So by this logic then, the things we buy are simply items that we believe will maximize our satisfaction in life. I think this makes sense to me. For instance, maybe someone grew up with not that many friends and is very lonely. They may know that designer clothes are worn by celebrities and influencers through "clout culture" who are very well liked. This habitus would subconsciously lead him to purchase designer clothes in an effort to fit in.

The more wealthy you get, the more willing you are to spend vasts amount of money on items merely for their aesthetic or history instead of anything useful. This makes sense to me, since poorer people would naturally try to only spend money on good/services that make sense, are useful, or help make their life easier. A rolex watch or gucci shirt would likely be a waste of resources for someone with little money, when it could go to a babysitter for their child or getting their car repaired.

I have to disagree with this. Humans are always trying to outcompete one another on a subconscious level and this often involves putting up a facade in many ways.

It's almost like the act of buying the object itself is more important than the object. There is something that just feels so premium about purchasing clothes at a Gucci store as opposed to a discount rack.

Essentially, luxury items are symbols of status, wealth, and power to others. According to Thorstein Veblen, we might not actually even like them that much, but sub-consciously, we are buying them (assuming we have the money) to impress others. This is really interesting because it shows how just the mere influence of a brand name can manipulate people into thinking they want something that might not even appeal to them at all personally.

This is a really interesting line. At what point is hurting a group of people emotionally no longer worth a laugh? Is it ever okay? Personally I think Chappelle sacrifices kindness and respect for comedy and fame, which is really unfortunate. He is willing to be incredibly provocative just for social clout.

I disagree here. I have never liked cancel culture or condoned that sort of behavior, however, it certainly acts as a stark reminder to celebrities and public figures when they cross problematic lines. It almost serves as broadcast that reminds people - "hey, you're only famous because of your viewers, and we won;'t tolerate behavior like this. Don't want to listen to us? Fine, but no more power or influence for you." In many ways, it is a social form of capitalism, where consumers choose to follow public figures who are respectful and block the rest.

These sorts of jokes aren't funny because they paint sexual assault victims as dumb or greedy when, as kids, they likely didn't know any better. I can imagine this sort of humour really offending and hurting victims of abuse that may suffer from PTSD or other forms of anxiety from their trauma.

I have to disagree with this sentiment. I think one of the things I've noticed with the constant twitter/facebook wars and instagram story reposting, is that people are looking out for one another now more than ever. When people attempt to cancel another individual, it's often an attempt to protect the vulnerable people of minority communities. I really don't think people are self-interested in these goals, because if they were, they would simply stop trying.

Similar to what Anouska said, this really isn't that funny and is actually irresponsible as a public figure. It's disgusting and promotes the normalization of sexual assault and abuse, reducing these traumatic experiences down to petty jokes and banter. I cannot in good conscience laugh at a joke that involved a small child being sexually abused.

I agree with this sentiment, but the author here is trying to cover his previous argument that the backlash to Sticks and Stones is problematic with this phrase without mentioning the underlying problem here. Sure people do need to be able to laugh at themselves, and that's what most comedian do, but Dave Chappelles is NOT GAY, so it's distasteful for him to make jokes about that. That is why the backlash here is justified.

To further unpack my previous point, this makes no sense (argh idk why I am so furious haha)! Black people are also a "protected class" that comedians of other races can never make fun of in good taste. So why would he be upset over the same being said for straight people joking about the gay community?! It's entirely hypocritical and really showcases the flawed logic here.

I feel as though this statement doesn't hold up as a valid excuse as to why some of Chappelle's worst comments are totally valid. Sure, there have been many comedy sketches and minstrel-type shows in the past 200 years in America about black people, but we are talking about right now -- the present. In 2020, if a white comedian used the N-word in a context to make jokes about black people in America, I have every reason to believe this author and the entire progressive community would be up in arms over the situation. So why then, is the backlash over Chappelle using derogatory gay slang "problematic" to this author?

To me, it seems this is another case of only labeling something problematic if it directly affects your own group or ideology. When Dave Chappelle makes jokes about black men in America, it's funny because he IS black! He is allowed to make fun of his own community and experiences. With that being said, Dave Chappelle is NOT LGBTQ+, so his jokes come off as unfunny and distasteful.

Sub argument - a claim that "Apesh*t" visually contrasts black figures in the past and present to make a statement

Sub argument that beyonce has transformed the typical image of women in media by creating her own confident persona