I think there’s a moral concern about this particular market. That’s reasonable, some markets may very well have moral issues because of hidden costs or externalities or because of the unreasonable power it gives certain groups of people (CFCs, fentanyl, targeted advertising, killing for hire etc.)

These people would probably do better to spend that time improving themselves or looking at the amazing things and people near them that they could actually interact with, or if they have to idolize someone at least doing it to someone worth idolizing like an accomplished artist or philosopher. There’s a concern that I think I share with GP: these things are designed to put the viewer into a kind of consuming unsatisfied state that makes it easier to sell them things, and that’s probably a bad thing.

I’m not sure celebrities are so bad, often good ones have good things to say. It’s not like we don’t have our own either: every time FB or RMS sneezes it gets posted on hackernews a dozen times.

>These people would probably do better to spend that time improving themselves or looking at the amazing things and people near them that they could actually interact with, or if they have to idolize someone at least doing it to someone worth idolizing like an accomplished artist or philosopher.

How can you get this message to the unwashed masses with a horse that tall?

I mean, where do you get off telling people who is worth idolizing? People have idolized less accomplished, less personable, less accessible people than those two since before media was a thing.

To me Stallman is a toe-jam eating crackpot with no social skills and an embarrassment to all those who support him and does little to nothing worth idolizing, yet I'm in a forum where I'd probably find no shortage of people who idolize him.

I'm not a fan of Justin Beiber... but are you really going to tell me he's not an accomplished artist?

Man does the tone of this comment just rub me the wrong way.

If following your advice means getting into a headspace where you don't cringe at the thought of telling people who's "worth idolizing"... maybe those fans are on to something...

Yeah you’re right about the Bieber thing. I realized that after posting.

I don’t know, it’s definitely wrong to decide who people should idolize but part of me feels like that’s what’s going on with the most popular idols, that’s why I feel the need to warn them.

There’s a good chance I’m just full of myself though.

> These people would probably do better to spend that time...

We need to have a robust theory of human agency. That I play videogames with no moral worth or depth does not mean I don't also go to the gym, mealprep my lunches, or read philosophy in my free time.

Likewise, just because someone enjoys zoning out and scrolling on instagram or watching celebrities doesn't invalidate their other time that they may spend in beneficial activities.

Everyone has leisure activities that have no value - that's the point of leisure. When we start preaching to others, we've lost sight of what it means to be human.

I'm a fan of Kim Kardashian. She somehow managed to build a an empire based just on her name. Then, she used that empire to fight to release people from prison and spread awareness for the Armenian genocide. I'm normally not one for "spreading awareness", but there are a lot of people who don't know about the Armenian genocide, and the US government won't acknowledge it happened in a unified and official fashion. She doesn't do anything particularly scandalous other than maybe being too materialistic. Her show mostly revolves around being there for your family. Overall, she's a net positive.

> I'm a fan of Kim Kardashian. She somehow managed to build a an empire based just on her name.

It's not like she did not come from a very wealthy family… That porn footage wouldn't have been news worthy if she was a rando…

One can still acknowledge her financial accomplishments yet, I wonder about her negative influence on young girls who will believe that a sextape or nudes are going to get them rich quickly like the Kardashian…

Sometimes I read people's comments on her sex-tape and almost start to wonder if it's a form of subtle sexism.

I mean, she had already been on reality TV before, her family already had the idea for a reality TV show, Ryan Seacrest had already expressed interest in producing the show (there was even a precedence for the show, "The Osbornes"), she already had a fairly successful career with extremely marketable skills.

The 2nd movie Sylvester Stallone ever did, which he credits for saving him in the pits of desperation, was softcore porn, but I've never heard anyone say "I wonder if he's a negative influence on poor people who believe that softcore porn is going to get them rich quickly like Sylvester"

It turns out having useful skills and a vision is what made them successful in both cases.

There are plenty of people with famous, rich parents who never end up building billion dollar brands, do you really think a sex tape built a billion dollar brand?

Isn't it a bit much to reduce all her accomplishments to that and think that will be the takeaway of her success?

Over the past decade, companies spun off from her brand have been more profitable than several major startups, so her success is indisputable.

But her connections and surroundings most likely helped get her that initial momentum. She wasn't just a rich lawyer's daughter, she grew up in Hollywood circles and was close friends with Paris Hilton, who set the template for this kind of success. She took those lessons and scaled her brand far beyond what the former accomplished.

That might not have happened if she was a regular person who moved to Hollywood at age 18 without any inside knowledge of how things work there.

It's not significantly different than Bill Gates' mom introducing him to an an IBM exec who she knew because they were both on the board of United Way. While the homebrew hobby club was giving everything away for free, Gates no doubt understood how enterprise software was sold, and made his fortune by getting into that market early.

I agree that her environment was a huge part of her success, and don't separate her success from the environment she was in and what it afforded her, but there's also definitely an unusual fixation on her sex-tape and trying to reduce her accomplishments to a simple result of it.

I mean the comment I replied to is trying to imply, out of all the factors involved, the sex-tape is what young adults would take out of it.

Meanwhile I don't see people saying all they expect young adults to get out of Bill Gates' success is you should drop out of school...

True, she will be judged on the basis of that tape by some people. I did too, at least back when Ray J was the more famous person on it. Long-term, I see it differently. She owned her sexuality and leveraged the notoriety to sell an image of an aspirational, fun, no consequences lifestyle that average people could never afford, but are happy to gawp at. Hence the long-running success of their reality show.

> Meanwhile I don't see people saying all they expect young adults to get out of Bill Gates' success is you should drop out of school...

I've seen my fair share of bad IG "motivation" and "hustle" posts that push this exact message, although they use Zuck as the dropout in question. This will become more common as college costs keep rising while post-graduation incomes remain stagnant. Lifetime earnings compared to people with HS only are of course better but when you see a sticker price of $60k on 1 year of college, lifetime earnings differential isn't what you'll be thinking about.

There is no sexism going on here, I would have said the exact same thing if Kim Kardashian was a male. But it's easy to "drown the fish" and accuse people of sexism to shut down any discussion.

I'm starting to wonder if it's a form of subtle ad hominem and internalized logical fallacy /s

a) "drown the fish" does not mean what you think it does, and if anything means the opposite of what you think it does

b) Don't flatter your "discussion", you're claiming a person who: was successful before a sex-tape and had their most well known success already in motion before a sex-tape, I'd venture has had more success after said sex-tape than anyone else who's ever had one... should be known for a sex-tape.

There's no positive interpretation of that, I just chose the most common one I've encountered. Maybe you're just an avid enjoyer of her tape and can't see her for more than that?

> a) "drown the fish" does not mean what you think it does, and if anything means the opposite of what you think it does

You're right, I should have called you a freaking troll straight out because this is obviously what you are, I was too polite, my bad /s

> There's no positive interpretation of that, I just chose the most common one I've encountered. Maybe you're just an avid enjoyer of her tape and can't see her for more than that?

No argument whatsoever, resorts to personal attacks, continue suggesting I'm a sexist and I watch pornographic material while you literally keep promoting the career of a pornstar yourself? because that's exactly what it is called.

But that's the only thing you can do after all. You're are effectively a troll. Get on with your sad life.

If it does get them rich, I don't see a problem. Additionally, I think her sex tape incident was far enough back that it's no longer really relevant for young girls, it's mostly people in their 20s that were the age where they could be influenced by it. I think her influence now is generally positive.