I'm not sure about female couples.
I don't really know. Something symbolic would be nice, but in my mind it would be like a tungsten carbide ring with my partner's name in binary or something. Economical, long-lasting... but I'm not sure. That's a bridge quite a ways away for me. The lack of social traditions and traditional obligations seems daunting at first but it's kind of fun to be unencumbered (especially when I read reynir's replies and go whit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say they are mentally ill, I said they have low self esteem and therapy might help them.
That's the implication when you say they need therapy.
Profit available from stopping it? Probably none unless you're going to just replace it with another kind of brainwashing.
Often the truth is simply out competed by manipulation in the market because the truth belongs to everyone and can't be monetized well.
After seeing my girlfriend's Facebook session plastered with wedding crap and her recently married friend's Facebook plastered with baby crap it became clear to me how potentially harmful to society as a whole this grand brainwashing infrastructure— all of these advertising platforms invading every moment of our lives— we've built is… and I try to stay as far away from it as I can. Because that is all I can do: I certainly can't outspend it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Karma be damned but women as a whole are swayed more by marketing then men are To make a claim like this, I'd normally expect data, not a bunch of anecdotes. Men I know are highly swayed by marketing as well. They want expensive cars, tools, games, alcohol, and other toys. It is hard to reason about the degree to which each is influenced solely from the products that are marketed to them. It is quite a stretch for…
Think of how men are marketed to and you'll see the difference. It's not a name brand or a lifestyle, almost everything marketed to men has some sort of pragmatic function to it. Be it the big F-150 that can tow a ton, to the comfortable (yet fuel efficient!) 4-door sedan. Sport cars might be an exception for most men (although not for me). As much as you don't need it, a $2000 60" HDTV is still more functional than…
Purely for the sake of argument let's accept your premise for the moment that men are more concerned with pragmatism than women. It does NOT logically follow that men are less influenced by marketing than women.
You are pretty easily refuted by basically every beer commercial ever. Likewise the trucks you point to - show me a truck advertisement where an engineer comes out and explains exhaustively why this truck is better designed. That basically never happens, instead you get shots of the truck driving over mountains while "fk yea" rock music plays in the background and the truck is shown hauling giant weights around.
There certainly are differences in the way men and women think about things (in a general overall sense)...and I have no doubt that the WAYS in which things are marketed differ between men and women (in a general overall sense)...that doesn't mean women are somehow "more susceptible" though. The fact that advertising to men is just as common as advertising to women suggests they are about equally effective. If you want to suggest otherwise you need to provide actual evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You talk about oil and injustice, but there is no reasonable cost effective substitute to oil at the moment, while there are better alternatives to natural diamonds - man made diamonds - which could easily become cheaper too. > "If you're an American, your comfortable life exists because of the American government's willingness to inflict violence on other people to maintain our status in the world" There are few alt…
De Beers isn't a monopolist and hasn't been once since 2000, when key producers in Canada, Australia, Russia, India, etc, started selling diamonds outside the channels. The negative externality caused by diamonds is tiny in comparison to the ones caused by fossil fuels. For individuals, there are reasonable, cost-effective substitutes to reduce oil consumption. I take an electric train to work and walk everywhere els…
For individuals, there are reasonable, cost-effective
substitutes to reduce oil consumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why? Because I advocate relationships where contributions are granulated and distributed according to participant interest, not participant gender. Monolithic roles like "provider" (and the concomitant role of "consumer/sex object") of are inherently coercive. Because they're monolithic and tied to gender. I think that kind of coercion is perverse. > That are very pragmatic reasons to invest in signals of social sta…
> Because I advocate relationships where contributions are granulated and distributed according to participant interest, not participant gender. Okay how do you distribute child-bearing according to participant interest? How do you distribute child-rearing according to participant interest, bearing in mind that an infant just wants to suck on a breast and doesn't care about your views on gender roles.
Adoption.
> How do you distribute child-rearing according to participant interest, bearing in mind that an infant just wants to suck on a breast and doesn't care about your views on gender roles.
There are some limits to what can be shared. I advocate going right up to that line. A woman who wants to raise a baby at some point has to make tough choices about formula, breast pumping, bonding, and her other priorities in life. There is a qualitative difference between the handful of hard limits imposed by biology, and the many limits imposed by compulsory monolithic gender roles.