| ▲ | jmkd 4 hours ago |
| There are plenty of other products that literally ruin people's lives: alcohol, tobacco, sugar, pharmaceuticals, credit cards, firearms, timeshares, junk food. Society has them all on very different parts of a stigma spectrum. Honest question: why is this line so clear for you? |
|
| ▲ | cael450 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There is a stigma with all of those things except maybe pharmaceuticals (unless you are selling opioids), sugar and junk food (because of their ubiquity). The line is clear for some people right away. Other people have to see the effects first hand. When I was younger, I worked in a gas station, and the never-ending line of obviously poor people dropping nearly their entire paychecks on scratchoffs, then buying a case of beer was a formative memory for me. It most states, the lottery is just subsidizing the cost of education on the backs of the poor and uneducated and gambling-addicted so that they don't have to raise property taxes. And that's if the money actually gets spent on education. Sometimes they just turn into slushfunds for pet projects. It's gross. |
|
| ▲ | malfist 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Honest question, why isn't the line so clear for you? We're talking about a product built to make people's lives worse while extracting wealth from them that get them addicted as well. |
| |
| ▲ | derangedHorse an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | "Built to make people's lives worse" is an opinion. There are people who gamble without getting addicted and treat it as good fun. Why shouldn't I be able to bet a small amount on a team I like in Fantasy Football? I've never gambled more than I could afford to lose nor have I felt the need to do it habitually. I get that there are some people who are not like me, but you seem to think that there are only people who are not like me that use these types of services. | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > We're talking about a product built to make people's lives worse while extracting wealth from them that get them addicted as well. That's most of the products being sold today, you think the most for-profit companies sell things and services in order to improve the world? They're selling stuff because they want to make money, if they can make someone addicted + extract wealth from them, then in their world that's a no-brainer. | | |
| ▲ | malfist 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That's most of the products being sold today That's just not true at all. The fruit I buy is designed to make my life worse? The vacuum cleaner? The lawn mower? The workout equipment? The standing desk for my office? The clothing I buy? | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, literally all those things are decreasing in quality because the companies producing and selling these want higher margins. Have you not noticed the sharp drop in quality and durability in made stuff compared to 20-30 years ago? Almost all those things are worse and lasts less today than they used to. | | |
| ▲ | Edman274 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you feel and have the subjective experience of feeling like you're arguing in good faith right now? | |
| ▲ | bombcar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's some cases where that may be true, but they listed a few: * fruit - I can get any fruit anytime in the year, and it seems fine * vacuum cleaner - my Miele is still running ten years later and still available new * The lawn mower - the M18 mower cuts great and uses no gas and just works - much better than the previous PoS * workout equipment - I don't have much here, but my rowing machine is still going strong * standing desk - the uplift desk seems quite good quality * clothing - this might be the only one, but even the walmart crap I get is better than the walmart crap from a decade ago |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | jmkd 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Okay sounds like we agree that sugar and junk food should be on the wrong side of the line, but turns out those industries have very little stigma. Who is standing outside the school gates protesting against big cola? My point is it's complicated, ambiguous, sometimes hypocritical, differs by jurisdiction and so on. None of it is clear. | |
| ▲ | darkwater 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Half of the list by GP shares these same characteristics, unfortunately. The only one that is slowly - but not even steadily - going towards the same stigma is tobacco. | |
| ▲ | egorfine 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The majority of food sold in the US satisfies the criteria you have laid out here. Is the line still clear? | | |
| ▲ | malfist 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | My neighbor got robbed the other day walking home from work. That means it's okay for me to rob them too, right? |
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | sakisv 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not the original person you replied to, but as far as I'm concerned there are a few questions that could very easily indicate which side of the line is something. E.g. - Is it addictive? - Does it have the potential to destroy lives? - Does it have the potential to destroy lives in seconds? - Does it have a strong lobbying mechanism behind it? (n.b. things that are good and nice rarely need someone to bribe people to accept them) or simply: - Would you be worried if your child did it? I think the number of "yes" that you get draws a very clear line. |
| |
| ▲ | egorfine 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | These questions sound very rational until you realize that sugar, performance cars, military technology and history lessons can tick all those boxes. | | |
| ▲ | submerge 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can you recommend a history lesson that will destroy my life in seconds? Book, podcast, youtube would all be acceptable formats. | | |
| ▲ | egorfine 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You might want to research russia's war in Ukraine a little bit to learn how history lessons destroy lives in seconds. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jmkd 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Your question ramp makes sense to me except in two ways: 1. why this "destroy lives in seconds?" question? 2. where do you see sugar sitting here? | | |
| ▲ | sakisv an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I wanted to draw the distinction between something that destroys lives over a longer period of time (smoking) VS something like gambling where you could lose your life's savings in seconds. The alcohol mentioned in a sibling comment also ticks the box. For the sugar, I'd say yes, no, no, yes and "not too much, but I'm keeping an eye out". | |
| ▲ | ambicapter 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | He's obviously talking about alcohol (it takes seconds to consume an amount of alcohol that can result in death, yours or someone else's from a fight or car crash) and firearms (should be obvious). Sounds like you're implying some sort of mischaracterization of sugar here which minimizes the former in a weird way. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | BigTTYGothGF 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just because there's a spectrum doesn't mean that everything on it is indistinguishable. Everybody draws their own lines, some people count more or fewer things as stigmata, some people's lines are fuzzier than others. |
|
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | gempir 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| No single person can draw that line, that's what Courts and Laws are for. And some of the industries play more dirty and try to manipulate that due process, others failed. But that's what we have, it's never black & white. Always a process and always evolving. |