I've skimmed his argument and it boils down to "I have a hypothesis explaining this phenomenon and you don't."
It doesn't address anything I've asserted. I can think of several possibilities off the cuff but that's not likely to go good places.
Everything I know about human psychology says "Contrary to popular opinion, family life is much more formative and influential for legal minors than their peer group."
Edit:
I will add that where their peer group is a very strong influence it's because the family has already failed them.
More like "and no one does, we've been searching, by the by if you have a theory drop us a line". If you've got good theories maybe drop them a line?
I don't see how your edit meaningfully moves the dialogue - lets say I agree with you and it is a matter of lucid law that poor parenting is a necessary component for subsequent harm to occur w.r.t social media use - whats your point? Does that mean that no harm is occurring or that it isn't important? Or something else?
More like "and no one does, we've been searching, by the by if you have a theory drop us a line".
I honestly do not see where it says that. More like "We don't like it that you are dismissing our ideas and we want to argue that it costs little to act on our ideas and we don't like it that you are trying to hold us to such a high level of proof. It's like a criminal trial here, come on, that's not fair. We should be allowed to get policy passed impacting your children with less evidence than that, geez."
No, you shouldn't.
If you've got good theories maybe drop them a line?
That's a complete and total waste of my time for a long list of reasons, starting with I am a former homemaker and people are very comfortable being extremely dismissive of me no matter how much evidence I can point to, no matter how well I argue it, etc. and furthermore my experience has been that lots of people are happy to both blow me off and at the same time steal my ideas and take credit for them.
I will write up something on my low traffic, completely ignored, largely unmonetized blog Raising Future Adults, a phrase that began proliferating in articles and podcast titles and the like after I created the blog and hit the front page of Hacker News* with it and, yet, I still cannot get traction nor engagement etc. And he can then do what all the other jerks on planet Earth do and read it and pretend it was HIS idea and not mention he got it from me -- or, alternately, read it and marshal his arguments why he is still right and kooks like me are wrong and stupid.
Why are you writing that way, so diminishing and belittling? They make that argument very plainly and clearly precisely so you can disagree with it in a clear and concise fashion, but your tact here is to rephrase it with an insulting tone.
You seem to be reading in a lot of negative intent from a person who has given people who disagree with him, 'the skeptics', ample platform and what appears to be eminently fair treatment.
Also this is the specific quote I am referring to, I won't fault you for missing it but it is a very clear invitation.
>If you can think of an alternative theory that fits the timing, international reach, and gendered nature of the epidemic as neatly as the SSM theory, please put it in the comments. Zach and I maintain a Google doc that collects such theories, along with studies that support or contradict each theory. While some of them may well be contributing to the changes in the USA, none so far can explain the relatively synchronous international timing.
I can't really account for the rest of your grievances - they don't sound outlandish but I'm not sure what they have to do with TFA which appears to do a great job of citing sources. Unless you are accusing this person in particular of ripping you off? I don't doubt that you could have sparked usage of that phrase but it is hardly a new idea or phrase even. I read your blog post* and there isn't an intersection between any of the ideas in that and in TFA. The phrase itself seems too nebulous to cite? And now that I check it doesnt appear to be in use in TFA at all? Im having a hard time understanding this actually, is your position that people have been failing to cite you and the evidence is that a phrase you used became more popular?
*that was nice, I hope you aren't taking a lack of 'traction and engagement' as a verdict on quality
A. Thank you for quoting the exact point where they say that. I'm very seriously handicapped, including serious eyesight issues. I looked and couldn't find it.
B. I hang out on HN for my own purposes. It's part of how I occupy myself.*
I long ago gave up on being taken seriously here or given any fucking respect. I'm a woman. I'm dirt poor and handicapped and HN is a networking fail for me and I get nothing but shit from people for trying to sort my problems and figure out how to make my life work while other people have no problem making money here, making friends, promoting their work, etc.
I've stopped posting my work here because no one but me ever posts my writing, that piece that made the front page made not one thin dime while everyone tells me "Quit your bitching and get a real job."
I applied for a real job. They took my incomplete application with a decade-old resume seriously because I was so much more qualified than other candidates, then hired someone else who proceeded to steal my ideas and go out of his way to make sure I couldn't earn a living locally though he is literally being paid to help locals like me succeed financially.
I'm a writer by trade. It's something I can do in spite of my handicap.
People on the internet do not want to pay writers for their work. They don't want to tip, support your Patreon, hire you as a freelancer etc. HN has spent years telling me that writing simply doesn't pay and I'm crazy and stupid to think it should while simultaneously bitching about how journalism is going to hell. God forbid you should point out that there might be a connection between their desire for slave labor from writers and the lack of quality writing out there.
C. I really don't feel it is appropriate for you to tell me I can't simply disagree with them in a comment on an online forum and must instead come up with an alternate theory and do their job for them and write them and spoon feed them a better answer or shut up.
Their hypothesis does not hold water. No one is paying me to fix their problems for them and I urgently need more income.
I only continue to write in spite of getting no money and nothing but contempt from people because I remain seriously handicapped and it's part of how I occupy myself though at this point I just wish I had not been born into this shit world where it's apparently not allowed for me to make my life work for some damn reason.
Please kindly walk the fuck away from this stupid, pointless argument where if I respond to the points laid out, I'm somehow wrong and if I don't that will just be taken as evidence I don't have a point.
I have a point. It doesn't matter. No one wants to hear it.
I don't have the right bits between my legs and I don't have the right degrees and blah blah blah, which means being right about something is one of the most offensive things I can possibly do. It might make some well-paid man look like a fool and we can't have that.
Please chalk this up to the lunatic rantings of a pathetic loser with no life and just stop. Because it's really ugly stuff to dismiss me and everything that's happened to me and then act like I should just politely let that dismissal stand unchallenged.
For what it's worth: as a fellow parent and handicapped of sorts - thankfully from a corner of the world with a better social safety net than you seem to "enjoy" over there - I always get tremendous value out of reading your posts. I'm pretty handle-blind on this site, so your name is one of the few that stands out, not only because of your excellent writing style but just as much your against the grain-views that quite frankly helps _a lot_ in keeping my "stupid Americans"-bias in check. Thank you!
