Curse those aloof bee keepers, putting themselves above the rest of the farmers, sitting on their honey dipped thrones of carven wax, guarded eternally by thier ever droning armies of angry, angry bumblebees. Damn them!
No, on second thoughts you're mad as fishies, Mishra.
Is there some unspoken challenge where someone finds the furthest back post to resurrect? Add to thread, the media is doing a good job on misinforming the public and getting things done for someone else to profit off of, so i'd say that is pretty bad/pointless when it isn't helping the people instead seems to be stealing more liberties and forcing toxicity into ones veins.
There's actually a theory that more and more "useless jobs" will be created as the economy becomes more automated.
For a long time people have been saying that automation will lead to unemployment as jobs are replaced by machines. But according to this theory what happens is that people still get jobs, but they are created purely to keep people employed, rather than add value to the economy. Here's an article about it:
Dont you just love society? Where someone gets paid 10x more for looking good rather than having an actual skill set.
I've always thought how teachers and food handlers should get mininium 5x their current pay, but then who's going to cough up the money for that.
Another "profession" off the top of my head that is pointless is CEOs/VIPs most of these guys dont do any actual work and reap all the benefits.
Just last weekend, my wife's uncle was bitching how he can barely afford to live off his $91k/year salary. We all told him to shut the fuck up.
Makes me sick. (and jealous ;-)
Yeah it feels good and visceral and all to say that teachers should get 5x their pay but for that to happen, the bar required to teach would be set so high that there wouldn't be enough teachers. It's supply and demand.
There are reasons our societies function the way they do.
There are reasons our societies function the way they do.
Yes there are reasons, but those reasons aren't "society is a machine that settles on the most efficient outcome based on variables" they are "powerful people made plans and applied the resources to ensure the plans succeeded". A great book that outlines the Koch brother's decade long plans to remake the American judicial system to support private property rights over all other concerns is - Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacClean, and the tactics it describes have been repeated in numerous other areas by other wealthy. Like Bill Gates pushing Oxford not to open source their covid vaccine but to instead sell it exclusively to Astro Zeneca without price caps. Can't have a freebie floating around if one wants to profit off the vaccine industry.
Another example - teacher's pay being low is far more related to the various politicians and wealthy pushing alternative schools (charter, private, etc) to undermine public education support, which pushes down teachers wages, along with the general anti-union pushes since Reagan.
There is a reason, but it isn't a good one, nor is it static.
I'd say most useless profession would be the managerial class in general. Before the labor struggles of the early 20th century, company hiearchies were much flatter. Worker, line-man, owner. Owner is some wealthy schmuck who doesn't show up, lineman is the boss, everyone else is your comrade. Made for much easier labor actions, strikes, sit downs, work stoppages, where all our modern labor rights like 40 hour week, sick days, banned child labor, etc came from.
As capital replanned how to rebuff this inconvenience, one tactic was to stratify the work force to pull out the possible organizers and give them a little more pay, a little more say, and then they would work for bossman instead of worker in their goals. This was a cynical plan and it's worked rather well. When looking at how it's evolved in modern times, these managers are often the 9.9% neo-aristocracy that rebuff political changes like moving towards a Jessie Jackson, Bernie Sanders, or Jeremy Corbyn or Melanchon mode of governance, insisting instead some tweaks ala Warren are the way to go, and the end result is a Biden, Boris Johnson, or Macron who continue the right wing policies of their predecessors. This ratfuckery is enabled by the bribed mangerial class who write for the NYT, SNL, were the largest donors to the me-too candidates that whittled away support from the real deals.
Work gets done by the workers. In games it's the animators, modelers, designers, and testers who make the content. The management is there for the benefit of the shareholders and corporate profits. Think about how many times you've been able to go to HR over something and have it actually resolved to your satisfaction, versus how many times HR has intervened in your day-to-day that benefits the company itself.
This management class is not necessary to create the product, but ensure labor has no real control over the product's content, the company's direction, or share of the proceeds their labor creates. This is repeated across industries. We have an overproduction of managers in the west currently, which explains much of the current political climate where new managerial jobs are being created to manage the woke-priesthood and enable even easier disciplining or firing of workers who step out of line.
I'd say most useless profession would be the managerial class in general. Before the labor struggles of the early 20th century, company hiearchies were much flatter. Worker, line-man, owner. Owner is some wealthy schmuck who doesn't show up, lineman is the boss, everyone else is your comrade. Made for much easier labor actions, strikes, sit downs, work stoppages, where all our modern labor rights like 40 hour week, sick days, banned child labor, etc came from.
As capital replanned how to rebuff this inconvenience, one tactic was to stratify the work force to pull out the possible organizers and give them a little more pay, a little more say, and then they would work for bossman instead of worker in their goals. This was a cynical plan and it's worked rather well. When looking at how it's evolved in modern times, these managers are often the 9.9% neo-aristocracy that rebuff political changes like moving towards a Jessie Jackson, Bernie Sanders, or Jeremy Corbyn or Melanchon mode of governance, insisting instead some tweaks ala Warren are the way to go, and the end result is a Biden, Boris Johnson, or Macron who continue the right wing policies of their predecessors. This ratfuckery is enabled by the bribed mangerial class who write for the NYT, SNL, were the largest donors to the me-too candidates that whittled away support from the real deals.
Work gets done by the workers. In games it's the animators, modelers, designers, and testers who make the content. The management is there for the benefit of the shareholders and corporate profits. Think about how many times you've been able to go to HR over something and have it actually resolved to your satisfaction, versus how many times HR has intervened in your day-to-day that benefits the company itself.
This management class is not necessary to create the product, but ensure labor has no real control over the product's content, the company's direction, or share of the proceeds their labor creates. This is repeated across industries. We have an overproduction of managers in the west currently, which explains much of the current political climate where new managerial jobs are being created to manage the woke-priesthood and enable even easier disciplining or firing of workers who step out of line.
There is a spectre haunting polycount and I am here for it.
I'd say most useless profession would be the managerial class in general. Before the labor struggles of the early 20th century, company hiearchies were much flatter. Worker, line-man, owner. Owner is some wealthy schmuck who doesn't show up, lineman is the boss, everyone else is your comrade. Made for much easier labor actions, strikes, sit downs, work stoppages, where all our modern labor rights like 40 hour week, sick days, banned child labor, etc came from.
As capital replanned how to rebuff this inconvenience, one tactic was to stratify the work force to pull out the possible organizers and give them a little more pay, a little more say, and then they would work for bossman instead of worker in their goals. This was a cynical plan and it's worked rather well. When looking at how it's evolved in modern times, these managers are often the 9.9% neo-aristocracy that rebuff political changes like moving towards a Jessie Jackson, Bernie Sanders, or Jeremy Corbyn or Melanchon mode of governance, insisting instead some tweaks ala Warren are the way to go, and the end result is a Biden, Boris Johnson, or Macron who continue the right wing policies of their predecessors. This ratfuckery is enabled by the bribed mangerial class who write for the NYT, SNL, were the largest donors to the me-too candidates that whittled away support from the real deals.
Work gets done by the workers. In games it's the animators, modelers, designers, and testers who make the content. The management is there for the benefit of the shareholders and corporate profits. Think about how many times you've been able to go to HR over something and have it actually resolved to your satisfaction, versus how many times HR has intervened in your day-to-day that benefits the company itself.
This management class is not necessary to create the product, but ensure labor has no real control over the product's content, the company's direction, or share of the proceeds their labor creates. This is repeated across industries. We have an overproduction of managers in the west currently, which explains much of the current political climate where new managerial jobs are being created to manage the woke-priesthood and enable even easier disciplining or firing of workers who step out of line.
There is a spectre haunting polycount and I am here for it.
I moved from a hyper capitalist society to a social democracy and kept my eyes opened and saw how much better collectivism works than individualism, and have done some historical deep dives to rectify the extremely censored education we get in the USA school system. What can I say?
I recommend the book "Poor People's Movements, Why they win and how they fail" Which covers a ton of the early labor struggles of the USA, most of which was completely deleted from our history books so as not to give any ideas to the rabble. Did y'all know that between 1902-1904, the national guard murdered 200 people and seriously injured 2,000 more at the behest of capital to break strikes and work stoppages? (which were plentiful in N. America)
I'm leaning on a bit of Gramsci too, ("fun" fact, the guy who translated Gramsci's prison notebooks from italian to english is pete buttigieg's dad, Joeseph) who described how a society maintains it's culture, popularizing the terms hegemony, superstructure, etc. He goes over these "taste makers" of society, whether they are courtiers of a king, or sycophants of a billionaire, who's job is to manage the narrative of society for the benefit of their patrons. In the USA that would look like all of the people with 100k salaries who have larger platforms than just the water cooler, who hissed and spat in the direction of Bernie Sanders (or Jill Stein, or Jessie Jackson, or Eugene McCarthy, or...) and ensured that the status quo was maintained against the policy wishes of the larger body politic that does want free doctor visits, schools that kids leave literate rather than imprisoned, and water that isn't poison from the tap.
The managerial class is useful to someone, and that's their bosses. To us who have to have a real skill and show up and use it each day to get paid, they work against our time with family, our share of what we create, our say about the product direction, our desire to unionize, and anything else that an actual workplace democracy would enable, because their job is to stop all that. The people who invented the job class of "manager" were very clear about their intentions when doing so. Fuck labor organizing because solidarity gets the goods and atomized individuals just have to suffer.
There are many negative aspects that come with supermodel job, like not getting paid a lot before being really famous, sometimes not having work all the year, strict diet and exercising to keep the shape, long hours and lot of standing, a job that can be done almost exclusively during 20-40s then models have to find a new job, long hours not moving while getting make-up and hair done, etc.
And it's not really useless, as it's part of the ways we entertain ourselves, with aesthetics contemplation.
I don't know whether to be proud or disappointed that my hot take was so hot that it got poopinmymouth to start posting again. Either way, can't say my shitposting profession is useless
@ElysiumGX Hey man, we've all been there, don't worry about it haha don't look at my post history any employees of cloud imperium games haha please don't
But I missed something on OP's post...
> clothing hanger. add legs and wheels and thats 100% of their job done by an inanimate object? and..
Is this the mentality that leads weapons artists on artstation to post their AK in black voids with nothing else to give context to the prop? Did I just solve the pandemic? Did I win? It doesn't feel like I did.
No, pretty dresses look prettier on a pretty woman/man, certainly way more than it would with a plastic mannequin.
Also a question somewhat related to this, why do people hate good looking people so much? Is it because you feel they have an advantage that you supposedly don't? Everybody does to some extent, if you know how to 3D model, you likely wouldn't have if you grew up in an oasis in the middle of desert. The only difference with models is that it's more immediately visible.
Also a question somewhat related to this, why do people hate good looking people so much? Is it because you feel they have an advantage that you supposedly don't? Everybody does to some extent, if you know how to 3D model, you likely wouldn't have if you grew up in an oasis in the middle of desert. The only difference with models is that it's more immediately visible.
Well, lots of people would like to spend time with the most attractive of our species in the dark, so it's a complicated love/hate relationship when it exists.
We should live in a world where our value is based on our shared humanity, but part of capitalism's forces is to create scarcity, desirability, and to manipulate our base urges to sell products. The taste makers of fashion and hollywood can pluck out the most extreme bodies, with the rarest of proportions, and most sympathetic faces, to pay to put their products near and engender sales. This has the byproduct of creating an "ideal" that everyone can measure themselves against. When we feel that Tom Holland or Helmsworth are peak male ideal, and we ourselves don't compare, it can engender bitterness when that differences is sold to us as a meaningful metric of worth. Ditto for women when seeing their ideal (as presented by tastemakers, obvi).
It isn't that actual hollywood beauty-body we hate, it's the feeling that we are worth less because our abs are not as tight. And that feeling is bolstered by watching those with the best bodies/faces have higher success in a world based around visuals and scarcity, and we can (and often do) believe our own bad luck is related to not having that beauty to rely on that seems such an easy pass for those who have it. We humans are deeply averse to unfairness, it tears at our psyche because we know it's unjust.
Also a question somewhat related to this, why do people hate good looking people so much? Is it because you feel they have an advantage that you supposedly don't? Everybody does to some extent, if you know how to 3D model, you likely wouldn't have if you grew up in an oasis in the middle of desert. The only difference with models is that it's more immediately visible.
Well, lots of people would like to spend time with the most attractive of our species in the dark, so it's a complicated love/hate relationship when it exists.
We should live in a world where our value is based on our shared humanity, but part of capitalism's forces is to create scarcity, desirability, and to manipulate our base urges to sell products. The taste makers of fashion and hollywood can pluck out the most extreme bodies, with the rarest of proportions, and most sympathetic faces, to pay to put their products near and engender sales. This has the byproduct of creating an "ideal" that everyone can measure themselves against. When we feel that Tom Holland or Helmsworth are peak male ideal, and we ourselves don't compare, it can engender bitterness when that differences is sold to us as a meaningful metric of worth. Ditto for women when seeing their ideal (as presented by tastemakers, obvi).
It isn't that actual hollywood beauty-body we hate, it's the feeling that we are worth less because our abs are not as tight. And that feeling is bolstered by watching those with the best bodies/faces have higher success in a world based around visuals and scarcity, and we can (and often do) believe our own bad luck is related to not having that beauty to rely on that seems such an easy pass for those who have it. We humans are deeply averse to unfairness, it tears at our psyche because we know it's unjust.
I'd argue it's more a product of the market, than capitalism directly. I doubt workers co ops would get just anyone from the street to model for them in a market socialist society.
Also a question somewhat related to this, why do people hate good looking people so much? Is it because you feel they have an advantage that you supposedly don't? Everybody does to some extent, if you know how to 3D model, you likely wouldn't have if you grew up in an oasis in the middle of desert. The only difference with models is that it's more immediately visible.
Well, lots of people would like to spend time with the most attractive of our species in the dark, so it's a complicated love/hate relationship when it exists.
We should live in a world where our value is based on our shared humanity, but part of capitalism's forces is to create scarcity, desirability, and to manipulate our base urges to sell products. The taste makers of fashion and hollywood can pluck out the most extreme bodies, with the rarest of proportions, and most sympathetic faces, to pay to put their products near and engender sales. This has the byproduct of creating an "ideal" that everyone can measure themselves against. When we feel that Tom Holland or Helmsworth are peak male ideal, and we ourselves don't compare, it can engender bitterness when that differences is sold to us as a meaningful metric of worth. Ditto for women when seeing their ideal (as presented by tastemakers, obvi).
It isn't that actual hollywood beauty-body we hate, it's the feeling that we are worth less because our abs are not as tight. And that feeling is bolstered by watching those with the best bodies/faces have higher success in a world based around visuals and scarcity, and we can (and often do) believe our own bad luck is related to not having that beauty to rely on that seems such an easy pass for those who have it. We humans are deeply averse to unfairness, it tears at our psyche because we know it's unjust.
I'd argue it's more a product of the market, than capitalism directly. I doubt workers co ops would get just anyone from the street to model for them in a market socialist society.
They might or might not, but the important thing would be that instead of 1-2 people making the casting decision like now, all the people who make the label possible would be involved. When the people who aren't thin, white, straight, able bodied, and under 25 have a say, it's way more likely that the models will be cast as everyday people, yet still sympathetic (which isn't just code for hot).
As a socialist, I want to also remind that every company being a co-op and no capitalists existing anywhere (my goal) means the entire society would be different. Right now everything we do is transactional under capitalism. It teaches us to treat human interactions as transactional. A cooperative society with food/housing/healthcare/retirement/education as human rights would have very different people in it, making different choices all over the place.
It's these dualing ideas - democracy at work, and a more equitable wider society, that socialists believe would create a more sustainable world.
Politics aside - casting models for a fashion label is no different from art direction on a game or film.
This sort of thing absolutely should not be egalitarian and fair. Democratising creative decisions dilutes the vision.
Back to the OP
Ambulance chasing dickheads who call me and insist I've been in a car crash that never happened. What purpose do these arseholes serve ? More to the point .. what do they gain from arguing when I tell them I've never had a sodding accident? I need a rum
Politics aside - casting models for a fashion label is no different from art direction on a game or film.
This sort of thing absolutely should not be egalitarian and fair. Democratising creative decisions dilutes the vision.
Back to the OP
Ambulance chasing dickheads who call me and insist I've been in a car crash that never happened. What purpose do these arseholes serve ? More to the point .. what do they gain from arguing when I tell them I've never had a sodding accident? I need a rum
To steel man his position,
democratised workplaces don't have to like, democratise every decision, most of them will elect managers.
The advantage of this would be that we probably wont end up having any weird blunders like the initial design of sonic in that sonic movie, from what I've heard, most of the CGI staff were against the original design, it was forced by management.
It doesn't have to be a design by committee.
At least that's what I've heard, I'm not a socialist.
This sort of thing absolutely should not be egalitarian and fair. Democratising creative decisions dilutes the vision.
That might be true in a world where taste makers were chosen by their abilities, but instead we live in one where they capture their position through nepotism, favors, and other factors unrelated to their jobs. That is why casting for models or actors is so unbelievably homogenic in terms of race, face types, age, body proportions. These are not skilled casting agents using honed vision to execute a design, they are largely incompetent at that task. Their real skills, like any managers, are (their own) job preservation. When they get around to casting, they chase trends and copy past successes.
If we actually lived in a meritocratic world (fun fact, the person who coined the term "meritocracy" was himself mocking the very concept of it existing) I'd agree.
Politics aside - casting models for a fashion label is no different from art direction on a game or film.
This sort of thing absolutely should not be egalitarian and fair. Democratising creative decisions dilutes the vision.
Back to the OP
Ambulance chasing dickheads who call me and insist I've been in a car crash that never happened. What purpose do these arseholes serve ? More to the point .. what do they gain from arguing when I tell them I've never had a sodding accident? I need a rum
To steel man his position,
democratised workplaces don't have to like, democratise every decision, most of them will elect managers.
The advantage of this would be that we probably wont end up having any weird blunders like the initial design of sonic in that sonic movie, from what I've heard, most of the CGI staff were against the original design, it was forced by management.
It doesn't have to be a design by committee.
At least that's what I've heard, I'm not a socialist.
This is very different. If a person shows skills in casting, and the rest of the group agrees they should make the decisions, that's absolutely socialism and would enable these vision masters to work. Instead, a capitalist owner chooses who will be the casting agent, when they don't do it themselves. This king-like command of the decisions foments homogeneity, not creativity or vision. Casting agents and directors have complete control, as do their equivalents in games. Do we have perfect vision when it comes to the creative choices of who gets to be lead? or is it a long line of almost entirely identical protagonists and main actors and models?
No job is really useless. It was created to fulfill a need or desire. Fashion models, while seemingly "pointless", serve a purpose. They provide complimentary beauty to showcase garments in their most "ideal" use case. They make the clothes look better, and thus drive more consumers to buy said clothes. It's advertising.
Likewise, the role of an artist could be seen as pointless. Their work doesn't directly contribute to the betterment of society or industry in general. Their creations attain value by the perceived value placed in them by others. A painting might trigger strong emotions in one individual, and thus they value said artwork very highly. That same piece of art might look like worthless chicken scratch to someone else.
Everything is subjective to the context that created it, and the person viewing it; thus every job has a purpose, to someone, or for some thing.
Replies
No, on second thoughts you're mad as fishies, Mishra.
Add to thread, the media is doing a good job on misinforming the public and getting things done for someone else to profit off of, so i'd say that is pretty bad/pointless when it isn't helping the people instead seems to be stealing more liberties and forcing toxicity into ones veins.
For a long time people have been saying that automation will lead to unemployment as jobs are replaced by machines. But according to this theory what happens is that people still get jobs, but they are created purely to keep people employed, rather than add value to the economy.
Here's an article about it:
https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/the-bullshit-job-boom
Another example - teacher's pay being low is far more related to the various politicians and wealthy pushing alternative schools (charter, private, etc) to undermine public education support, which pushes down teachers wages, along with the general anti-union pushes since Reagan.
There is a reason, but it isn't a good one, nor is it static.
As capital replanned how to rebuff this inconvenience, one tactic was to stratify the work force to pull out the possible organizers and give them a little more pay, a little more say, and then they would work for bossman instead of worker in their goals. This was a cynical plan and it's worked rather well. When looking at how it's evolved in modern times, these managers are often the 9.9% neo-aristocracy that rebuff political changes like moving towards a Jessie Jackson, Bernie Sanders, or Jeremy Corbyn or Melanchon mode of governance, insisting instead some tweaks ala Warren are the way to go, and the end result is a Biden, Boris Johnson, or Macron who continue the right wing policies of their predecessors. This ratfuckery is enabled by the bribed mangerial class who write for the NYT, SNL, were the largest donors to the me-too candidates that whittled away support from the real deals.
Work gets done by the workers. In games it's the animators, modelers, designers, and testers who make the content. The management is there for the benefit of the shareholders and corporate profits. Think about how many times you've been able to go to HR over something and have it actually resolved to your satisfaction, versus how many times HR has intervened in your day-to-day that benefits the company itself.
This management class is not necessary to create the product, but ensure labor has no real control over the product's content, the company's direction, or share of the proceeds their labor creates. This is repeated across industries. We have an overproduction of managers in the west currently, which explains much of the current political climate where new managerial jobs are being created to manage the woke-priesthood and enable even easier disciplining or firing of workers who step out of line.
Macron ?
POOPINMYFRENCH
I recommend the book "Poor People's Movements, Why they win and how they fail" Which covers a ton of the early labor struggles of the USA, most of which was completely deleted from our history books so as not to give any ideas to the rabble. Did y'all know that between 1902-1904, the national guard murdered 200 people and seriously injured 2,000 more at the behest of capital to break strikes and work stoppages? (which were plentiful in N. America)
I'm leaning on a bit of Gramsci too, ("fun" fact, the guy who translated Gramsci's prison notebooks from italian to english is pete buttigieg's dad, Joeseph) who described how a society maintains it's culture, popularizing the terms hegemony, superstructure, etc. He goes over these "taste makers" of society, whether they are courtiers of a king, or sycophants of a billionaire, who's job is to manage the narrative of society for the benefit of their patrons. In the USA that would look like all of the people with 100k salaries who have larger platforms than just the water cooler, who hissed and spat in the direction of Bernie Sanders (or Jill Stein, or Jessie Jackson, or Eugene McCarthy, or...) and ensured that the status quo was maintained against the policy wishes of the larger body politic that does want free doctor visits, schools that kids leave literate rather than imprisoned, and water that isn't poison from the tap.
The managerial class is useful to someone, and that's their bosses. To us who have to have a real skill and show up and use it each day to get paid, they work against our time with family, our share of what we create, our say about the product direction, our desire to unionize, and anything else that an actual workplace democracy would enable, because their job is to stop all that. The people who invented the job class of "manager" were very clear about their intentions when doing so. Fuck labor organizing because solidarity gets the goods and atomized individuals just have to suffer.
Oh, hi poop!
And it's not really useless, as it's part of the ways we entertain ourselves, with aesthetics contemplation.
Hey man, we've all been there, don't worry about it
We should live in a world where our value is based on our shared humanity, but part of capitalism's forces is to create scarcity, desirability, and to manipulate our base urges to sell products. The taste makers of fashion and hollywood can pluck out the most extreme bodies, with the rarest of proportions, and most sympathetic faces, to pay to put their products near and engender sales. This has the byproduct of creating an "ideal" that everyone can measure themselves against. When we feel that Tom Holland or Helmsworth are peak male ideal, and we ourselves don't compare, it can engender bitterness when that differences is sold to us as a meaningful metric of worth. Ditto for women when seeing their ideal (as presented by tastemakers, obvi).
It isn't that actual hollywood beauty-body we hate, it's the feeling that we are worth less because our abs are not as tight. And that feeling is bolstered by watching those with the best bodies/faces have higher success in a world based around visuals and scarcity, and we can (and often do) believe our own bad luck is related to not having that beauty to rely on that seems such an easy pass for those who have it. We humans are deeply averse to unfairness, it tears at our psyche because we know it's unjust.
As a socialist, I want to also remind that every company being a co-op and no capitalists existing anywhere (my goal) means the entire society would be different. Right now everything we do is transactional under capitalism. It teaches us to treat human interactions as transactional. A cooperative society with food/housing/healthcare/retirement/education as human rights would have very different people in it, making different choices all over the place.
It's these dualing ideas - democracy at work, and a more equitable wider society, that socialists believe would create a more sustainable world.
This sort of thing absolutely should not be egalitarian and fair. Democratising creative decisions dilutes the vision.
Back to the OP
Ambulance chasing dickheads who call me and insist I've been in a car crash that never happened.
What purpose do these arseholes serve ? More to the point .. what do they gain from arguing when I tell them I've never had a sodding accident?
I need a rum
If we actually lived in a meritocratic world (fun fact, the person who coined the term "meritocracy" was himself mocking the very concept of it existing) I'd agree.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment (to read more)
That is a fair point.
To fdfxds point..
I don't know where to stand on that. I mean, at least the original sonic design was undiluted shit 😁
Likewise, the role of an artist could be seen as pointless. Their work doesn't directly contribute to the betterment of society or industry in general. Their creations attain value by the perceived value placed in them by others. A painting might trigger strong emotions in one individual, and thus they value said artwork very highly. That same piece of art might look like worthless chicken scratch to someone else.
Everything is subjective to the context that created it, and the person viewing it; thus every job has a purpose, to someone, or for some thing.
-3d artist .....and also anything related to art and painting.