- cross-posted to:
- tomscott@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- tomscott@lemmy.zip
You don’t need to watch the video. Tom Scott/None of the interview subjects ever point out how fucked this is, but basically the story is rich sadists would put coins in boiling water and then throw them at poor children to watch them endure injury for small amounts of money as a form of entertainment.
Sure, I might. But that doesn’t mean I should intellectually defend it. If people consume media with wealth differences or racism, it normalizes those things. Even if someone currently enjoys that, they should still understand the issue with it.
what materially does hot pennies reinforce? are the people throwing pennies nobles? are the people catching them doing so to avoid starvation? what is being normalized that is so offensive to our sensibilities here?
This is exactly my thought process. I really don’t see a big deal here.
I didn’t put forward an argument in my original comment because I genuinely thought there was nothing much to argue about.
It’s so trivial.
Let the people have fun and participate in community events.
It is, from what I gather, a small town anyways. It will affect like, what, 0.0001% of the entire population?
The idea of money, the idea of the nobles. We shouldn’t do things that started as a nobel activity
it clearly isn’t, the elected mayor and citizens are distributing the coins
no-one’s eliminated that one yet, you’ll need to be a bit more patient on expecting people to not put cultural purchase on the medium for modern life, even in AES
turn over your keyboard comrade. writing was invented for the noble class’ record-keeping and taxes. <—specious but i want to illustrate why we need to exercise restraint on stuff like this, especially before it gets to points like ‘urbanism and intellectualism are bourgeois’
Obviously certain inventions can benefit everyone but was just available to the bourgeois first. Same with medical treatment. And no, this is a minor issue for now but overall we shouldn’t defend the use as a concept. The difference is that this encourages the past ideas whilst writing does not
writing absolutely encourages past ideas, when people have access to those old ideas written down, or advocate them through writing.
and is the transformation of this ritual not a sign of encouraging ideas of the present? a female mayor, the ceasing of the heating of the coins, the lack of noble participation, couldn’t i argue that this festival has been ‘reclaimed’ and embraces democratic values now?
Oh, if a writing encourages the ideas of the past then it also must be rejected and suppressed. Writing isn’t inherently reactionary but this is as it can’t be used for anything else. There is no reason to reclaim concepts that we do not need
deleted by creator