> gambling sites, in alcohol, tobacco and highly processed foods, or in the scamming industry
Those are great examples because they show that leaving it all up to the individual is not enough. All of those are regulated by the state because we as a society recognised they were doing their damnest to screw everyone else for their own gain. Social media is going the same route, with several countries already introducing bills to prohibit them to minors.
There is another discussion to be had if we’re going about it the right way (I certainly do not support privacy invasion in the form of age checks), but it does show we’re recognising its harm.
Exactly, but I still think those are two slightly different conversations. If we are talking about harmful habits at a more general level, I'll defend that we need to be very restrictive in those examples. Online gambling, alcohol use and such shouldn't be allowed to advertise, it should pay almost prohibitively expensive taxes etc...
But if we are talking about the individual, the one inserted in the society, which is temporally bound, the conversation changes. We have to admit that it isn't enough to wait for laws and culture to change in order for the individual to be able to protect him/herself. To be a functional adult is to recognize what's around us that is harmful and do our best to protect ourselves. This is why if people recognize the harm social media is doing to their attention and to their ability to be bored they only have themselves to blame if you don't take action, because only blaming the multi-billion dollar industry for the habits they exploit won't do much for the individual.
You've clearly never been addicted to anything. You seem to have little understanding of, or empathy for, those who have become addicted.
I quit smoking cigarettes. It took years. It was incredibly difficult on an emotional level, and took a lot of failure and disappointment to finally make it through. And I almost lost all my progress when I relapsed after my Dad died unexpectedly.
Every pair of eyes that you see walking down the street has an entire universe behind them that we cannot see. It is not simple like you assume.
I suggest you recognize your exceptional self-discipline and relatively unaddicted lifestyle as the stroke of good fortune that it is; you are genetically predisposed or developmentally more well-prepared than most. Recognize that others are less fortunate than you in that regard, but no less deserving of aid, comfort, and a legal avenue to seek recompense from unscrupulous actors.
You might disagree with my point, but you don't know me and you can't really lecture me on empathy. You just glossed over the parts of the argument where I am for discussing public policies that we can implement to care for those that suffer from addiction. But at the individual level, after recognizing the hardships of being addicted to anything, the ultimate choice and responsibility to do something is yours.
Your cigarette addiction might have started because of social pressure or because of advertisement, but every choice to light another one or not was entirely yours. Just like it's your merit to quit it, it would have been just as well your fault if you kept on smoking after recognizing you needed to quit.
> Your cigarette addiction might have started because of social pressure or because of advertisement, but every choice to light another one or not was entirely yours.
This is contradictory. Once you are addicted, the choice is no longer “entirely yours”. That’s what being an addict means, your physiology and your wants are in conflict and require constant active vigilance to contradict. Your head begins to rationalise and you’ll even forget you wanted to stop. If it were simply “entirely your choice”, addiction wouldn’t be an issue.
The advertising and other factors which caused you to become addicted don’t stop after you are addicted. So if you’re willing to admit that external factors may trigger the problem, you must be able to comprehend those factors also contribute to stopping you from solving it. But now you have your own biology as another obstacle.
I agree with you that the previous commenter made unreasonable assumptions about you, but I agree with them that at least in this particular conversation you’re not demonstrating empathy for the addict. What you’re essentially saying, repeatedly, is that they’re choosing to be addicts because they don’t simply choose to stop. This is not true, and you’ll quickly realise that if you engage with addicts, especially if they’re someone you knew from before. There is a transformation, addiction turns you into a different person you don’t always recognise.
I am rereading my comments and you guys are right. What I meant to say and got sidetracked by doubling down on the "your fault" argument is that you can't help someone that doesn't want help. In this sense it's the responsibility of the person that got some kind of addiction to first recognize that they need to want to get help, only then help is effective. But yeah, you are right saying that you are like a different person on a abstinence episode.
Wish I could rephrase my comments, but at least I know next time I will treat this topic with more care.
Those are great examples because they show that leaving it all up to the individual is not enough. All of those are regulated by the state because we as a society recognised they were doing their damnest to screw everyone else for their own gain. Social media is going the same route, with several countries already introducing bills to prohibit them to minors.
There is another discussion to be had if we’re going about it the right way (I certainly do not support privacy invasion in the form of age checks), but it does show we’re recognising its harm.