The original poster was clearly not making an analogy between professional soccer and only fans creators.
To be explicit, the comparisons were:
Cinematic actors -> TikTok creators
Victoria’s Secret model -> only fans creator
Pro soccer -> esports
I fail to see how the culture of our country will be negatively impacted by any of those changes. Comparing Cristiano Renaldo to OnlyFans is a straw man because that specific comparison was never suggested, except by the “rebuttal”
None of this is true, but boy, it sure does feel good to believe.
I wish you, and people in general, would be more willing to look for something like truth instead of whatever feels good at the moment.
I would argue that beyond basics like food, shelter and protection of human rights, we should strive for more noble pursuits as society. I'm not even religious whatsoever, but I think the proliferation of certain vices like sex/gambling/drugs is probably a net negative for society. They certainly have their roles in the long tail, but overall a society that is caught up in rampant dopamine chasing is a distracted, doomed society. We should always be yearning. We should be paving a road that is a better one for our future generations. Societal erosion is creating short term profit/happiness at the expense of long term thinking. America has become the king of this. You can see it everywhere, from the types of businesses people create (e.g pyramid schemes in the form of courses, or the shovel makers that create businesses to proliferate said pyramid schemes) to what is currently valued by the growing generation. I can keep going and going, but I'll leave it here. I hope I somewhat made my point. I'm sure many will disagree, and that is why this country is on its way downwards. The few smart will own and create a lot of value for themselves, we'll likely have a few trillionaires, and the majority will be bumbling idiots that can barely read. We're not there yet, but we're well on the way there
You say "We should encourage X over Y" and the retorts are
None directly disagree with the original point, but they do imply fault in the original reasoning without providing any proof or requiring any effort.The third one is a classic, the straw man. A concise implication of error in which a good-faith response would be long-winded and boring comparatively.
To what end?
What are they hoping to get out of disagreeing with someone trying to encouraging our future culture to be one of relative wholesomeness?
... Why take the time out of one's day to say "well... encouraging X is great and all but you know what's better? passive-aggressively working against anyone that suggests it."?