6 ms·

> They’re called fake because they’re artificial, not because they have more flaws (...) give credit to the other side’s point: they have a reasonable and inter

> They’re called fake because they’re artificial, not because they have more flaws (...) give credit to the other side’s point: they have a reasonable and internally consistent argument The only thing I credit them for is being ruthlessly manipulative. "Fakes" is not a neutral word. It was very specifically chosen for its emotional baggage, similar to "pro-lifer" or "franken-foods". It is an emotional distracting piece of doublespeak and should not be condoned at all as being "reasonable".

dsacco 9y ago
You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. Yes, of course their marketing campaign set off the industry, but the reason it worked is because many people are already predisposed to prefer natural things over artificial things. What you’re calling “emotional baggage” is a subjective preference for some things over other things. It’s only doublespeak if you subscribe to a literalist form of communication that most people do not use. “Fake” isn’t a neutral word because it’s not intended to be - some people actually do prefer natural diamonds, just as some people really do prefer non-GMO food. It doesn’t matter if the reason they have that preference is due to artificial scarcity or a marketing campaign, the point is that they have that preference and many will keep it even if they are very informed on the matter. People are not hyperrational in the development of their preferences. The point I’m trying to make here is that while I agree people shouldn’t spend ostentatious amounts of money on items with artificial scarcity, I think litigating the use of the word “fake” is effectively a strawman and a sideshow when we’re discussing De Beers. In my opinion, while lab-made diamonds are more fiscally responsible, they’re not less silly as a purchase than natural diamonds if you dislike the capitalist insertion of a jewelry preference. It’s just local maxima: if you buy a lab-grown diamond you’re still buying a diamond. You’re still buying into that “emotional baggage”, as you put it, you’re just being a bit more fiscally savvy about it. If we assume people are not born with a desire for diamonds, then there is a credible argument buying synethic ones is still feeding a desire you (and I!) find fundamentally disagreeable.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  > You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. No, I'm not. I'm stating the fact that the language used by De Beers is manipulative. Whether or not people fall for that manipulation is a separate argument. I did not bring consumers into the equation, you did. And speaking of manipulative language, I would appreciate it if you didn't try to spin it as if I'm the one talking down to them.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    It’s only manipulative to take advantage of people’s desires for “real” diamonds insofar as it is manipulative to take advantage of people’s desires for “real” luxury items of any sort that can be faked. In other words: calling it manipulative isn’t productive, because that is essentially how the entire luxury industry works. We can make hyperrealistic imitation handbags and watches, but people still prefer the real items over the “fake” ones, regardless of how close they are in literal quality. More abstractly, to call a marketing campaign emphasizing the “realness” of a luxury item manipulative is to say that people could be manipulated by it. I disagree that people are manipulated into their desires for these items, even if their desires are not financially rational.
    - vanderZwan 9y ago
      > In other words: calling it manipulative isn’t productive, because that is essentially how the entire luxury industry works. The fact that an entire industry relies on fallacies does not make calling out those fallacies counter-productive. On the contrary.
      - dsacco 9y ago
        “Productive” here means that there is no distinguishing feature of the diamond industry in particular with respect to the luxury industry. In other words, the criticism of the diamond industry is not productively precise. Of course, you can productively criticize the entire luxury industry, sure, I don’t disagree with that. More to the point, what exactly is the fallacy? That the “real” products are better? They are better for some definition, you just don’t share the same definition of “better” as the people buying them. That’s the problem: the claim of superiority is not falsifiable, and it’s normative. It’s valid to say that synthetic diamonds are better according to some metrics like flawlessness, but that isn’t the metric everyone values. Many people demonstrably want “as flawless as possible for the ‘real’ diamond I can afford.” That desire is not based on a fallacy, it’s based on different priors. People are approximately never perfectly price-efficient in their purchasing decisions, which means there’s some amount of irrationality everywhere. A desire to buy an inefficiently priced luxury item with artificial scarcity and status associations is price-irrational but it can make sense in general. In your view, there should be a rigorous notion of “the metric” to optimize for across various products, but that notion is fundamentally at odds with how humans operate culturally. To put it bluntly, many people know and don’t care that synthetic diamonds are better in many respects, just as many people know and don’t care that a “franken-Rolex” can be better than an actual Rolex in many respects. They still want the “real” version, and from there they’ll optimize further. Like I said, I think there are legitimate criticisms of the diamond trade, but in my opinion they’re glossed over when we get preoccupied talking about what constitutes “real” versus “fake” and whether or not people should want the “real” thing.

dsacco 9y ago

You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. Yes, of course their marketing campaign set off the industry, but the reason it worked is because many people are already predisposed to prefer natural things over artificial things. What you’re calling “emotional baggage” is a subjective preference for some things over other things. It’s only doublespeak if you subscribe to a literalist form of communication that most people do not use. “Fake” isn’t a neutral word because it’s not intended to be - some people actually do prefer natural diamonds, just as some people really do prefer non-GMO food. It doesn’t matter if the reason they have that preference is due to artificial scarcity or a marketing campaign, the point is that they have that preference and many will keep it even if they are very informed on the matter. People are not hyperrational in the development of their preferences. The point I’m trying to make here is that while I agree people shouldn’t spend ostentatious amounts of money on items with artificial scarcity, I think litigating the use of the word “fake” is effectively a strawman and a sideshow when we’re discussing De Beers. In my opinion, while lab-made diamonds are more fiscally responsible, they’re not less silly as a purchase than natural diamonds if you dislike the capitalist insertion of a jewelry preference. It’s just local maxima: if you buy a lab-grown diamond you’re still buying a diamond. You’re still buying into that “emotional baggage”, as you put it, you’re just being a bit more fiscally savvy about it. If we assume people are not born with a desire for diamonds, then there is a credible argument buying synethic ones is still feeding a desire you (and I!) find fundamentally disagreeable.

vanderZwan 9y ago
> You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. No, I'm not. I'm stating the fact that the language used by De Beers is manipulative. Whether or not people fall for that manipulation is a separate argument. I did not bring consumers into the equation, you did. And speaking of manipulative language, I would appreciate it if you didn't try to spin it as if I'm the one talking down to them.
- dsacco 9y ago
  It’s only manipulative to take advantage of people’s desires for “real” diamonds insofar as it is manipulative to take advantage of people’s desires for “real” luxury items of any sort that can be faked. In other words: calling it manipulative isn’t productive, because that is essentially how the entire luxury industry works. We can make hyperrealistic imitation handbags and watches, but people still prefer the real items over the “fake” ones, regardless of how close they are in literal quality. More abstractly, to call a marketing campaign emphasizing the “realness” of a luxury item manipulative is to say that people could be manipulated by it. I disagree that people are manipulated into their desires for these items, even if their desires are not financially rational.
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    > In other words: calling it manipulative isn’t productive, because that is essentially how the entire luxury industry works. The fact that an entire industry relies on fallacies does not make calling out those fallacies counter-productive. On the contrary.
    - dsacco 9y ago
      “Productive” here means that there is no distinguishing feature of the diamond industry in particular with respect to the luxury industry. In other words, the criticism of the diamond industry is not productively precise. Of course, you can productively criticize the entire luxury industry, sure, I don’t disagree with that. More to the point, what exactly is the fallacy? That the “real” products are better? They are better for some definition, you just don’t share the same definition of “better” as the people buying them. That’s the problem: the claim of superiority is not falsifiable, and it’s normative. It’s valid to say that synthetic diamonds are better according to some metrics like flawlessness, but that isn’t the metric everyone values. Many people demonstrably want “as flawless as possible for the ‘real’ diamond I can afford.” That desire is not based on a fallacy, it’s based on different priors. People are approximately never perfectly price-efficient in their purchasing decisions, which means there’s some amount of irrationality everywhere. A desire to buy an inefficiently priced luxury item with artificial scarcity and status associations is price-irrational but it can make sense in general. In your view, there should be a rigorous notion of “the metric” to optimize for across various products, but that notion is fundamentally at odds with how humans operate culturally. To put it bluntly, many people know and don’t care that synthetic diamonds are better in many respects, just as many people know and don’t care that a “franken-Rolex” can be better than an actual Rolex in many respects. They still want the “real” version, and from there they’ll optimize further. Like I said, I think there are legitimate criticisms of the diamond trade, but in my opinion they’re glossed over when we get preoccupied talking about what constitutes “real” versus “fake” and whether or not people should want the “real” thing.