The main reason I'm posting this is because I actually learned that there is a name for the phenomenon of people getting used to something, and having to do more and more extreme variants of the same thing in order to get the same reaction they used to get out of the less extreme variant: hedonic adaptation.
It comes to mind because it just seems that a lot of people in Hollywood fall victim to this, and a lot of the rich as a whole as well, or that the wealthy simply see the common person as lesser, hence the 'own nothing and be happy' group, but to bring this back to Diddy, all the crazy sex parties, all the drugs, the power tripping, abuse, etc just makes it clear that something in Hollywood just makes the majority of people who live in it do insane shit, and the exceptions are for whatever reason I don't know.
I don't hate the rich, I hate rich people who are active detriments to society, ala the 'own nothing and be happy' group, or people like John Fisher, owner of the Oakland Athletics, who has failed in every endeavor he has taken in his entire life and the only reason he can exist the way he does is because his parents founded GAP and Old Navy, as examples.
Are leftists right about rich people as a whole? Not at all. I do however understand them from the perspective of 'the vast majority of wealthy individuals are completely out of touch with the common person and have no idea how they behave'. It seems like as an overall group, only athletes have any idea how the average person lives because without sports, they'd be the average person and many athletes are self-aware about that.
I've come to believe that it's not power which corrupts (with absolute power corrupting absolutely) but freedom... and absolute freedom which corrupts absolutely. Small distinction, I know, but this is my preferred point of view for this subject. It's because deep down everyone wants to "get away with it," (whatever "it" may be), and when they do they all subconsciously or literally ask themselves "Well, what else can I get away with?" This is my explanation for the Diddies and the Epsteins of the world - the absolute free. The people who've gained a place in the hierarchy wherein they can become a source of freedom... a dispenser of freedom and absolution for everyone who swears to provide them with certain services. Think your stereotypical military dictator/usurper, who allows his followers to do untold evils upon the population, so long as it keeps the citizens from rebelling against the leader. The rich people being corrupted by too much freedom makes them little different from the homeless guy who jerks off on a park bench, except (obviously) that they have a broader selection of degeneracies to indulge in.
It all just makes me wonder. Can a society collapse under the weight of too many traditions or restrictions? I know Hollywood has told us all about the evils of conservatives in stuff like Footloose or Starship Troopers. But, yeah, what about the opposite? Can too much freedom end a civilisation? When I look at the current world it seems like this is where we are going. That the degenerates among us will never accept limitations on how low they are willing to go, as well as take all of us down with them. I know when most people think of this word "freedom" they get misty eyed and start imagining bald eagles and motorcycles, but to me it has become a word that describes sordid, ill things. Civil liberties are a different matter.
It's simple. People and more so children need to know where "the line" is. To know where the line is we test it by putting our toe over it.
So you can have a stable society with draconian rules like in Islam where the line is clear and strictly enforced and they cut your toe off, or if the line is anchored to basic sanity like in Constitutional republics. Otherwise people testing the line end up pushing it further away and normalizing degeneracy and instability.
For instance in America we regularly enact censorship, but when we get so far from our 1st Amendment we look back at "shall not be infringed" and as a society (through the Supremes) say "oh we've gone way to far, those aren't exceptions anymore we're just censoring". Even yelling "fire" in a theater was banned, but then later allowed as free speech when they held it up next to the 1st. In contrast in Canada you have free speech 'if it's convenient', so they don't really have an anchor to save them from degeneracy.
Society needs this anchor, whether it's the Bill of Rights or a holy book (or both).
This is the biggest mistake a parent can make, not to have anchors aka reasons for their rules. You have to be able to explain to the kid and remind yourself "because you're disturbing other people" and things like that. Otherwise you'll end up like my lefty relatives that need some item but can't buy it because they have the kid with them and he'll thrown down (going on for years!). It's crazy.