4 ms·
>This has nothing to do with firearms. Way to completely miss the point. That's an analogy that explains that manufacturers can't reasonably be held responsibl
by anonym29 4y ago
>This has nothing to do with firearms.
Way to completely miss the point. That's an analogy that explains that manufacturers can't reasonably be held responsible for the actions of independent consumers. The manufacturer didn't make that decision, the consumer did.
Now you can argue that the manufacturer was manipulative in effort to achieve greater profit, and thus has partial liability, but do we collectively feel as angry at Facebook for all the suicides that were influenced from deliberate psychological manipulation campaigns the company performed to shift people's feelings? If so, where's the outrage?
Sacklers are an easy target because people hold bias against "old rich white conservatives". I hear more people complaining about this than I hear complaining about 3M & DuPont, who have managed to put small amounts of a known carcinogen in the bloodstream of about 99.9% of the population of the entire planet with PFOA/PFOS in Teflon & related chemicals, and then proceeded to basically change 1 atom in the molecule and create an entirely new product that thus far appears to be identically harmful (GenX) after PFOA was banned - and spun off a holding company to sell that product to completely shield themselves from legal culpability.
Where's the outrage at that? Statistically speaking, DuPont harmed you, the Sacklers didn't. Why the popular anger at one and popular indifference towards the other?
Answer: people are stupid. Stupid doctors trusted an untrustworthy company. Stupid patients trusted their stupid doctors. They're mad at themselves for falling for something that dumb. Also so stupid that many who were harmed by DuPont but not harmed by the Sacklers don't even realize that fact.
- quesera 4y agoI didn't miss the point. The firearms thing was tangential at best. The rest of your follow up comment is also tangential, although much more interesting than the firearms junk.
- orangepurple 4y agoAt what point is it useful to blame a manufacturer for making a tool available which can lead to serious bodily harm? This is the fundamental question behind drugs and firearms. It all boils down to how stupid, informed, impulsive, and gullible people are at various layers of the sales, distribution, and usage stack. For firearms city dwellers generally believe the buck stops with manufacturers because if they didn't exist then nobody would shoot each other anymore (sic). For drugs many believe the buck stops with doctors because they are the patient's advocate and authority figures perpetually repeat that doctors always know best because they are educated in the matter and the average person isn't. Americans have generally internalized this propaganda.
- anonym29 4y agoexpertise != good decision making https://www.rutgers.edu/news/expertise-liability-experts-may-overcompensate-decisions-when-told-they-are-wrong https://www.rutgers.edu/news/expertise-liability-experts-may...
- gusgus01 4y agoI've seen outrage about PFAS, eg the recent rainwater isn't safe to drink according to the EPA articles. There's also been many campaigns over the years about various chemical additives, eg BPA. You've also got lots of people rallying against user/overuse of pesticides and herbicides. I'd wager it's less that the Sacklers are an easy target (as shown by the continued lack of any consequences), but more that it's a slow build up of anger over the continued abuse of people for profit. Also, people are not stupid for trusting doctors. Are you not supposed to listen to professionals with usually more than a decade more of education in a specific field than you?
- anonym29 4y agoexpertise != good decision making (https://www.rutgers.edu/news/expertise-liability-experts-may-overcompensate-decisions-when-told-they-are-wrong https://www.rutgers.edu/news/expertise-liability-experts-may...) You are about eight times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by an automobile accident, and only about 10% of such deaths are reported (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28186008/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28186008/). People are, empirically, objectively, and measurably stupid for trusting doctors more than they trust the safety of being in an automobile.
- gusgus01 4y agoI'm not saying expertise == good decision making, I'm saying there's a greater chance of an expert making the correct decision than a layman. That article also only talks about how experts can "double down" on mistakes (and only overprecision) when there is negative feedback, it doesn't comment on the validity of their decisions as compared to layman. Isn't that like the perfect example of comparing apples to oranges? Wouldn't the danger of trusting a doctor require comparing the outcome of trusting a doctor to the outcome of not trusting a doctor?
- Tao3300 4y agoAnalogies get in the way too often. Especially when they're bridging several politically sensitive topics. They're fine for illustrating an unfamiliar idea, but as soon as a conversation turns to debate or argument, the rhetorical usefulness of analogies drops off hard.
- anonym29 4y agoThat's a view I can't say I've been exposed to before. Thank you for the feedback.