this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
194 points (93.7% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

2139 readers
5 users here now

This is a community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.

Rules:

  1. Keep discussion civil and on topic.
  2. Please do not link to pirated content.
  3. No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
  4. Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It disseminates the idea and dilutes the worth, because worth is tied to scarcity.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And I think that's our primary point of disagreement. I don't care how scarce something is.

In fact not quite 30min ago, I flushed something unique down the toilet because it was worthless to me. While the toilet I flush it with, is worth quite a lot to me, even though it's very common and and found everywhere in my country. In fact if it was scarce, even unique, it might be entirely worthless.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You can disagree all you want but value is absolutely and always associated with (at least perceived) scarcity.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Only sometimes. Not always. The value of many things comes with commonality. Social media for example would be worthless for only one person.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think this is a matter of terminology.

You're talking monetary value/worth only. They're talking about value and worth in a broader sense.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Even there, something gets MORE worth when it's used again, even to sit on a shelf and look pretty.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

That, my homie, is a matter of perspective. Things can have value/worth without that as well. It ascribes value a weight based on usage rather than money. Which is fine! Value is relatively relative ;)

Things can have value/worth without a connection to a human's perception of that thing. It gets pretty nebulous and woo-woo, but the principle is valid.

I guess what I'm also saying is that utilitarian thinking isn't the only way to approach the discussion. But I'm also saying that utilitarian thinking is a valid part of the discussion. But when it comes down to utilitarian versus non utilitarian, it isn't a discussion, it's an argument about being right. Which is what the thread turned into towards the end.