There’s another massive entrapment in 1925 Floyd Collins. It captured the nation radio side for the duration. Not as well known because of media gaps over time. Floyd also didn’t make it out but the engineering / efforts were large similar to John Jones.
I’m against protected class laws and I am for accepting reality and making public policy based on that reality. It is just my view that social media is unhealthy at any age.
> There's nothing keeping you here on a social media website
There’s nothing keeping you here in a casino, gambling your wages away.
There’s nothing keeping you here in a bar drinking yourself to oblivion.
There’s nothing keeping you here smoking three packs a day until you’re shitting tar.
The age old advice to “just stop” doesn’t quite work for those most at risk. Harm minimisation is a reasonable thing. We don’t think it’s a good idea for young kids to smoke, drink, drive, vote or have sex. Since we know that social media can be specifically harmful to the youngest demographic, why wouldn’t we want to regulate it based on age?
> Since we know that social media can be specifically harmful to the youngest demographic
Who is this "we" that accepts that uncritically? I've been on "social media" since I was 8yo and my little brother has been on social media since he was a baby. Now he's becoming a doctor. He grew up with the 1st gen iPhone which was released 17 years ago.
FWIW I think the drinking age of 21 in the US is kinda silly. Many Americans start driving at 14 (with employment letter) or at 15.5 and many Americans buy their first rifle at 18 years old.
Who’s being uncritical here? I’m not an alcoholic and neither is my sister. That doesn’t mean alcoholism doesn’t exist nor that there aren’t very real harms to a small subset of the population. Great enough harm (that also impacts on non-alcoholics), that we’ve collectively decided to regulate an otherwise legal substance. Would you suggest that we shouldn’t age-limit alcohol? And even with the things you quote - driving and gun ownership - there’s still an age limit, not no age limit. The specific number is irrelevant and up for discussion, but we’ve still decided for those things that there exists a “too young” category.
EDITED to remove a stupid phone autocorrection/autoinsertion.
EDIT: I should point out that in general what happens to other people does impact me so I do have a stake in the behavior of others. No man is an island.
I’m not a social media addict, I only use HN occasionally and really only to remind myself what other people are like. Without this I would forget and assume things about people that are just not true. I treat social media like the dangerous drug that it is and intentionally limit my exposure. But not everyone can do that. I personally know many people who have let social media ruin their lives and their minds to the point I’m not even sure they are rehabilitatable.
I wasn’t proposing a ban, I don’t trust the government with that much power and regulation would be difficult- at what point does a social club become social media. I guess my appeal to time travel did not properly reflect this perceived futility.
I think the only way would be as an Amish like intentional community with a religious level of enforcement. E.g. You can use social media but only in the shed, not in the house. But that’s not realistic so I just have to accept that X% of the population are not going to make it unscathed. These people will become a burden on the state at a time when the state is increasingly reaching to voluntary euthanasia for solutions. Perhaps in time people will socially and genetically evolve in ways that’ll be able to deal with it.
> I can think of plenty of reasons people want to control others' time
So can I
- They want to control people like property
- They want to impose their views and values
- They don't want any competition
- They have a power trip
- They want to use others time for their own benefit
My hope is human nature will prevail. SOME are that sensitive but I think there’s a growing amount of people maybe even a majority that don’t want censorship and nannie’s in media / comedy etc.
What’s offensive changes from generation to generation. Blackface is a problem because racism is a problem. I can envision a future where racism against blacks is so low that blackface in itself is no longer triggering.
As an example: I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s with the feminist second wave. Women of my generation hated being called girl, for good reason! In that time, men were men, and women were considered children.
Their granddaughters don’t seem to mind the term girl at all. They didn’t suffer the same trauma their grandmothers did. Society has progressed, at least a bit.
People don't like to be discriminated against based on their skin color or gender so there is always going to be resistance against bigots like you, who justify and rationalize the discrimination. There has been some progress as evident by the fact that your racist beliefs are already a relatively fringe minority. Even people like you changed, you no longer advocate for slavery or colonialism and probably don't support lynchings, murdering gay people or banning women's right to vote, to understand social change in your case you just have to shift your timeframe by a hundred years or so. You will be dragged along into the future or die, that's how social progress happens, older bigots die off and are replaced by slightly less racist bigots. Overall, slowly progress will be made.
people in the majority/oppressor groups have always defended themselves like this, slavers saw themselves as the victims with black people stealing their livelihood, increases in womens rights or levels of education is seen as taking something away from men/boys... equal opportunity and affirmative action has always been seen as discriminatory instead of the necessary corrective uplifting of historically oppressed groups. White people are forced to share a bathroom with black people, cis people are forced to share a bathroom with trans people, etc. Always conservatives predicted the end of society as we know it, it was never true, nothing bad ever came of society becoming more progressive and less oppressive against minority groups.
The patterns are obvious and the future is clear, it's obvious who is going to be on the wrong side of history. There is no place for social regressive conservatism in a free and open society, that doesn't mean you are being oppressed not matter how convenient of an idea that victim complex is, society at large will progress, with or without you and there is nothing you can do about it.
Considering the demographics I find it hilarious that you believe that current perceived discrimination is the result of a majority.
Because if there is one thing that's for sure, it's that the white person is a race in extinction considering the fertility levels that do not beat the replacement rate in pretty much every single western country.
And you clearly don't understand much about what you are talking about. The fact is that society as we know it is clearly going away, precisely because the fertility level is so abysmal that at this rate in two generations the genetic heritage that built all this world of freedom will be extinguished.
There is actually a trend of "strong women" going out of their way to bring around men from foreign countries to mate and create a family, precisely because of all the problems the social propaganda has created. Another society will perdure that's for sure, but it definitely won't be the same and the more time passe the more it looks like the replacement won't be as nice and open to liberties as what it replaced.
I don't even care, this is what happens when a culture gets too complacent, it gets overthrown and replaced by a stronger competitor. Now the question is: will it be better? So far, I fear the signs are not in favor of this conclusion, but we will see...
All these feelings and emotions of great anxiety and fear of getting replaced by the "inferior" other, its so primitive. Just like these ideas of the "strong" dominating over "us" because we became "weak". It's such a primitive way of looking at the world.
How do you think people felt that opposed social progress in the past? They felt exactly like you are feeling, but you don't agree with them now do you? Everything you say is derived from those base emotions, but it's all just in your head. You don't have to fear people who are different from you, they are all just people, we are all the same, we are all the same species, race, gender, sexuality, religion, language; it's all unimportant, we all just want to live happy lives in peace. Anyway
It's not discrimination when it's based on objective reality.
But I guess you are one of those who will call discrimination when someone doesn't make the cut because they weren't good enough, whether it is in sport performance or intellectual capacity or anything else for that matter.
We are still hearing about discrimination of women in STEM subjects when not only they have the same exact opportunities but we reworked a lot of the education system to accommodate them in preference.
We can never win with your type because there is no logic, it's all about the feelings and emotions that uncomfortable truths create.
And nice trying on the racist insult, I fundamentally don't think there is a superior race or whatever, just that there are objectively different genetic heritages that are better at some things (and vice versa). It's the same thing for women, men are not able to make other humans, that's an objective truth.
Either you take advantage of that and assign different things to do depending on actual relative strength of peoples or you put your head in the sand, makes everyone go through meaningless competition that bring about the same results, just less efficiently and with way more casualties than necessary.
People are complementary, you can't have the smart ones doing masonry while the strong ones doing architecture, that's just stupidly inefficient and a sure way of creating problems in the long run...
And to be clear, I strongly believe in the equality of opportunities as well as equality in laws but that doesn't mean you have to engineer a whole system against "discriminations"; it won't work no matter how much you believe.
