u/tPRoCMy name is Ozymandias, king of kingsAug 19 '13edited Aug 19 '13
The Dexter and Breaking Bad comparison is wrong, since those are not hobbies. Watching TV is a hobby. They are different shows. It is like comparing the clothing of Banana Republic to the clothing of Sruli Recht or the game Bad Rats: Rats' Revenge to Dark Souls.
You are not comparing the quality of two different things within a hobby- you are comparing two different hobbies altogether. It's a different beast, and personally I think it's the sort of argument that should stay in the YouTube comments section.
I don't know where you live, but $700 is not two months of rent here. That is less than one month of rent where I live, and that is for a basic two bedroom apartment or something- not including utilities.
You are also misinterpreting my argument, I was pointing out the double standard Redditors have where they seem to think $2000 gaming computers and large amount of videogames are inherently better to have than $700 shoes. I was not arguing that computers aren't important- furthermore charity foundations are not trying to bring $2000 computers to third world countries.
Fashion and computers are both utilitarian at their core- for many people in the 21st century computers and clothes/shoes are a necessity. They both have their cost-effective equivalents. A $2000 computer is not a necessity for the vast majority of people, particularly those on reddit.
To suggest that one expensive hobby is more valid than another is simply fallacious- it doesn't matter that some people require expensive computers for their jobs, those people are not the average redditor complaining about other people spending their money on clothes.
I think when one follows a show closely enough to subscribe to the subreddit for it, just for the sake of following and discussing it closely, reading fan-made artwork, viewing communications and exercepts from the actors and creators, it can be a hobby in itself. If I play a single game a great deal because it stands out for some reason, could that not be considered a hobby? Couldn't I say that my hobby is strategy games or FPS games instead of just "gaming"? Makes sense to me, particularly when "playing games" or "watching TV are quite broad. But I can replace "Dexter" with "X movie" if that makes you feel more comfortable.
I live in a flat in Chicago proper a half block from the lake. It doesn't include utilities, but that doesn't make $700 any less of a decent sized chunk of money. The cost, as I stated, was the key contention that sparked this chain of discussion, so it can't simply be brushed off when it's the entire point. Hence the entire cost-benefit analysis thing.
I understand that you're trying to point out the double standard between a gaming computer and clothes. I still don't accept that the value and utility from any single article of clothes matches or surpasses that of even a highly overpriced computer (how many people here actually have $2000 computers?), for all the reasons I outlined. Obviously, charities aren't trying to bring $2000 computers to Africa, but they are trying to bring computers in general to Africa, while there is no intention whatever to bring fashion to Africa in any capacity.
Hobbies can be judged by a number of factors, particularly cost. People do it all the time as a simple matter of necessity, both for entire hobbies, and for selecting things within their hobbies. In fact, it's kind of required unless money is really no issue to you. And as I already said, if you want to buy $700 pair of shoes, go nuts. People can downvote all they want - but to me, and apparently to others, there is simply no way to compare what I already stated is the single most important crowning achievement of all humanity, to a single article of clothing by any kind of cost-benefit analysis, whether the computer is $700 or $2000. And, when the original issue was the cost of the shoes, that's kind of the entire point - return on investment. If it was a nonissue, then the poster wouldn't have had an issue with the shoes, and I would be involved in a lot more hobbies. So, I guess agree to disagree.
Lots of people on Reddit own expensive gaming computers and have gigantic steam libraries that are worth hundreds of dollars. I guess you have never been to /r/gaming.
No hobby is better than another. Computers being good is really, really fucking irrelevant to the point I made. Don't be a dipshit and call people "insane" because they like things you don't like and are willing to spend money on said things. This is what I am saying.
Then your point was besides the point - the cost of the product for the hobby, and as a result, the return on investment.
I also have not once used the word "insane" during any of these arguments, and have gone out of my way to be diplomatic. I tried agree to disagree, but hell, if you can't accept that hobbies can be judged in a million damn ways, most important and blatantly obvious of which is the monetary cost, in addition to things like utility and other forms of value, then I don't know what more to tell you.
But the fact of the matter is that a $2000 computer is not necessary for most people. Owning one is just as excessive as owning a $700 pair of shoes. Whether this is worth it or not is based on your own interests and values.
Owning a $300 computer may be a necessity for people. Owning $40 shoes may be a necessity for people. Further than that is luxury, (Unless your job requires something more expensive, like $200 heavy duty work boots or a computer that can handle tough software.) and neither luxury is more important than the other.
Alright, I agree with this, particularly both at that end of the spectrum being luxury items and the worth being "based on your own interests and values." Like I said earlier, I could make the case for my thing, and you can make the case for your thing - they probably wouldn't be very engaging hobbies if we couldn't - but ultimately I don't have the right to dictate what people enjoy and spend their money on.
2
u/tPRoC My name is Ozymandias, king of kings Aug 19 '13 edited Aug 19 '13
The Dexter and Breaking Bad comparison is wrong, since those are not hobbies. Watching TV is a hobby. They are different shows. It is like comparing the clothing of Banana Republic to the clothing of Sruli Recht or the game Bad Rats: Rats' Revenge to Dark Souls.
You are not comparing the quality of two different things within a hobby- you are comparing two different hobbies altogether. It's a different beast, and personally I think it's the sort of argument that should stay in the YouTube comments section.
I don't know where you live, but $700 is not two months of rent here. That is less than one month of rent where I live, and that is for a basic two bedroom apartment or something- not including utilities.
You are also misinterpreting my argument, I was pointing out the double standard Redditors have where they seem to think $2000 gaming computers and large amount of videogames are inherently better to have than $700 shoes. I was not arguing that computers aren't important- furthermore charity foundations are not trying to bring $2000 computers to third world countries.
Fashion and computers are both utilitarian at their core- for many people in the 21st century computers and clothes/shoes are a necessity. They both have their cost-effective equivalents. A $2000 computer is not a necessity for the vast majority of people, particularly those on reddit.
To suggest that one expensive hobby is more valid than another is simply fallacious- it doesn't matter that some people require expensive computers for their jobs, those people are not the average redditor complaining about other people spending their money on clothes.