The memo is an unverified claim from person A who said they had a phone call with person B from an energy company who said they paid the Bidens 5 million each. The only evidence of either the bribery or the phone call about the bribery is this one claim from one person.
Yep they’re trying(and succeeding at in some states) to frame women as cattle. Where the fetus no matter what the viability is, or the danger to the women’s health, and her socioeconomic status in regards to being able to raise a kid(with little to no help from the state that made her carry the fetus to term without any social safety net and if their is one it’s completely underfunded and has lack of easy access. Wtf is going on in peoples minds that think this is alright? I swear the alt right and republicans just give lip service “ small government” while they laugh all the way to the bank and damn well make sure that their daughters,wife’s, mistresses have access to those health services that is “plebs” are not privy too. /end rant
In Nebraska, The 12-week ban includes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. This might indicate it was more of a socio-economic / psychological reason, which are not sufficient grounds under the law to terminate the offspring after that point.
Good luck getting a doctor to perform an abortion under those conditions. Whose responsibility is it to verify that the condition is met? Doctors are very afraid of being sued. Most just won’t perform any abortions just in case. This is the intended effect.
It was always a crime to secretly force a stillbirth at 28 weeks and then bury the body without telling anyone. 28 weeks is almost 7 months (edit: math is hard). She had plenty of time to do it legally.
agree. fetuses can live outside the womb starting at ~24 weeks, whether you are pro life or pro choice i think (and hope) most of us can agree abortion at 28 weeks is very wrong. i dont understand how people can think otherwise. plus the article says nothing about the fetus posing any dangers to her health.
Absent more information, we cannot assert it was definitely wrong. You've intentionally framed this as "the article says nothing about the fetus posing any dangers to her health" which I have to assume is an intentional lie of omission. What the article actually says is nothing at all about the health of the fetus. It does not imply there was no danger to her health. It says nothing. Likely because it is an unknown.
What we do know about a 28-week abortion is that such an abortion was not part of a normal, healthy plan. Late-term abortions like this are almost certainly from someone intending to carry to term who has some kind of crisis. We do not know the nature of severity of the crisis.
In such a crisis generally, the community and the state should've been there to help them navigate it and reach an outcome that kept her as whole as possible while doing what is possible to keep the child alive. This was possibly a viable pregnancy. But I totally understand, especially to a teenager and in the current political environment of a place like Nebraska, being rightly too frightened to reach out for help.
We can not agree on that because we have no fucking clue on the circumstances. It’s possible she learned of a medical complication for the fetus after 20 weeks. It is possible that it is really difficult to get an abortion in Nebraska and it took a couple months to be able to obtain the resources to do it.
We do not know because the information is not provided. It is possible that somehow after carrying a fetus for 28 weeks and likely knew for 22 of those weeks, she decided she no longer wanted it. We do not know but that seems unlikely to me.
To pretend that abortion after some arbitrary limit, should be illegal, is to make a mockery of pro-choice and bodily autonomy arguments. It even makes a mockery of pro-life. The whole thing is a complete joke. If you think abortion is murder, then agreeing to a term - based compromise is agreeing to let people murder children as long as they’re not too old. A compete mockery of pro-life. In reality, the arguments for bodily autonomy are so strong that everyone should have the right to abort at any term, because no one has the right to use someone else’s body without their consent (Republicans are changing this).
When you support these arbitrary term-based bannings, you’re giving in to the social manipulation of pro-lifers who have successfully manipulated you into a compromise that supports their position.
Being pro-choice requires you accept abortion at any point is morally acceptable.
It does not mean it is desirable. You can have a preference that an abortion late term not happen. It's just a preference for individuals to behave more charitably, after all. And you're free to institute policies that make it less likely to happen so long as those policies do not trample on an individual's ownership of their own body. For example, you can create financial incentives to complete the pregnancy -- cover the person's living and healthcare expenses or flat pay them to do it.
It's telling that the "pro-life" types aren't out here advocating for these kinds of policies that prevent individuals from WANTING to have abortions. If they truly were concerned about murder, they'd be out there making education and contraception available and pregnancy care available and cheap. They'd be expanding things like TANF. All sorts of policies that are normally part of the agenda of the same people that tend to be pro-choice.
I wish people wouldn't talk about pregnancy in terms of months.
40 weeks is at typical pregnancy. A nice, round, simple-to-remember number.
28 weeks is a pregnancy in the 6th month, just as a matter of fact. 28 weeks is also basically the earliest you would ever call someone in the third trimester and is the earliest a pregnancy is typically thought to have the possibility of viability.
There are quite a few medical complications that can be found after the 20 week ban. It is possible she did not discover it until after that. The article does not give information on the circumstances.
As for what she is being charged with, improper disposal of a body, that seems proper assuming there was some sort of biohazard issue.
Yep. Know why she did it? Desperation + living in a state that already made it hard to get abortions, but also doesn’t provide good prenatal care. Nebraska has one of the higher infant mortality rates in the country (though it still pales in comparison to Mississippi).
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
Abortion should be completely legal at any trimester. That’s what it means to have a right to bodily autonomy. Pretending that abortion is murder, but not if it’s before some arbitrary trimester limit, makes a mockery of the pro-life position. If it’s murder or “wrong” after a certain week, then it’s murder before that time has passed too. Pro-lifers lie and say they want to “compromise”. They’ve successfully tricked the population into thinking term limits actually are humane, without you considering the arguments why we should or should not have them in the first place.
You don’t know the circumstances because the article does not give them. Don’t be a fuck head. It is quite possible that there were medical complications that were discovered past 20 weeks.
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
Then the doctors would have advised her on what to do. I doubt "take black market pills to force a stillbirth and then hide the body" were the doctors orders.
Would they really though? If there’s legislation in place that could cost a doctor their license or even put them in jail, then they wouldn’t be able to recommend that or do the procedure themselves. This is a huge part of the reason why there’s now a huge shortage of OB/Gyn doctors in red states, because they just can’t practice medicine with one arm tied behind their backs with these ridiculous laws all over the place.
It should not be a crime. The trimester is irrelevant. If the child had been born, it would have no right to anyone’s body. In the womb, it should have no right to someone’s body either. Pro-lifers have tricked you into arguing for unethical trimester-based bans. If it’s wrong to kill that baby after a certain number of weeks, it’s wrong to kill it before then too. To compromise, to allow abortion before a certain trimester but not after, is to make a mockery of the pro-life position, which says abortion is murder (but if you do it early you get a pass). There is nothing wrong with a late-term abortion compared to an early abortion. The child does not have a right to use someone without their consent.
Seems like you wanted to actually argue something, so please expand on your comment by explaining why it’s outside both science and morality, otherwise you’re not really having a discussion.
The actual crime she was nabbed for was illegally hiding human remains. Her mother who provided the abortion pills is the one actually going to be in a lot more trouble it sounds like.
“According to court documents, Celeste Burgess was in her third trimester of pregnancy when she consumed the abortion pills, making the procedure illegal as per Nebraska law.”
I think this would be illegal in almost every western country.
What would be revolting is if this wasn’t a crime. She then hid the “human remains.” I understand you’re probably pro-choice, but is this the hill you want to die on?
People like you just read the headline and reaction as if you know the whole story?
Abortion should be legal at any trimester, for any reason. No one has the right to use your body without your consent (unless Republicans succeed). Pretty sure that’s how it is in Canada.
None of these countries would permit an abortion at 28 weeks, let alone let her keep the babies remains.
The article sheds no light on why she needed a late-term abortion. If something is permissible and publicly funded, chances are a person gets it done early, in a clinic, without hesitation. In case of wanting an abortion, delay is harmful, having to travel, smuggle something or fear something (or gather money) is harmful. Also note: those countries have a separate schedule for normal and exceptional conditions. Which is generally not possible in a political environment that has banned abortion (some cities in Nebraska - yes, in the US, cities can regulate abortion, very strange for me). Some examples that I know of:
Estonia:
under normal conditions, 12 weeks
under exceptional conditions, 22 weeks (risk to health, severe foetal disease, raising the child is prevented by health or sanity, the pregnant is under 15 or over 45)
Finland:
under normal conditions, 12 weeks
under exceptional conditions, 20…24 weeks (foetal abnormality gives a limit of 24 weeks)
Great, so Canada got it right, and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance. What matters is what can be argued to be correct, and I’ve argued that using bodily autonomy. You’ve argued… You’re right because most western nations agree. Totally barbaric and ignorant of my argument, but that’s obvious. You completely misunderstand consent, but that’s not surprising. I was taught that consent can be withdrawn, but you imply like she has to sit there and take it if she consented originally. Bizarre view of consent you have.
No, they enacted a policy that you agree with. That doesn’t make it ‘right.’
and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance.
It does, we’re most comparable with other first world countries and specifically western countries. Pretty much in every comparable metric where we want to see how we’re doing, we compare it to first world european nations.
What matters is what can be argued to be correct
There is no ‘correct’ - just because you agree with it, doesn’t mean every single country needs to listen to you and enact policies you agree with. You have mad main character syndrome.
Believe it or, people disagree with some of your opinions, and that doesn’t make them ‘wrong’
Not anywhere in anything you said, do you actually argue why abortion should be legal or illegal. Not anywhere do you argue why we should or should not have inviolable bodily autonomy. You wrote a whole lot that says “most western countries agree, so that’s what I’m going with”. What a lazy, uneducated, uninformed opinion. If you have nothing useful to say, why are you replying? I gave reasons why I am pro-choice, any you are completely avoiding those.
do you actually argue why abortion should be legal or illegal.
Because that’s not my argument, that’s what you want to argue.
I’m simply stating that almost every single other western country, even ones that are much more liberal than the U.S., has laws restricting abortions in the scenario that this woman had an abortion. If the U.S. is a shithole 3rd world country because of this, those nations surely are as well.
Nebraska’s abortion policy at this time was more liberal than europes, who we offten compare our policies to.
I’m also arguing that just because you think a policy would be good, doesn’t make it ‘right’ for the other 7 billion people in the world.
You’re arguing that you don’t have to argue. You’re the same guy I’m replying to from yesterday about this very topic. I’m laughing so hard that here you are spending all your energy taking about what most western countries do or do not do, but you STILL won’t argue for or against bodily autonomy, for or against abortion. You have no argument! You just want to talk about things that are completely irrelevant, like what policy has been decided. It’s irrelevant! Argue or admit you can’t justify what you believe. This is my 3rd reply to you and you never argue or justify anything, just more invitation to meaningless conversation.
I don’t care! This is exactly what I meant about conservative misdirection when YOU were CRYING yesterday about how everyone ridicules conservatives on reddit/lemmy. Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule, by definition. You refuse to engage my argument because you have no response. So you argue ANYTHING else, you ask me to consider your own arguments, knowing you’ll trap and misdirect at every turn. Abortion should be legal because we should have a right to our own bodies. Ultimately, you don’t believe in this right, which is why you avoid the topic. If you want to know why I treat you like other conservatives, it’s because you act like other conservatives.
I don’t see how I’m personally attacking them, nor do I intend to. When I said they were crying, I was referencing their comment from yesterday. I want to attack their ideas, which do not need to be respected. I respect their right to have their opinion heard and that’s why I’ve repeatedly asked this user to argue the topic, as of yesterday. They will not. They also complained that they were unfairly persecuted, while they respond to threads like this one, asserting their opinion, arguing irrelevant topics, never engaging my position. I’d call them a troll but I think they’re sincere.
Some people do it even years after birth, so there are always someone pushing it.
Point is that “tour right To swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”
At some point those cells become person wether that is after three months, nine months or nine years is up to debate. I think medical professionals are best equipment to advice us.
I don’t believe you will find many doctors willing to do abortion in 7th month.
You are arguing in favor of abortion when you say “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” I can’t believe you don’t see that. The principle says that we are generally free, but we don’t have the right to harm or infringe upon someone else. But, that’s exactly what’s happening when a woman is forced to give from her body to support a child. You are giving the child the right to swing their fist wherever, regardless of who it harms.
The cells are a person from the very beginning. They are a person, and it is not wrong to abort them. It’s the most compassionate way to interpret our autonomy rights. The alternative is forced incubation.
See, you have to misrepresent my position, to try to defeat it. You should feel ashamed for the harm against women you’re perpetuating with your attitude, but you’re probably too ignorant to realize the impact of your own beliefs.
If it was easy to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy when she wanted one, you would have a point. But you and I both know Republicans have made it next to impossible for women to get a legal abortion before whatever cutoff time have been mandated in law, especially in a deep-red shithole like Nebraska. When Republicans keep restricting access to legal abortions, things like this are going to happen. This is entirely a policy failure.
Right because the GOP is famously known for making it easy to get an abortion, and definitely don’t defund abortion providers so that people have to drive for hours to get an abortion. I’m sure the odds are high she lives right next door to one of Nebraska’s three whole abortion clinics, you know?
I don’t know the exact scenario, only the facts presented in the article
The woman had 20 weeks to get an abortion, instead she took an abortion pill at 28 weeks and held onto the babies remains.
I’m sure during the 5 months, she could have found a day to drive and get an abortion if it was important to her.
I do believe there should be more abortion clinics available, but have you ever lived in a rural state? The 3 are in the largest cities in the state, where nearly 50% of the population lives.
Putting an abortion clinic in a town of 1,000 people doesn’t make sense for clinics. I think your disgust comes from your lack of understanding rural america.
Okay first of all the article doesn’t say “held onto the babies remains.” She plead guilty to removing or concealing human skeletal remains, which most likely means she buried it.
I’m sure during the 5 months, she could have found a day to drive and get an abortion if it was important to her.
See, that’s an assumption, not a fact presented in the article. You don’t know if she had access to a car, and public transportation in rural areas is known for being practically nonexistent. It’s possible she didn’t get an abortion sooner because she simply did not have the means to.
Putting an abortion clinic in a town of 1,000 people doesn’t make sense for clinics. I think your disgust comes from your lack of understanding rural america.
You realize places like Planned Parenthood don’t just perform abortions, right? They provide all kinds of other family planning and women’s healthcare services, which are useful for most women, not just those looking to get an abortion. It makes sense for them to be easily accessible to everyone. And GOP has been attacking Planned Parenthood for yearsspecifically to make it harder for women to get abortions. What this woman went through is exactly the sort of thing that was inevitable when the Republican party attacks women’s rights.
regardless, it’s the law. if you want it changed, move to Nebraska, get residency, start a grassroots campaign, get elected to State government, and draft a bill into law.
you’re free to do that, after all - self government is one of our many freedoms. many other countries don’t allow people to do anything about how the government works.
Alluding to Tuberville’s past as the football coach at Auburn University, spokesman Steven Stafford said in an email: “Coach just wants the maps to be fair and for all Alabamians to be represented well. He trusts Alabama’s state legislators to get this right.”
Does it seem weird to anyone else that the dude is an actual US Senator, and his staff still refer to him as “Coach”?
Jesus if people can't even be bothered to simply stop paying for a subscription then we will be truly fucked when something happens that actually matters
This is why the reddit boycott was destined to never work
So you are saying if people can’t do something about problems that don’t really matter to them, that implies they aren’t going to do anything about problems that matter to them?
You’re coming off a little unhinged. They asked a very simple question and you’re freaking out. If the father was also underage then how can you say she was raped, unless you have other sources that claim she was raped by another minor. Further, if he was underage then would you also accuse her of rape since he can’t legally consent? The article doesn’t mention the father and its natural to be curious about his role in all this.
Ah gotcha. You’re just pulling shit out of your ass and freaking out at everyone who points out that your assumptions stink. I hope you feel better today, you need a nap
If the article is accurate, that wasn’t entrapment at all. There’s a decently fine line between a sting and entrapment and conducting a sting after you have evidence the perp reached out to a hitman, posing as said hitman is a literal sting.
I saw him in concert about 8 years ago, and it was one of the best gigs I’ve ever been to. RIP, Tony. Your music has brought me much joy throughout the years.
Because you’re seeing the results of a decades long plan to brainwash their citizens into always voting against their own best interests.
It started with gutting mental health services, then they moved on to defunding education. That let them sell their people on all of the blatantly obvious lies.
You can thank Reagan for that, just like most of the other major issues with the country.
As a parent with a kid entering middle school who just got a phone (average age for one in this area) here is my 2 cents:
I want my kid to have a phone more for me than her. There are no pay phones and if, heaven forbid, some shit goes down (we are on America and shit goes down in schools) I need to not only be able to allow her to easily contact us and us to contact her, I need to know her location. Past events have shown we can’t count on anyone else. Barring school shootings, I would not be anywhere near as concerned about her having one. I know parents of kids with severe allergies also want kids to have a phone on them.
Since she could talk we have talked about media and it’s influence on her mind and life. That talk has evolved as she has grown. I studied the impact of harmful media, so in this way I have the privilege of knowing why this education is so vital. She knows what she watches and puts out there can impact her in insane ways. And though I have to slowly trust that this took root in her as I cant control what she watches forever, things like Google family link can help me block sites and apps, make her ask for permission etc. She knows I do this and why and she will talk to me when she thinks she should have access. It’s a conversation.
I know her friends parents don’t do this. Which I also know allows her access other ways, again, I have to slowly hope this education worked. I wonder if more parents instead were taught to take these steps if it would help and if we taught students directly. There are privacy concerns too though, my kid knows I’m here parent, not the government, she has no expectation of privacy on her phone (mostly anyway) at this age from me, but she should from her school so I wouldn’t want them to be allowed to block etc.
I want my kid to have a phone more for me than her.
Imo, this is the root of the issue that must be addressed. No child under 16 should have a smart phone, of anything they should have a flip phone for calling and texting only, no apps.
Children will see violence, porn, or beheading videos if they have a smart phone. No parental controls can stop a child from seeing the full Internet and a lot of parents don’t get that. The quickest way is to boot the phone into safe mode, access the web browser, boom full Internet.
I think that this is like wrapping a kid in bubble-wrap, though. And like, not in that "over-coddling" metaphorical sense, but much more literal - sure, the kid can't get scrapes if they fall off their bike, but the other kids are going to make fun of the kid wearing bubble wrap.
You don't necessarily want to give them an unrestricted mainline to the worst of the internet, but you don't want to overcorrect so hard that you're causing other problems.
As toxic as it is, as much as there's space for harms and bullying, or that the internet holds porn and violent content ... the internet and social media spaces are where a huge portion of kids social lives live, and barring them from participating in that will do one of two things - teach them to get sneaky in order to bypass the restriction, or force them into an 'outsider' role in their peer group. In the first, it's a lost cause and all you're doing is making it inconvenient without addressing the harms - and ensuring they can't talk to you about what comes from that space. In the latter, there are strong social and self-esteem costs associated with excluding your child from having a social life with other children - is it "better" for the parent to do the harm instead of the other children? Is it better for your relationship with that child, long-term, their trust in you, or your ability to support them?
The kid restricted to "dumb phone only, no internet, no apps" is the current generations' equivalent of that one kid that wasn't allowed to go to the park, or the mall, or hang out on the street - whatever any given past generation used as their youthful Third Place, where they could socialize and hang out separate from school and without adults actively supervising them. And it's never been great for the kid whose parents won't let them participate in the common social life that their peers have.
It's far more fruitful to give them age-appropriate education related to their use of and relationship with the internet and provide a controlled and supported introduction than it is to simply bar their access for several years. You're either stunting their social development in order to avoid harms to their social development (?!?!) or you're simply winding the proverbial rubber band tighter and tighter against an inevitable rebellion - at which point they're jumping in headlong without ever developing any sort of media literacy or social media savvy and never had a chance to build coping and resilience for whatever rabbit holes they're likely to fall into .
I blocked social media sites at the router and on the phones for my kids and don't feel bad about it at all.
Reason I don't feel and about it is that as soon as we blocked everything my daughter's mental health did a 180 from planning her suicide to having real life goals. And she tells all her friends how much happier she is without those stupid apps all the damn time.
I make an effort to talk to my kids about media and critical thinking. We have awesome communication and I'm super happy that my kids talk to me about things. They're not ostracized for their lack of TikTok. They actively avoid the kids who are obsessed with socials because those kids are toxic and struggle in ways that make them not great friends. I truly don't see a downside to implementing this boundary on behalf of my kids.
If your kid feels left out because they can't wreck their mental health with their peers then there's some serious values conversations that need to be had. It's ok, and necessary to use tools for your kids when they can't or won't use them on their own. That's what being a parent means.
I’m with you on this. I blocked them too and my kid knows why. The commenter above may mean more using/having a smart phone and internet access generally and I reluctantly agree for the most part. But yeah, fuck social media and it’s debilitating impact. Not just on youth, I don’t use that shit because five minutes makes my fairly successful ass feel terrible too! Just toxic all around.
My comment was clearly not written to give you advice for your specific child and her suite of issues.
I'm speaking a lot more generally and while I'm leaving room for parents like you to make your choices, I'm also still being direct that I think it's not a good universal rule. Even if that is an outcome someone chooses, it's no less true that engaging with the whole choice is necessary to do a good job of making it. Internet=bad is an incredibly simplistic old-person take at this stage in society, and some parents even to current generations can misunderstand or underestimate the significant role that the internet can play in their kids' lives. No solution fits across all kids, that's part of the challenge - but understanding the role that the internet plays in modern kids' social world and peer networks is important to making decisions about their access to it with complete information and goal-oriented integrity.
The matched point in that comment you may have missed is that I'm not modelling my remarks around a binary of "unrestricted internet" vs "no internet." If anything, I think I was clearly saying that absolute 'solutions' get progressively worse the wider they cast their net - as more and more unintended consequences are included in that broad-reaching choice.
Separately, you also shouldn't expect that what you felt you needed to do in order to support your child in a relatively unusual situation - will also be a good foundation for broad-case parenting practices. What is good for one child is not good for all children - and the more unusual the child or their needs, the less applicable that solution would be to "average" kids. There are other kids in similar-looking situations where your solution would exacerbate the problem instead of reduce it - now not only are they depressed and bullied, but also isolated from their friends. The vast majority of kids aren't in situations particularly similar to yours and using your solution in their cases risks putting them into worse places than they started, or putting a target on them where none existed prior. Sever the child from the internet isn't something you necessarily should be treating as universally good for all parents and all kids with zero possible downsides.
There are always downsides. Especially in parenting, everything is a trade-off and nothing is clear-cut. If you can't see what's being traded off - in effectively anything - that's a good cue to start hunting for blind spots. Especially when making rules for kids like cutting off parts of their world. As you said, being a parent requires making tough choices, and that requires engaging with the whole cost/benefit of the choice.
There's nothing challenging or tough about firmly believing you are wholly, completely, and absolutely Correct in whatever option you pick. It's easy to choose something and insist that it's 100% totally and absolutely correct with zero room for discussion. That approach actively shuts down all the actually hard parts of making the choice. But that is a choice with it's own downsides. It makes it hard to relate to those kids as they age enough to challenge you, or start leaving home, and it doesn't model behavior that I - personally - think is producing functional adults down the road. At the very least, the kind of person who is never wrong is not the kind of person I want to raise.
So I think that commenting more specifically on what you've said here - it rings some bells and tints some flags. You're proudly teaching your kids critical thinking, yet also say you cannot see any downsides to cutting off social media completely. You're absolutely blase about deeming all kids who use social media "toxic" and "bad friends" with "struggles" as if it's completely normal, healthy, and definitely non-toxic for an adult to be passing those kind of judgements about children on such a trivial basis, and to model that for their own kids. You talk about one child's needs to justify the choice, but have more than that one affected by it. You reacted as if this is already a hot-button issue to you - and responded to remarks clearly speaking generally and not at all targeting to you as if it was a personal attack, returning fire with a bunch of spicy jibes about me as a person and as a parent. If this is how you experience and respond to an opinion you disagree with on the internet, I can certainly imagine how you deal with faintest hints of dispute from your own children. Of course they're telling you what you want to hear.
The calls are coming from inside the house, friend.
I totally get your thinking, and really thought this put and almost went that route. But she is 11, I want to see how she uses this stuff and have an active part in it and teaching her how to navigate because at this age there is no holding back. Maybe if all the kids had dumb phones that tracked location or something but it is not the world we live in. I pretty much agree with the comment below yours except on social media. I have a hard fucking no stop and I think, I can’t be sure but really think, my kid gets why that is just so terrible. Thankfully we don’t use it so it’s easier to call that a cesspool. We’ll aside from reddit and now lemmy 😉
We did similar with our kid regularly talking about social medias effects and ills. Maybe not in enough detail (mental note for me to bring this up soon). She’s entering HS and is mostly uninterested in social media. Only thing we blocked was TikTok. She mostly only texts with friends. Which can and has led to issues, but normal ones that are somewhat manageable. I would imagine plenty of parents do similar. And plenty don’t.
I’m not even sure we as a society entirely grasp the impacts of social media on society or individuals. Things seem notably different today versus a decade ago. The whole influencer culture. Ever more sophisticated information. Alt right recruiting tactics. Echo chambers. I think we are collectively fucked for a couple generations at least.
Social media impacting mental health is definitely happening, but its a symptom of a larger problem. And COVID definitely accelerated it. But this is a problem that has been going on for decades IMO. American society is crumbling and fixing it will be a multi-prong, multi-decade, probably multi-trillion dollar effort.
I’ve heard this before about a billion things, it’s not a particularly useful take. IMO we’ve got a youth depression problem because of extremely hostile messaging about “how screwed our country is”, “how screwed our planet is”, and addictive mind manipulating social media apps.
I’m in my late twenties, my generation was plagued by hot take social media, and I think the current generation has it even worse. I’d love it if we could avoid these hot takes on Lemmy. Break the problems down into their pieces and attack those things; IMO, like solving any big problem, that’s how we get through this.
I’ve heard this before about a billion things, it’s not a particularly useful take.
It wasn’t really intended to be, as that is a larger conversation. But I didn’t mean it the way I suspect you thought I did, in a boomer “tight pants and rock music are all of society’s ills” way.
My take on it is that ever since corporations got away with prioritizing shareholder profits over everything else, the safety nets that kept families strong started to crumble. Parents had to work more hours, people were more stressed, neighborhoods became more distant, urban spread increased. Add that to hysteria over crime and we get parents that aren’t able to raise kids and think schools can do it. No sense of community responsibility and no safety net of a village helping to raise the kids because everyone’s at work and scared that someone’s going to shoot or kidnap them. So you get generational radicalization with acting out behavior getting worse and worse.
Social media makes all this worse because it optimizes for engagement, and nothing gets engagement like misery and jealousy all while giving an illusion of actual socialization. COVID was gas added to this fire that has been burning for decades.
Break the problems down into their pieces and attack those things; IMO, like solving any big problem, that’s how we get through this.
I definitely agree there. Which is a challenge in and of itself. Like I said, this is a multi-pronged issue. It didn’t get to where it is quickly and it won’t get fixed quickly either. It will be a generational effort. And I don’t think all the fix actions needed are agreed on or even known.
I think part of it will be strengthening neighborhoods and creating a sense of community and pride in it. Another part is allowing parents to actually parent and giving them the tools that their parents didn’t pass on to them because they probably didn’t have them either.
I think this is a really great response; I agree with you on a lot of this. I (personally) think we need more of this sort of dialog and less “American society is crumbling.” I hope you’ll agree here/try to keep that in mind as much as possible. IMO some outwardly expressed optimism and hope is really important and can go a long way towards fighting the collective depression and overwhelming feeling that we’re up against an insurmountable force … IMO we can get through all of this, we just have to work together and have constructive discussions on how.
There’s definitely been some dropping the ball by previous generations, and I hope (and if we try, know) we can do better in the coming years.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.