This distinction between these aspects is very useful. One of the flaws in the text The Lure of Luxury, was that Bloom failed to distinguish between what he considered a luxury good and what he did not. In this case we are not talking about the same concept, however, the author is making it very easy to distinguish and understand the different elements that influence the class system you fin yourself in, and how taste relates to this.

This is a very interesting point. Unlike, the Lure of Luxury, this text introduces -and revolves around- the concept of taste. There is a difference between having "taste" and having the means to have luxurious goods, as having one does not necessarily mean you have the other. Therefore this point is interesting because there might be many people who have the means to buy luxury goods, however, what "differentiates" people in this situation is taste. So taste is a means of distinction as it also implies that there are things you cannot buy.

If luxury goods were provided for all then they would loose their status as something as desirable. One of the points of purchasing or having luxurious goods is that the majority of the world does not. Does this mean it is bad to have luxurious goods?

This is a very relevant paragraph regarding the argument Gelman is making. She makes certain assertions but they become very clear once she gives these examples. The fact that these are multiple examples makes it a lot easier to understand and agree with the argument she is making. It is interesting to consider the negative aspects of attention tho an object's history. However, it seems she is only arguing towards this.

This is a very good and interesting point. Satz is rebutting Bloom's argument appropriately as Bloom fails to acknowledge that not everyone attributes the same value to something that has a high price or something that has a high sentimental value. Perhaps a person would value expensive jewelry much more than a ruler or vice versa.

Then items that are meant for signaling do not only signal to others. These items, regardless of their price, can signal the individual who possesses them because this person has given them a deeper meaning. I think an object could have a high price or a low price and you could value more the one that has a deeper meaning for you. You would be signaling to yourself through this object; perhaps a bracelet makes you feel special because it belonged to someone you care for, or vice versa an object could loose worth if it belonged to someone you are dismissive towards.

Are there then no purchases done for someone's own satisfaction? Is a society that is watching a prerequisite for luxury goods?

The fact that Chapelle is so famous, and his work consumed to such degree, has a lot more to say about the consumers than Chapelle himself. Just because David Chapelle said something does not mean I am going to agree with him merely based on the fact that it was a public figure who said it. His Netflix specials being so popular is clear evidence that this is comedy people like indulging in. Chapelle is one voice from the millions that have controversial opinions. So I consider that we should look at the people that are around us, and even at ourselves before condemning a stranger.

I think that this term is very accurate. It is celebrity hunting season and anything someone who is in the public eye does can condemn the. However, you cannot expect not to be criticized if you are making jokes about issues such as sexual assault.

Most comedy is based on making fun of something or someone. Where do we draw the link between what is okay to make fun of and what is not?

Chapelle has acknowledged that his insensitive comments could be more culturally sensitive. I guess he know that we live in a world i which most of what you say can be met with some backlash or critique, so if you already get that, why not go all out? I do not condone his comments but the audience seemed to be having the best time.

The positive response is somewhat confusing. How is it that having a 99% positive rating, you also have a myriad of people criticizing you? This makes me wonder about how the comedy special was actually received. do people actually like it, but deny it to be politically correct?

There has been a radical change in what is considered appropriate humor. Controversial comedians such as Chapelle are not the only example. Several films and tv shows that were praised in the past would no longer be, had they been released in more recent years. I guess it is because people have educated themselves more on issues that did not receive support in the past. As people understand these topics, they empathize more and therefore stop considering something that is offensive as funny.

This is very interesting because the juxtaposition of a traditionally white-washed place, and the Carters repossessing it imposes equality. It represents equality regarding both race and gender. It establishes gender equality because of the portrayals of Beyonce and Jay-Z in regards to each other. It establishes race equality because of their grandeur in comparison to the paintings.