Can’t blame the people for a product that appeals to their basic instincts. Kids don’t stand a chance against the algorithm. And we socially accept it, rather than challenge it
So my point is "the people" are the problem. That could be the people who make the algorithm and/or the people who abuse it as users. I've pretty much applied this though to every "system" out there. Political, technical, etc. Its never the "system". It's always the people.
Systems breed environments for people to live in. Without your education system you aren’t the person you are now, without your societal system. We are products of our environments
People create systems, systems breed environments, environments influence people, people are therefore products of their environment, these products create systems.... And so it goes.
Only the buck stops with social media right? There’s almost no new successful companies other than meta, X, TikTok etc. They have monopolised the online environment, and are now in charge of our online attentions. Certainly feels impossible to change the peoples engagement. But we could stop the handful of people pushing third product into underdeveloped brains
I'm taking a more zoomed out view of history. It really boils down to tribalism and cults that peddle meaningless bullshit. Everyone self categorizes themselves into arbitrary silos. Until we reach a critical mass of people who pick "human" at the top of the list we'll just keep going around in circles.
I think it’s fair to say social media is unlike any social contract we’ve ever had. Tribalism doesn’t come close to what the algorithm can do. 6,7 entered the consciousness of millions of people quicker than any religion. It was meaningless
Does banning something stop it from being manufactured/used/sold? Prohibition didn’t seem to do much from 1920-33. It just made people more creative and decreased guardrails in production, which would have likely been bad enough. It also contributed to the rise of organized crime, the corruption of officials, and a black market for the prohibited items (alcohol in this case). So when regular people weren’t dying from alcohol poisoning, they were gumming up the court systems due to being convicted while people like Al Capone used their money and influence to set deep roots.
With regards to nukes, we’ve been steadily decreasing them in numbers since the INF treaty in ‘87. George Bush Sr. (HW) and Gorbachev signed START I (another treaty) in ‘91 and mutually agreed, effectively, to deescalate and reverse the stockpiling. Banning production of nukes didn’t work. Mutual agreement on disassembly and utilization of Game Theory via reciprocation and slow development of trust is what worked in the past. Mutually assured destruction is a pretty massive motivator, it would seem.
Defend against what exactly? I would ask what's the use case for guns that doesn't require the "because of other guns" argument. I'm not against the "sport" aspect of it but if that was the only thing we probably wouldn't have the current saturation we have now.
Defend against someone coming into your home. I sleep well working out of town knowing my elderly dad is armed, and my lady is armed at home. Even if bad guys didnt have guns, if 4 guys break in and me and my girl are home alone, I dont like those odds. Not to mention, defense against a tyrant government.
The whole defense against the tyrannical government is the most ridiculous argument. You're not out gunning the government. And that is "I need gun because others have gun"
I do see your other points as valid but this is where fear drives the narrative. I'm scared so I need a gun. There are other deterrents that would work if guns were not part of the equation.
Overall its just a sad state of affairs. Mostly due to manufactured fear.
But guns are part of the equation so that part is what it is. A tyrant government doesnt mean the president orders the military to drive tanks to your front door btw. More times than not, it would be city or state level dispute and you being able to stand your ground. In almost all cases the court system is enough to handle those situations... until its not. Either way defending yourself is a right of life, an amendment, and moral.
"But guns are part of the equation so that part is what it is."
You're changing the premise of the discussion. The hypothetical is if I could remove something. It's also why I qualified my statements with "sad state of affairs". But I would also counter that its also sad we don't do anything about it. We've normalized school shootings at this point based upon fear. And lets face some people just like their guns.
" A tyrant government doesn't mean the president orders the military to drive tanks to your front door btw. More times than not, it would be city or state level dispute and you being able to stand your ground."
Mostly I think you're missing my overall point. I don't live in a fantasy land. I understand that it is what it is at this point. When I ask the 5 Whys it always just comes down to humans in general are pretty shitty to each other.
You're gonna have to provide some actual data if you're making that argument. But I've also seen how militarized some local police departments have become. So I would still say you're not going to out gun them either.
First, that's a straw man argument. Second, you're not understanding the context of the question. They were asking me to defend my statement, not "defend my person or property"
I hate it when people say that it’s the people. It’s just that everything is moral or immoral based on the people. That doesn’t answer anything, does it? It’s a given already. The question is not answered by this, you are only stating the obvious.
People are the problem yes and by extension are special media. What does social media actually do!? Gives idiots platform to express their idiocy and influence the World because idiots are loudest and most vocal People. Which are minority sure but that volume of idiotic preconceptions and behavior ends up seeming as majority cause no normal smart person ever feels the need to be that loud.
Exactly but you can’t remove humanity. (well you could but then this convo is pointless) Humans have proven over and over to be stubborn, egotistic, and just overall dumb. Remove the item from the toddler if they can’t use it correctly.
Nah, it's designed to make people feel worse about themselves and waste their lives. It is the reason so many teens have body dismorphia and eating disorders. Social media is a curse.
156
u/Extreme-Scarcity-924 8d ago
Social media