I agree it fits into the same category of Millennial Cringe like those books with curses in their title. Or that energy bar brand that says there’s no BS in it…
I just think our society is descending into ubiquitous poor taste fast enough without such words rattling around in our brains. But I'm old-fashioned; I had similar reactions to "The Dead Kennedys", "The Butthole Surfers", and "The Vagina Monologues".
Yeah, that's where I disagree. This phenomenon is inherently in poor taste, it deserves a bad name.
The actual phenomena that require serious discussion like lack of market protection, lack or consumer protection, lack of contractual protection all have serious names that allow for the discussion. So the bad name isn't an impediment to anything important.
Eh, I kind of get why they did shit“thro”pocene, since that also integrates the idea of anthropocene (that we’ve entered an era where the world is shaped by human effects) that’s been bouncing around for the past few decades.
“We’re affecting the world, and part of it is that our products have become terrible so they produce more waste”
I like RFK Jr -- to express a contrarian view here. He has some quirky views (substitute your adjective, if you like), but he seems to be more flexible than his boss, and he is quite committed to transparency. He also has a genuine concern for the health of the American people, especially children.
I think what we're seeing here is some micromanagement and a desire to present a unified front to the public.
"... Kennedy has axed a public meeting on vaccines—leaving lingering questions about the future of those transparent proceedings. He has also revoked a broad transparency policy for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that required public notice for certain new rules and a comment period to allow for the public to be involved with the rulemaking process."[0]
> genuine concern for the health of the American people, especially children
Whether or not this is true, his views on vaccines are going to kill and maim countless children for years and decades to come.
It does surprise me that our President, the great deal maker, shut down the semaglutide knockoffs like Hims.com without negotiating a deal on the namebrand version for the American people.
No, I think the poster's notion of cognitive dissonance is more correct than yours. Cognitive dissonance refers to the anxiety caused by attempting to embrace two different convictions or beliefs that are incompatible with each other.
Back in the shitpiles, we used to call that a "false consciousness". We are required to authentically participate in being each other's jailers, wholeheartedly and without losing our minds; even the Scrivener's hopeless "I would prefer not to" is beyond the capabilities of a great many. Hence, yes, enforced cognitive dissonance, and all the "fun" things that are causally downstream from that.
Perhaps it is time for K-12 education to include modules on how to avoid homelessness in your future. Western democracies tend to be rather laissez-faire about drug use, for example, but surely there is a strong correlation between drug use and future homelessness. In California, where I live, the state spends large sums of money to discourage smoking, but little is done to discourage the use of recreational drugs.
The American Enterprise Institute published a notecard-sized piece they call the "success sequence", which I think would fit your bill. [1]
1. Finish high school.
2. Get (and keep) a full-time job once you finish school.
3. Get married before you have children (if you have children).
Their analysis concluded that 97% of millennials in the US who follow this three step sequence are not poor by the time they reach 31 or so.
There isn't anything specific in that sequence about drugs, but I imagine the subgroups for whom drug use would be problematic would also find it hard to follow that sequence while using them.
It seems more descriptive than prescriptive. I am sure it is true, but it seems hardly useful.
It's like saying "we finally found the success sequence for breaking into upper middle class in three easy steps: 1) get a high paying job, 2) get raises every year matching or exceeding inflation , 3) avoid layoffs". Or the good old-fashioned advice for becoming rich: "buy low, sell high".
Many of the current homeless within, say, the U.S. would have come of age following "Just Say No", the War on (some) Drugs, and DARE programmes. Casual survey would say effectiveness was limited.
If you're looking for a policy angle, I'd suggest one more conducive to providing more housing and stable incomes.
Well, let A be the conditional probability that one becomes homeless given that he uses recreational drugs. Let B be the conditional probability that one becomes homeless if he doesn't use recreational drugs. If A does not turn out to be significantly larger than B, then my understanding is incorrect.
It's not a trick at all, though it might seem so if you're not familiar with the concept of conditional probabilities. And it's hard to imagine a more suitable audience than Hacker News.
But it sounds to me like, for you, the unfettered freedom to use recreational drugs is an inherent good, and that you don't think it should be discouraged even if can be shown to lead to increased homelessness.
Sure it is. You didn't actually say anything substantial, you only described the structure of a hypothetical argument to substitute for having one.
The straw person you've now added fills a similar function. You're clearly in search of rhetorical positions that lets you keep repeating yourself without taking the risk of participating in rational discourse.
How common is it that wealthy people become homeless because they recreationally consume wine? Is the prevalence the same as for other groups?
I used to take a baby aspirin a day, then the recommendation for older folks like myself who have not had a heart attack changed to no aspirin. Now perhaps the next recommendation will be a baby aspirin a day to protect against cancer.
"Criticism is asserted superiority." -- HENRY CARDINAL MANNING
"A hurtful act is the transference to others of the degradation which we bear in ourselves." -- SIMONE WEIL
reply