tsiivola
8d ago
You seemed to be saying earlier that people being OK with Bonnie Blue earning a lot of money is the explanation for why she is able to earn a lot of money. Now you only claim that people are OK with Bonnie Blue making a lot of money, but are no longer claiming that that explains why she is able to. So your point actually seems to be quickly deflating into nothing.
If people were generally not OK with Bonnie Blue making a lot of money, how could we tell? What would be different in that hypothetical universe compared to our actual universe? And if people generally did not even know who Bonnie Blue is, and did not even care, how could we tell? How would that hypothetical universe be different compared to our actual universe?
tsiivola
10d ago
I think the simple explanation is that society generally condones or at least tolerates porn “actresses” making large amounts of money
I am not sure that I entirely understand the point that you are trying to make, because it seems that you are not making any point, but there is no central committee that needs to condone every monetary transaction between people. If someone discovers a clever way to make and deliver 500,000 pizzas every month at a profit, society in general probably does not even know about it, unless it gets highlighted in media etc.
Like others pointed out, it is all supply and demand. Society condoning or tolerating people making money has nothing to do with it. The only way that society's tolerance affects things is how it limits the supply of people willing to provide the thing that people are willing to pay for. In reality the relationship between making money and society's tolerance is the opposite of what you seem to think. The more something is tolerated, the more people are open to doing it, and therefore the supply goes up and the money that any one individual can make goes down. If there were 800,000 women doing the same thing as Bonnie Blue, then each of them would make on average 1 pound a month, but since 799,999 women said "nope" then one single woman gets to harvest all the demand.
tsiivola
2mo ago
If you do not want to expand the overton window in a certain direction, you typically would not make jokes in that direction.
So X making jokes about gas chambers does not mean that X is a Nazi who has read Mein Kampf five times. But it indicates that X regards updating his group's beliefs towards him being a Nazi at least neutrally.
At the 2016 White House Correspondents' Dinner president Barack Obama made the following remark:
"Eight years ago, I was a young man, full of idealism and vigor, and look at me now. I am gray and grizzled, just counting down the days 'til my death panel."
Do you think Obama was trying to expand the overton window to make more acceptable the idea that a panel of doctors would decide on the euthanization of non-productive or otherwise undesirable individuals? Do you think Obama's remark indicates that he and his group regard the idea of these "death panels" at least neutrally?
Or do you think that Obama was actually mocking his opponents and critics? That he considered the criticism so ridiculous in itself, that he did not even bother constructing a joke based on it, he just repeated the criticism verbatim while being fully confident that laughter would ensue?
Now, if it is the case that Obama was reminding everyone how ridiculous his opponents were just by repeating their words, then it could be the case that the people being ridiculed were fully aware that this is what was happening, and that there is no good way to defend against this kind of ridicule. And in this case someone who is being ridiculed could resort to lying, saying maybe something like "they told us they are not setting up these death panels, but here is Obama himself casually talking about them in an approving way!", and hoping that at least some people will believe the lie.
tsiivola
3mo ago
The criminal code chapter 34a paragraph 5e criminalizes encouraging or enticing to join a terrorist organization or to commit a terrorist crime, if it is done in a manner that is likely to cause someone to do so. The law does not explicitly mention celebrating, but I suspect that for example celebrating a terrorist act on television could be interpreted to be enticing, although I don't know if any judgement based on this law has ever been decided in a court of law.
tsiivola
7mo ago
When I look at something called Splenda Original Sweetener packets, I can see from the ingredients list that it contains dextrose, maltodextrin and sucralose. Dextrose is just sugar, (even the wikipedia page redirects to glucose), maltodextrin is another kind of sugar that may or may not get digested, and the ingredient mentioned last, sucralose, is the actual zero calorie sweetener. So it seems that the product called Splenda actually is mostly just sugar, with a tiny bit of super sweet sweetener added.
The lesson here is probably not that sweetness is subjective, but that you should read the ingredients list if you want to be careful about what you eat.
I would get a bag of something like pure stevia extract if you need something to sweeten your tea and really need zero calories.
tsiivola
7mo ago
A normal can of Pepsi has 40g of sugar. A can of diet pepsi has 0.124g of sweetener. Even if the sweetener has the same calories per weight, you would have to drink 300 times more of the diet version to get the same calories as the sugar version. What makes this possible is that per weight, the sweetener tastes much sweeter than sugar. The sweetness is the most relevant thing.
I'm not sure I follow. What exactly doesn't sound right? Allure would fade for whom? How exactly would this loss of allure shrink the pie?
More options
Context Copy link