this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
124 points (97.0% liked)

World News

54121 readers
3762 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] one_old_coder@piefed.social 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I don't think there is a more pathetic display of money. Rolex were on the top of my list with their expensive ugly watches.

vroom_vroom.mp3

[–] AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I got into a discussion some weeks ago about extremely expensive watches. I think they are stupid and just a "look at me, I'm rich" item. But, apparenty, I know jackshit about it because it's all about the quality of the materials used and "the feel". Seems a 10k watch is extremely better than a normal watch and I'm just too dumb to understand it because I don't know how better it is when a watch uses precious metals in its gears instead of less-precious metals. This, said by a wage slave, by the way.

Suffice to say I realized it was pointless to go on with the discussion and I let it die after their "explanation" on why I was being dumb.

[–] one_old_coder@piefed.social 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A friend of mine has a few Rolex. Those watches are way less precise than a $5 quartz watch, it's all about showing that you have money. The quality of the materials gives no advantage. They are objectively ugly too with the big round circles, and look like watches for kids who learn how read the time.

I've been told by rich guys that you must wear the strap a bit loose so that it the watch will rotate a bit around your wrist, which forces you to "put it back" while showing to others that you have a Rolex.

I don't remember the specific name but it is a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption

Exactly my thoughts on it. There are things that are expensive just because they are made so rich people can show off. Is there a point on having diamonds on a watch? No, it doesn't make it better, just more expensive so you can show others how much money you have.

Same thing witd loud cars, they are made just so the owner can be the center of attention for a split second. I kinda feel bad for those idiots thinking they need to show off the money they have. It has to be one hell of an inferiority complex if you need to tell everybody how rich you are every moment of your life.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And, you just don't understand that if you can afford a $40,000 watch with premium materials, it doesn't matter that they don't keep correct time.

I do understand that. But I hate hypocrisy. Just say that you buy it because you want to show how rich you are, don't try to sell me the "superior quality of the gears make them better" bullshit.

Just be honest and say it clear: "I buy it because it's expensive". It's fine. Except it's not, because you are embarrassed to admit you only want to brag about money and instead try to lie others (and yourself) about the reason why you buy it.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

rolexes are actually extremely well made, though. that's why they became so well-valued.

They were the watches people used because they were reliable and bomb-proof. (sometimes literally.)

[–] one_old_coder@piefed.social 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Rolexes fail at being watches compared to other products that cost $5. A "bomb-proof piece of jewelry" is not a convincing argument. The whole point is showing that you have money.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

/sigh

Because things have always been the way they are today.

The point I'm making that you're either ignoring or that you're not understanding is that Rolex's weren't always so expensive, especially when you consider they're mechanical and not digital, extract power from your wrist's motion and have been known to run decades without any maintenance all in extreme conditions... and all that at a time when your cheap five dollar watch didn't even fucking exist, and has never been able to replicate it's endurance. Rolexes started as the affordable-but-reliable option and became the highly-valued, expensive pieces they are today because of their utility.

Completely unlike lambo supercars, which have always been temu ferrari, and catered to a very select group of stupid people.

that you think rolexes fail just demonstrates you don't actually know what a rolex is, or who used them. and that's okay. but don't sit there and pretend like your $5 cheap piece of crap whose band will break inside a month is comparable. It's laughably not.

[–] lemmyng@piefed.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Your reply to the above comment is a bit caustic. Here's my take on your argument that explains your position in a rational way:

The bomb-proof and repair free nature of the Rolex comes into play in situations where replacement parts are not readily available. Consider an astronaut on a trip to Mars: they are out in space for months, in a ship where both space and weight are at a premium. A disposable time piece may be cheap on Earth, but without the means to replace it, it becomes a liability.

Similarly, someone on an exploration to a remote region - let's say a member of the yearly British Antarctic Survey expedition - will not be able to replace a broken timepiece until they return at the end of the season. Not everyone needs a reliable time piece, but those who do - such as medics measuring a patient's heart rate with a stethoscope - might go for something that has a lower failure rate.

Sure, a $5 timepiece is probably enough for most people, and wearing a Rolex as a status symbol is dumb, but that's not the only use case for them.

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

Some Casio "black" watches have been recovered in some gardens after being buried for years and were still working 🤷‍♂️

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

They never kept accurate time. Asian knockoffs work better.