Question about Sony Alpha 6000

The 16-50mm is not particularly fast with an aperture of 3.5 to 5.6. A fixed focal length of 1.4 or 1.8 is much better. The question is whether you want to shoot with an aperture of 1.4. Even fixed focal lengths only have good sharpness when stopped down (from f/5.6 to f/10). With an aperture of 1.4 you have such a shallow depth of field that, for example, on a face only the eyes are sharp and the nose and hair are no longer sharp. It is also completely overrated that fixed focal lengths are sharper than zoom lenses. There are zooms that are almost as sharp as fixed focal lengths. See DXO Mark.

The decisive factor is what you want to photograph. A 35mm lens, for example, is totally unsuitable for landscape photography on APS-C. On the other hand, it can be just right in the city on a tripod.
Exactly the same question arises whether you are shooting moving objects that need to be sharp or whether it is landscape/architecture, where you can take longer exposures anyway.
Basically, the kit lens is "special waste" here (like practically all entry-level kit lenses). But to see if the whole thing really appeals to you, it's still far enough and if you're really intensively involved in photography, you'll buy a few other lenses anyway ;-).
So: what do you want to photograph at all? Then we can assess whether the lens is enough (for a start) or whether you would be better off buying something else.

A lens with this fixed focal length is always faster, and produces sharper images. The disadvantage is that the subject selection cannot be zoomed in comfortably, but the photographer has to move to get the subject into the viewfinder the way he wants. There are ambitious (hobby) photographers who often opt for a fixed focal length precisely because of the light brightness and sharpness (and the lighter lens weight).