5 ms·

Yet we also had 'comic books are making kids amoral and violent', 'TV is making kids amoral and violent', 'video games are making kids amoral and violent', 'dun

Yet we also had 'comic books are making kids amoral and violent', 'TV is making kids amoral and violent', 'video games are making kids amoral and violent', 'dungeons and dragons is making kids amoral and violent'...

llamaimperative 2y ago
Sure! Some technologies are fine. Some of them are not. The existence of one set does not negate the existence of the other.
p_j_w 2y ago
The existence of those movements doesnt say much except that we need to carefully consider things to avoid overreach. Unless you think we should rethink our approaches to Chattel Slavery and proliferation of biological weapons because we want to avoid people complaining about and trying unsuccessfully to ban violent video games.
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  > The existence of those movements doesnt say much except that we need to carefully consider things to avoid overreach. It says that people react to new media technologies that target children the same way pretty consistently.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    No, it says that you can decide what reaction you're looking for across a global population of billions of people and succeed in finding it. True of any reaction to any object or idea.
    - Eisenstein 2y ago
      I'm sure you could, but the things I mentioned are culturally American, as is the lawsuit.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        What makes this more culturally American than the people who kick and holler over even the mention of regulatory scrutiny? Confirmation bias amigo
        Eisenstein 2y ago
        Someone adding a critique to your argument is not an attack nor is it evidence of some belief system on the their part.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Huh? If your point with comic books etc. is that "sometimes some people take issue with things that end up inert", then sure. No argument there. I suspect that your point was more broadly that the presence of those people somehow suggests that we should discount risks about the particular subject we're discussing today, then it makes no sense. The comic book examples only matter if you can demonstrate a systematic tendency to overrate risk. You'd struggle to demonstrate such a tendency due to selection bias, so I maintain my position that each technology should be assessed on its own merits and not by associating it with other positive or negative reactions to other types of technologies.
undersuit 2y ago
I mean... TV and video games are heavily controlled to prevent children from being exposed to some content without their parents permission. Additionally Playboy is no longer a pornographic magazine but when I was a child I couldn't buy it. And I bet comic stores and game stores have their own rules about obscene material ontop of the existing US rules. Hey kid put down the Stripperella.

llamaimperative 2y ago

Sure! Some technologies are fine. Some of them are not. The existence of one set does not negate the existence of the other.

p_j_w 2y ago

The existence of those movements doesnt say much except that we need to carefully consider things to avoid overreach. Unless you think we should rethink our approaches to Chattel Slavery and proliferation of biological weapons because we want to avoid people complaining about and trying unsuccessfully to ban violent video games.

Eisenstein 2y ago
> The existence of those movements doesnt say much except that we need to carefully consider things to avoid overreach. It says that people react to new media technologies that target children the same way pretty consistently.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  No, it says that you can decide what reaction you're looking for across a global population of billions of people and succeed in finding it. True of any reaction to any object or idea.
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    I'm sure you could, but the things I mentioned are culturally American, as is the lawsuit.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      What makes this more culturally American than the people who kick and holler over even the mention of regulatory scrutiny? Confirmation bias amigo
      - Eisenstein 2y ago
        Someone adding a critique to your argument is not an attack nor is it evidence of some belief system on the their part.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Huh? If your point with comic books etc. is that "sometimes some people take issue with things that end up inert", then sure. No argument there. I suspect that your point was more broadly that the presence of those people somehow suggests that we should discount risks about the particular subject we're discussing today, then it makes no sense. The comic book examples only matter if you can demonstrate a systematic tendency to overrate risk. You'd struggle to demonstrate such a tendency due to selection bias, so I maintain my position that each technology should be assessed on its own merits and not by associating it with other positive or negative reactions to other types of technologies.

undersuit 2y ago

I mean... TV and video games are heavily controlled to prevent children from being exposed to some content without their parents permission. Additionally Playboy is no longer a pornographic magazine but when I was a child I couldn't buy it. And I bet comic stores and game stores have their own rules about obscene material ontop of the existing US rules. Hey kid put down the Stripperella.