Asklemmy

48166 readers

729 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

112

What hills are you dying on? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 19 hours ago by SpaceFox@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

173 comments fedilink hide all child comments

. The race of a voice actor doesn't matter

. It is possible to wear yoga pants because there comfy

. You don't need to shower everyday

. It is possible to crossdress/be gender non-conforming without being trans

. Monty Python is very overrated

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] thatradomguy@lemmy.world 17 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Modern flip phones (e.g. Samsung Fold) are stupid and gimmicky industrial design failures.
Humans are not good by nature. They are taught to be good but even babies cry and get angry without anyone teaching them.
The Cat in The Hat movie with Mike Myers was not as bad as critics claim and actually had good undertones patched together with modern humor that is more profound in recent times than when it was originally released. It was actually ahead of its time.
Apple/MacOS isn't actually a better platform and is only designed to give the impression that it is simpler even though people still have to learn how to use it.
Adult services should be legal in all countries and the workers involved should get paid with benefits/protections just like everybody else. This is assuming capitalism cannot be removed from the picture.
VTubers shouldn't be showing their actual bodies. It defeats the purpose of using the moniker in the first place.
Education should be free without any debt involved. There is legitimately no good reason why education and knowledge should be pay-walled.
Euthanasia should be legal where the person no longer wishes to subject themselves to failing health is granted control over their body. Forcing such people to keep living is selfish and pertains cruel and unusual.
Hollywood should not be idolized and is actually part of the problem with things being f'd up rn. There is no good reason why actors or any kind of artist should be making all that money while the rest of society gets by with the scraps we toss around while the rich get richer. The same goes for any kind of celebrity, really. I don't even leave out sports people in this.

This took me twice as long to finish because every other point I ended up with something political. So this is pretty much the least triggering or offensive I can make my list. Good grief.

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

I'm gonna have to ask what you define as good because I don't think having emotions is bad, even if you're a baby

[–] Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

To your last point: By that logic you could argue that no one should be able to get compensated for their skills in an open marketplace. The actors and athletes get paid a lot because someone is willing to pay that money, and they are willing because only a miniscule part of humankind has exceptional skills/talent. Most people are average in every way.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The actors and athletes get paid a lot because someone is willing to pay that money, and they are willing because only a miniscule part of humankind has exceptional skills/talent.

I see. So you are saying that every CEO is paid what they are worth?

[–] Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz -5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

By definition yes. Their worth is determined by negotiation between the company and the employee.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

And there are no other external factors that could possibly influence their compensation besides their objective "worth" to the hiring organization?

Edit: To clarify, might personal bias from the employer lead to a higher compensation? If two CEOs are interviewed and one went to the same college as several members of the board, or if several members of the board know one personally, but the known CEO isn't as accomplished... is it possible that the CEO benefitting from bias is going be hired? Will the benefitting CEO receive a lower compensation, higher compensation, or the same compensation?

Is it possible for a CEO to lie about their ability and get hired under false pretenses? Is it possible for a CEO to be hired for political or "public image" reasons rather than talent/productivity reasons? Are these reflected in their compensation?

[–] irmoz@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

By that logic you could argue that no one should be able to get compensated for their skills in an open marketplace.

That doesn't seem to track, to me. Maybe it would be better if the huge amounts of money generated by films were shared more equitably among the cast and crew?

The actors and athletes get paid a lot because someone is willing to pay that money, and they are willing because only a miniscule part of humankind has exceptional skills/talent. Most people are average in every way.

This assumes that these people are indeed genuinely exceptional, in some sort of superhuman way. Do you think the selection process for actors and athletes is both extensive and foolproof enough that you can guarantee that all and only the best and most talented people in the world get recognition? I know for sure that, for example, there are plenty of amazing musicians out there that haven't even crossed the radar of any music agencies. Surely the same is true of actors and athletes. No, the majority of actors working today are the result of nepotism and a narrow focus on what counts as talent - are the camera workers not talented? The people making the sets? The costume designers? Etc etc.

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 8 hours ago

By that logic you could argue that no one should be able to get compensated for their skills in an open marketplace.

I mean, nationalising all industries and creating minimum/maximum wages is a fairly standard left-wing policy template.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 hours ago

Putting resources into things simply because someone is willing to pay money for it is a huge problem in our world. Once we put a dent in poverty and other existential crises, then let's consider paying people millions and billions for simply entertaining people with skills and talent. Entertainment, arts and culture are certainly important, but their industrialization and overemphasis under capitalism comes at a very real cost, both to their art and entertainment itself, and to the rest of society.

Here's a related hill: I am for the abolition of the professional sports industry. Focus on local competitions, actual participation and sports that encourage socially-useful skills, like the Firemen's Olympics and its modern siblings.