This is like rhetorically asking, "Are you saying that doom and marylin manson aren't harmful to children?"
The problem with social media isn't the inherent mixing of children and technology, as if web browsers and phones have some action-at-a-distance force that undermines society; it's the 20 years or so they spent weaponizing their products into an infinite Skinner box. Duck walk Zuckerburg.
This is all assuming good faith interest in "the children," which we cannot assume when what government will gain from this is a total, global surveillance state.
Last time I checked there's no scientific consensus if social media causes harm at all. The best studies found null or very small effects. So yeah, I am skeptical it is harmful.
Sorry, I know it's a hard line for parents to tread and it's really easy to criticize parenting decisions other people are making, but the "everyone else is doing it so I have to" always seems as lazy to me today, as it probably did to my parents when I said it to them as a teenager.
Is it more important to prevent your son from being weaponized and turned into a little ball of hate and anger, and your daughter from spending her teen years depressed and encouraged to develop eating disorders, or to make sure they can binge the same influencers as their "friends"?
We used to teach kids to be themselves and stand up for what they believe in and their own authenticity and uniqueness even in the face of bullying. That having less or other doesn’t mean your value is lesser or that you should be left out. Now we teach them… conform at all costs so you never have to risk being bullied or lonely?
> Now we teach them… conform at all costs so you never have to risk being bullied or lonely?
Literally every kid/teen-targeted movie has championed or contradicted this for decades. Yes even “back in the day.” Hell what is the end of Grease? Sandy changes who she is to conform with the greasers and everyone cheers including her man who allegedly liked her as she was before? I don’t even get what they’re saying at the end.
Conform, be an individual, the message is always shifting and always has. You’re a jock, you’re a nerd. Jocks beat up nerds and get the girls. Oh wait in this movie the nerds actually win and are rewarded for being themselves though.
There wasn’t some special time where you were taught the right lesson that everyone now is missing out on, and there were plenty of lessons passed on to you that we have thankfully eradicated I imagine. Growing up is complicated. Social dynamics are complicated. The way they are portrayed is also complicated. We’re all having to adapt and try our best here, no one has the exact answer
Getting the girl as a reward is more about misogyny than a the bullying lesson. I haven’t seen grease so I can’t talk about that but I really can’t think of any media examples of where the geeks become jocks and that’s seen as morally correct, which would be the actual antithesis to the lesson above. Also I meant that parents taught that, not adult media… which is for adults
presumably being a parent is different from being a your child’s friend. There is overlap, but yes, sometimes being a good parent requires “laying down the law”.
With that being said, i think explaining _in detail_ why you’re laying down certain rules can go a LONG way toward building some trust and productive dialogue with your child. Maybe you’ll find out they are more mature than you give them credit, can loosen up a bit. Or maybe a reasonable compromise can be found. Or maybe they’ll be bitter for a few months, but they’ll at least understand “why”.
Only if all the other kids are not on social media. When I was in school, birthday parties and such were organised on facebook. If you were not on facebook, you weren't invited.
If everyone was banned from facebook we would have organised them via text messages or email. That's the main point of social media age restrictions, individually banning kids is too punishing on those kids so parents and teachers don't try. Doing it across the whole population is much better.
When I was growing up, we loved to lend the sheltered kids from the more conservative families media they weren’t supposed to have, like the Harry Potter books.
My greatest fear for my future young adult children is that they're on their cell phone all day and never have time to get in trouble with their friends, so there's that. Yes, Let's start with banning the cell phones.
this is the biggest problem, so many parents are head-in-the-sand when it comes to things that can damage a child’s mind like screen time, yet no matter how much you protect them if it’s not a shared effort it all goes out the window, then the kid becomes incentivized to spend more time with friends just for the access, and can develop a sense that maybe mom and dad are just wrong because why aren’t so-and-so’s parents so strict?
because their parents didn’t read the research or don’t care about the opportunity cost because it can’t be that big of a deal or it would not be allowed or legal right? at least not until their kid gets into a jam or shows behavioral issues, but even then they don’t evaluate, they often just fall prey to the next monthly subscription to cancel out the effects of the first: medication
Do you believe the research shows that screens in and of themselves are so powerfully damaging that being exposed for, what, a few hours a week at a friend’s house will cause them to require psychiatric medication?
So many questions. Are you campaigning against billboards in your city? Do you avoid taking your kids to any business that has digital signage? I assume you completely abstain from all types of movies and TV? What about radio or books?
it sounds like you already knew all of your assumptions were absurd yet you asked them anyways which ironically makes your comment the truly fascinating one
You stated that parenting goes out the window if a child encounters a screen at a friend’s house.
I dunno man, going over to friends’ houses to watch movies, play console games, later to show each other funny YouTube videos, and in high school to do computer-based writing projects, group presentations, and digital video projects are parts of my childhood I wouldn’t trade for anything. I hope my kids get those experiences with their peers.
Am I the only one that primarily learns by doing? If I'm not writing code, only doing code reviews, my familiarity and proficiency with the codebase gradually goes down, even if I'm still reading all the code being written. There's a lot of value lost when you cut out the part where you have to critically think up the solution rather than just reviewing it.
Most people don't realize this but Paul is the earliest known Christian writer and the earliest surviving source for the Gospel. His letters also independently corroborate not only Jesus' existence as a real person (in addition to secular sources), but also that Jesus' close followers genuinely believed they met Jesus' resurrected form. Since Paul's witness is dated to within 3-5 years of Jesus' death, this also shows that the Gospel didn't develop as a myth/legend, but as something people genuinely believed who had personally met Jesus. It's a fascinating story of a Jewish religious scholar who hallucinates on the road to Damascus, has a sudden complete change of heart, and ends up transforming Christianity from a local Jewish cult into a worldwide religion.
Another fascinating topic in biblical study is the criterion of embarrassment, where the early Christian writings left in bizarre and unflattering events that members of a cult would generally leave out. The most obvious example is the crucifixion itself (considered by Jews to be extremely shameful and cursed), the repeated unflattering presentation of the disciples (portrayed as regularly confused, lacking in faith, petty about status, falling asleep at critical moments, even rejecting Jesus at the end), even Jesus' own despair when he was publicly humiliated and executed, crying out asking God why he was forsaken. This is in contrast to Islam, which has Jesus rescued and replaced at the moment of execution.
Spot on. The Criterion of Embarrassment is a powerful tool here; the fact that women were the primary witnesses to the resurrection is a classic example, given that a woman's testimony held little to no legal weight in 1st-century Roman or Jewish contexts. If you were inventing a myth to gain social traction, you simply wouldn't write it that way.
Your point about verisimilitude extends to Onomastics as well. Research shows that the New Testament Gospels accurately reflect the specific frequency of Jewish names in 1st-century Palestine. In contrast, Gnostic texts often use names that don't fit the era or geography, frequently showing 3rd-century Egyptian linguistic influences instead. It suggests the canonical authors had "boots on the ground" knowledge that the later Gnostic writers lacked.
I feel we should be hesitant about claims like this. It might well be true that Paul was the earliest writer.
But it also seems strange that Matthew, a presumably literate tax collector, wrote nothing at all before Paul despite being a disciple during the time Jesus was around.
Mind you I am only saying the earliest known writer, it's likely that most Christian writings are lost to history. And technically we don't even know who wrote the Gospels with any certainty. Only Paul's 7 undisputed letters are universally accepted by secular scholarship as being genuinely authored by Paul, the authorship of the rest of the New Testament is disputed.
There has never been a manuscript of a Gospel with anyone other than the traditional author attributed. And they’ve always been cited by the traditional names - even in Islamic, Jewish or heretical writings.
The arguments made in favour of Paul’s authenticity largely come from internal textual cues - but is that really more persuasive?
I don’t mean to suggest too strongly one side of the Gospel authorship debate over the other, only that these issues mix objective facts with subjective interpretation in a way that makes it very difficult to outsource to scholarly consensus.
Bible scholar Dan McClellan is on youtube and does short videos rebutting popular youtube/tiktok videos that make claims that aren't historical. Dan has said that the four names were not assigned to the texts until the second half of the 2nd century, probably around 180CE or so. That leaves 80-100 years where the books were in circulation before the naming convention was established.
The subject of authorship comes up frequently so he has addressed it a few times, but here is a short (under 7 minute) video. It isn't just an assertion, he gives reasons why he makes these claims:
There’s a big difference between the gospels not being cited by name directly, and not having a name. For example, the Gospels often cite Isaiah without using his name - just lifting direct quotes.
And there’re allusions to apostolic naming in things like Justin Martyr’s first apology, Ch67 (155CE, dating largely from it being co-addressed to Marcus Aurelius):
“ the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permit”
"Data over dogma." Dr. Dan McClellen is an engaging source for historically accurate interpretations and understandings of the bible. I encourage others to check his content out.
I am only repeating what modern scholarship has determined, wikipedia does far more justice than I could. Church tradition is far more assertive in authorship claims.
While Jesus is portrayed as extremely fluent in Jewish scripture, he's only ever shown to have written once and in the ground. Nothing exists indicating he ever wrote any works to be passed down. Some theologians theorize that Jesus purposely avoided writing due to parallels with the Old Testament's written laws that condemned man, while Jesus came to do the opposite.
I wouldn't expect God to go through the trouble of personally delivering his most important message then leave it to chance, knowing he wouldn't be around to answer questions and knowing nobody would write it down for decades, that only parts would survive, that there would be differences in interpretation. Knowing the fate of people who misunderstood.
Previously he wrote down ten commandments on stone tablets, and with his power he could easily write the most perfect book in a language everyone could understand that would leave no doubts as to what is required to be saved then ensure it survived forever. There would be no need for later writers on soteriology.
Paul did not "transform Christianity from a local Jewish cult into a worldwide religion".
That was done through military force. Convert, or be burnt at the stake, heretic.
The second a ban is announced everyone would just migrate to the next thing. That's the nice part of social media and communication apps, they're easy to migrate off of.
As long as they're groups for real life things. The football club can announce they're now on Signal. A pure digital group like "C++ programming discord" can't do this.
macOS receives 1 year of full support and 2 additional years for security updates for each version with 6-8 years of upgrade eligibility. Windows 10 received 10 years of support (on top of a free upgrade from Windows 7/8.1 for most users).
I'm not sure why you're counting the years of support for a version of the OS and not the years of support for a computer. The interesting thing is: if you bought a computer at year X, does it still receive updates at X+Y?
There's loads of relatively young computers which can't upgrade to Windows 11 and therefore aren't supported anymore. That's the problem, not how long Windows 10 was supported.
There's no clear evidence that sanctions were a strong motivator for them. Ukraine gave up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances and economic support. At the time non-proliferation was an international movement which Ukraine aligned with, it just made sense. In hindsight though, what Russia did isn't surprising, but the US seemingly abandoning them to indirectly support Russia is surprising.
Yeah, that was me. I threw the link into archive.is to check if it had a snapshot, but it just created a shanpshot of the 503 before I could figure out how to cancel it.
reply