3 ms·

Opposition refuses to develop better arguments. I don't mean more correct arguments or even having a better position. I mean 'parents need to parent' is activel

Opposition refuses to develop better arguments. I don't mean more correct arguments or even having a better position. I mean 'parents need to parent' is actively harming their argument and they don't seem to comprehend it. It doesn't matter how true or false it is. It's rhetorical empty and diminishes the point being made.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2mo ago
One of the worst things that you can do politically is tell people that their problems aren't real.
SoftTalker 2mo ago
'parents need to parent' is true, but it's not enough to just say that. We should all be responsible for and will benefit from a mentally healthy younger generation.
- Dig1t 2mo ago
  Who defines "mentally healthy"? There will be enormous pressure to misuse any kind of oversight system to shape public opinion.
  - SoftTalker 2mo ago
    It shouldn't be too difficult. Who decides what a kid should learn in the third grade? There are common standards.
    - Dig1t 2mo ago
      It's extremely difficult, and as I said it will be easily abused by any government which is looking to manufacture consent among its population. One person's definition of harm is completely different than another person's. >The argument that words can harm has also been used to justify institutional efforts to prohibit certain language. In 2022, the Stanford University IT department launched a program entitled the “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative,” which proposed removing from Stanford's websites a set of words considered to be biased or discriminatory, including “blind review,” “handicap parking,” “OCD,” “victim,” “immigrant,” and “American” >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886926001492 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692... What happens when we get an administration that decides a platform which allows "discriminatory" language should be punished via this new "oversight" mechanism?
      - kelseyfrog 2mo ago
        > Three in five Americans favor stronger oversight > by any government which is looking to manufacture consent among its population. With all due respect, the consent has already been manufactured. We already enforce rules with far less public support. The most simple explanation is that you and the public don't share the same political goals and you're in the minority. That doesn't mean that they're right and you're wrong. It means that the tension that you're attempting to illustrate doesn't broadly exist.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2mo ago

One of the worst things that you can do politically is tell people that their problems aren't real.

SoftTalker 2mo ago

'parents need to parent' is true, but it's not enough to just say that. We should all be responsible for and will benefit from a mentally healthy younger generation.

Dig1t 2mo ago
Who defines "mentally healthy"? There will be enormous pressure to misuse any kind of oversight system to shape public opinion.
- SoftTalker 2mo ago
  It shouldn't be too difficult. Who decides what a kid should learn in the third grade? There are common standards.
  - Dig1t 2mo ago
    It's extremely difficult, and as I said it will be easily abused by any government which is looking to manufacture consent among its population. One person's definition of harm is completely different than another person's. >The argument that words can harm has also been used to justify institutional efforts to prohibit certain language. In 2022, the Stanford University IT department launched a program entitled the “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative,” which proposed removing from Stanford's websites a set of words considered to be biased or discriminatory, including “blind review,” “handicap parking,” “OCD,” “victim,” “immigrant,” and “American” >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886926001492 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692... What happens when we get an administration that decides a platform which allows "discriminatory" language should be punished via this new "oversight" mechanism?
    - kelseyfrog 2mo ago
      > Three in five Americans favor stronger oversight > by any government which is looking to manufacture consent among its population. With all due respect, the consent has already been manufactured. We already enforce rules with far less public support. The most simple explanation is that you and the public don't share the same political goals and you're in the minority. That doesn't mean that they're right and you're wrong. It means that the tension that you're attempting to illustrate doesn't broadly exist.