I actually brought this point up in the previous article; it is something that I have really started to reflect upon, in regards to the enjoyment of luxury goods. With that, I've also wondered what accounts for a luxury good, the Iphone 12 or a Motorolla flip, or both? And is the price that others had to pay, in the production line, worth it for me to have this every-day phone at my convenience and disposal?

I did not find the authors examples about India, AIDS, the water fountain, or organ transplants to be fitting the argument that Bloom made. It seems like a far reach, I don't really understand how this correlates to one another. The most supportive point I could near, and this is still a bit of a reach, is when I think about how we enjoy iPhones but they are made in unethically managed Chinese factories. Or when i think about the risk of jewelry containing blood diamonds, when buying anywhere from Cartier to Icebox Jewelers.

Very good point to bring up. Because this explanation, I feel, cannot entirely account for the luxury fashion in history as a whole. Or the luxury automotive industry for that matter.

Fun fact: although you may think of Rolex as a brand, or watch company, they are actually listed as a Swedish charity. Therefore they reap the benefits and tax breaks that a contributing charity normally receives. Because of this I believe it has made it harder to estimate Rolex's true net worth.

This sentence/claim is misleading and can be problematic.*Not annotation

Although this isn't exactly the same, a greater extent of this could be seen in the celebrity hype that influences plenty generation Z consumer culture. For example, in the sneaker and fashion industry, artists A$AP Rocky, Kanye West, and Travis Scott to name a few, are said to have the "touch." Normally, any and everything they wear skyrockets in value the next day. Such as shoe models and similar pieces from fashion brands. It is the same reason that a consumer would have paid $600 for a pair of $150 Adidas shoes in 2017.

Although an earlier theory does suggest that the reasons for spending so much resources on luxury stems from the primitive of human aspects, I believe this aspect of "areas associated with praise and approval are activated" is just as, if not more primitive. Think about it: I might realize that I "have good taste" and have absolutely no interest in enticing a mate with luxury items... However, i cannot deny that my desire to show off MY "GOOD" tastes stems from, and this is hard to admit, social approval. The countered version of this would be selling off my luxury items because I receive too many compliments. Is that foreseeable ? No...but is it at all primitive? Definitely not.

Why does this seem to contradict everything he's been arguing against Dave Chappelle ? Personally I am a huge fan of Dave, and I took his Sticks & stones with a grain of salt. It wasn't my favorite special, but what gives me hope is this statement right here. the hope that he grows and learns greatly, and therefore refine his humor. No point in his name, legacy or talent being bashed in vain, when you include a sentence like this in the article...

This bit of the article reiterated Chappelle's take on "cancel culture", a "culture" that i do not believe in nor support. I also don't support, the phrasing of this line which makes Kevin Hart seem like an evil, homophobic father when really, (iterated by Dave), Kevin was just making a terrible joke about a hypothetical situation. A situation that, if it ended up happening , would certainly not end up in any dollhouses being smashed.

This description seems a bit premature... in reality, PC and its culture is defined by its people, and what said people collectively decide what and what not to tolerate. To say that a set of comedians ostracize everyone thats not like them, is dismissive of the fact that integrity and and genuine self expression play a huge role in their career/influence -- MORE SO than their "defiant, Anti-PC attitude"

Sticks & Stones is probably my least favorite among Dave's current Netflix specials. I think this sentence essentially sums up why... he may have spoken up about a lot of feelings that he had, over subjects that he did not fully process as thoroughly as he ought have.

This sarcastic comment is insulting as it implies that Dave ends up selling out for netflix, but not Comedy Central due to a measly 10 million dollar difference. Anybody that is familiar with his work or career history , knows exactly how and why Dave NEEDED to get out of Comedy Central . It's for those reasons that Dave's return to netflix is triumphant ... because he finally brings his all to the table and receives even more in return.

Exactly... the viewer clicked on his face when deciding what to watch on Netflix... not much else needs to be said more than that. Although as I continue to read this article, my opinion or stance on a certain issue or joke may or may not change.

this right here... Dave describes his method of performing as not "telling it how it is" but rather 'telling it how it feels." It's very important to consider that when a renowned comedian speaks on "triggering" subjects or matters. As offensive as his jokes may have been, it's important to remember that this is the man's job. Like it or not, his career was built off of this.

My interpretation of this paragraph here is that, there is a double standard of hypocrisy in American culture. According to the author, Dave can quite simply get away with saying anything and everything about black people, no matter how foul. On it's own, this may be an accurate, racist revelation of American society ... because it is contrasted by the "zero-tolerance" law posed when making fun of homosexuality or LGBTQ. Dave isn't the first or last to make outrageous jokes about black people, and according to author, the audience won’t bat an eye. But let a straight person make an LGBTQ+ joke, and you'll have your Twitter mentions looking like the state of California.

I've always wondered why Jay Z chose 4:44 as his album title; I see this time on my clock every day so i wonder if, for him, there was a deep, spiritual meaning to it.