3 ms·
For a website named “reason.com” this article lacked it. A link to a poll and a WSJ article, and otherwise drivel lamenting the change in habits and attitudes t
by chaos_emergent 2y ago
For a website named “reason.com” this article lacked it. A link to a poll and a WSJ article, and otherwise drivel lamenting the change in habits and attitudes toward play.
There is a very good case to be made against the impacts of social media and an arguably overinvolved parenting style for Gen Z, but this article is some middle aged lament rather than anything substantive.
- jauntywundrkind 2y agoI haven't seen a single article from reason that feels even remotely worth my time. This feels like the typical reason article: driving an agenda based off scary words and blusters, that people need to be picking themselves up by their bootstraps & saying this elite liberal world is terrible & wrecking everything, while offering some hastily tossed in barely related links as justification. This source of submissions, in my view, is actively making us worse. It's awful that we keep having to waste time commenting/re-litigating the worth of these submissions. They're trash, and actively make us dumber.
- amalcon 2y agoIt's the website for reason magazine, a relatively famous right-libertarian publication. They expect their audience to already believe certain things, which is a pretty good bet for a political magazine with an acknowledged angle. It's not meant to be persuasive in the way you want it to be, because people reading the article mostly don't need to be persuaded in that way.