zlacker

If drugs flood my community, you can't say the solution is simply "just don't do drugs, duh". If you put the burden on the population when everything in society works against them, it's not productive in any way.

>>mihaic+(OP)
> you can't say the solution is simply "just don't do drugs, duh"

But that is obviously the solution at the individual level, and it is always productive to put the burden of solving your own problems on yourself like OP suggests.

>>nverno+92
But it's not an individual problem! Me not doing drugs doesn't prevent me from being impacted by people who do, and the same goes for people who consume poisoned information sources.

>>pjc50+F2
I mean, it's both right? It's easier to work on fixing policy if you're not a drug addict reading poisoned info.

>>mihaic+(OP)
My main point is there isn't some Illuminati with access to good info you can't get for free.

In the drug analogy I am saying most addicts know about rehab. The conspiricy isn't hiding all the NA groups.

>>nverno+r3
Sure, it is both. And in this type of situations I think the more important one to tackle is the systemic one, so that putting the burden on the individual is made manageable.

To give another analogy, if you want people to recycle, you need to create recycling stations in their area, and not force them to drive 50 kilometers to recycle a plastic bottle. That burden of infrastructure is on the government unfortunately in some part.

>>nverno+r3
The individual solution is insufficient in this case. Once a problem like this becomes a strong signal at the level of population statistics, it means there's a systemic cause that's stronger than most people's willpower.

>>mihaic+(OP)
Society is flush with lots of drugs tobacco, alcohol, sugar, junk food, social media, reels... At society level, better laws and campaigns may work best but at individual level you'll get best ROI by focusing efforts on disciplining yourself and your family and friends.

>>ndjdjd+T4
You would have a better main point when you started to question how this accident could happen:

  Oh oopsie, I am the owner of highly popular media, that by accident does everything to not talk about subjects that are highly damaging for society, but that, if they would, would be highly detrimental to my and my business partners interests. Also, by accident, instead of bringing real investigative journalism looking at the big picture, my media brings a firehose of addictive, emotionial pulp of no relevance.

The problem is: we are naturally attracted to junk that tickles are emotional belief systems, for example some ideas we have about immigrants. It takes active THINKING to go against your gut feeling.

How do you do that when you

  1. were never taught to take that painful step of doubting your deepest held memes
  2. were brainwashed by endless affirmation via infotainment
  3. are living in an infotainment environment were half of your countrymen believe things like "the election was stolen"?

You are proposing to bank on someone already deeply burdened by debt.

>>except+Qw
I can't engage with this unless I talk politics... and my views (based on calling spades spades) wont be popular with anyone on any side ;). So will leave it there and say yes it is unfortunate.

r/leopardsatemyface sums it up though (although I don't blindly agree with all that is posted there)