3 ms·
I try very hard (and still often fail) to put myself in the shoes of people who are meaningfully not like me, and one thing that's come from that is understandi
by TameAntelope 6y ago
I try very hard (and still often fail) to put myself in the shoes of people who are meaningfully not like me, and one thing that's come from that is understanding how motivation doesn't always track equally for everyone (and trying to come to terms with the fact that this might be okay).
Finding things that give enjoyment and deliberately distract from the things going on in a person's life has potentially immense value, depending on what those things going on in their life are.
The implicit agreement made here is that both parties know what you're saying, and both parties agree to not talk about it -- for the seller, because it's an ethical quandary, for the buyer because they don't want to have to confront the things in their life they're trying to ignore.
It doesn't always have to be so sinister of course (maybe I just want to relax and am otherwise keeping my responsibilities), but it can be sinister, which I think is what you're getting at. My argument is that both parties know this, and it may be the whole point.
- nine_k 6y agoThis sounds pretty similar to alcohol, weed, and other substances for "recreational use", that is, for staving off the pains of living. Substance abuse is a well-known problem. Same apparently applies to digital entertainment of certain kinds.
- permo-w 6y agoMy thinking is that there are better ways to do this, even for people that can't afford to pay for their content. I think the BBC is a perfect example. Why can't we have state-funded social media? I know this is a fairly left-wing perspective, but I feel that the implicit agreement - which I totally agree exists - isn't necessary. There doesn't need to be a buyer and a seller. Once that is taken away, where is the incentive for sinistrum?