• xantoxis
    53·
    1 year ago

    This is exactly how I’m tryna be (I live alone in my house with my dog and my $0.003M fortune)

  • jawsua
    41·
    1 year ago

    People make fun of Enya’s music but it’s really well produced and exactly what she likes to make. What a great life, making art you love, really well, never touring, and living with your cats in a castle

      • 432hz@lemmy.world
        8·
        1 year ago

        I find her music extremely boring. But I do know people that are gaga over her music. You can’t choose what you like!

    • cook_pass_babtridge@feddit.uk
      3·
      1 year ago

      Exactly - what I’m trying to say is that if I was dying and I decided that even though I’d never particularly been into, say, Enya before but that now I really, really was into Enya and that in fact, I thought Enya was great and that Enya died for our sins and I wanted an Enya themed funeral with pictures of Enya and lots and lots of mentions of Enya, then I think it would be a bit bloody rich for my sister to ban all mention of Enya from my funeral. Yeah?

  • Nepenthe@kbin.social
    25·
    1 year ago

    *and however many servants it takes to clean and stock a castle. No way she does that on her own, or she’d never stop

  • sol@thelemmy.club
    19·
    1 year ago

    Can you really be happy living alone in a castle knowing people out there can’t afford to pay rent?

    • TooMuchDog@lemmy.ml
      25·
      1 year ago

      Get over yourself man, just let people be happy. It’s okay to have nice things, you don’t have to feel guilty about it unless you did something wrong to get it.

        • TooMuchDog@lemmy.ml
          7·
          1 year ago

          She can afford to live in a castle, and she wants to live in a castle. There’s no need to say she has to feel guilty because other people can’t live in a castle. Unless you’re the unluckiest person alive, there’s always going to be people who aren’t as fortunate than you. In her case it’s easy to point a finger because it’s a castle, but honestly where’s the cutoff? Should she feel guilty if she had instead chosen to live in a less expensive but still large and nice house? What about if she lived in a modest one? She still has a house and those other people still don’t. Should she feel guilty because she can afford fine dining while many people can’t afford to eat? What if she chose to eat only fast food? There’s still other people that can’t afford to eat regardless of the quality of food she chooses.

          I’m not going to pretend I know anything about how she uses her money outside of what’s presented in this meme. She absolutely has the kind of wealth where it would be morally responsible of her to use some of it to help others less fortunate. Maybe she does that already, maybe not. I don’t know.

          If she doesn’t then yeah, maybe there would be a reason for her to feel guilty; but even then I wouldn’t say she for sure should. But for the sake of argument let’s say she does regularly contribute to charities. Should she still feel guilty about living in a castle? She’s already contributing, but she could contribute more if she didn’t live in a castle. But that begs the question, how much should she have to contribute? If she still has enough money left over to live in luxury should she feel guilty? I’d argue not.

          • pingveno@lemmy.ml
            2·
            1 year ago

            As an aside, yes, she has contributed frequently to charities. She just doesn’t particularly flaunt her contributions.

          • Sockenklaus@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            Hey thanks for engaging in this discussion!

            I think you have a point asking “Where to draw the line?” Obviously I don’t have a simple answer to this question because it would just be an arbitrary line to draw. Also this matter can’t be discussed with Enyas wealth in mind alone but with wealth in general.

            I think to answer this question it would be necessary to know who (as in "the richest 0.x % ) would have to abandon how much of their wealth to reach a certain goal for the poorest x % and as long as we can agree that the benefit outweighs the cost (maybe even in a significant manner to “allow” a certain amount of inequality) it is save to draw the line there.

            I’m speculating now, but maybe we would come to the conclusion that it would only take a little amount of wealth of the richest few people to lift the poorest of the poorest out of severe hunger. I think we could agree that this would be very reasonable because the benefit would greatly outweigh the cost. Maybe even providing basic housing to all people who need it would cost only a neglectable number of people some of their huge wealth. This could also be a possible line then.

            So as you see I’d try to draw a line using some utilitarianistic criteria.

      • sol@thelemmy.club
        2·
        1 year ago

        You don’t get to live in a 100 million dollars castle while others struggle to pay rent just by doing good things. The music industry is just as rigged as hollywood. Thanks to majors and all these salesmen who make millions there’s plenty of real and skilled musicians who don’t get half of the recognition they deserve. It’s these greedy souls that should get over themself and just let people be happy: once you are a millionare you don’t really have to keep squeezing money out of the industry with your albums just so that you can buy a whole fucking castle for yourself…

        • Sockenklaus@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 year ago

          I think the problem here is: When you realize that what you’re doing has value to others you won’t suddenly start doing it for free even if you can easily afford doing so. There may be exceptions from this like doing charity concerts as a musician, doing pro bono cases as a lawyer or helping your friend renovate their flat as a house painter and decorator. But in general I am pretty sure you won’t go from taking money to doing your craft for free.

            • Sockenklaus@lemmy.world
              0·
              1 year ago

              You do know that the two main devs are working full time on Lemmy and are getting paid to do so by the NLnet foundation?

              The software developers equivalent of my argument above would be a developers who’s getting paid for their dayjob but still does some work for an open source project in their free time.

              It’s not about never doing anything for free but about stopping getting paid at all.

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      4·
      1 year ago

      Right, that place could probably host a double digit number of families.