It seems like whenever anything concerning the state of society and the people in it comes up online, there’s always the chorus of “Why do people care about this? It isn’t illegal or harmful, it doesn’t affect you, you’re a puritan and a moral busybody that wants to sterilize society if you’re against this, etc.”
What are your thoughts?
Does society have an interest in policing/discouraging/reducing behaviors that aren’t immoral but are nonetheless unhealthy or something you shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that engages in?
Does something have to strictly concern harm (or at least obvious harm like physical injury or death) of some kind for a sane, moral and rational person to care about it or wish it didn’t happen?
Do you have some specific examples of such behaviors that you have in mind? It might help others understand what you’re wishing to debate. Otherwise, this is all in the hypothetical.
Drug use: there is (IMO) a large difference between, say, cannabis and heroin. AIUI, the former is generally not believed to be highly addictive or harmful, while the latter absolutely is. And, opiods are another, different kettle of fish entirely; they can be and are useful for managing extreme pain, but they are also highly addictive and potentially destructive.
Gambling, I have no use for at all personally, and I’ve never understood the appeal. I do believe that the explosion in casinos, legalized sports betting, and now “prediction markets” (gambling in all but name) in the last few decades has become a huge problem in American society. There are many people who gamble and lose money that they can’t afford to lose, and the gambling industry is incredibly predatory. A gambling addiction, and the illegal activities which it is leading the addicted person to engage in, in order to get money to gamble, is literally tearing my family apart at this very moment.
My personal POV is that if you are not harming yourself or others, and everyone involved is a happy and willing participant, then I don’t care what you do. I think cannabis use (generally) may well fall into that camp; I think that the other things I’ve mentioned above definitely do not, in many cases.
I usually see “Let people enjoy things” in response to those saying an activity or interest is cringy, silly, immature, etc., etc. I don’t typically see it in response to arguments that something is harmful. I’m sure it happens, but that’s not how I typically see it used.
Yeah, I’ve seen “real, functional grownups don’t play with LEGOs/Pokemon, don’t like Star Wars or anime, etc., etc.” in recent years. Unless someone is spending the rent money or their kids’ college funds on LEGO, then I strongly believe in “don’t yuck their yum.”
These are all objectively harmful things. If your example was homosexual relationships, or transgender people living as the person they identify themselves to be, or any one of a hundred truly harmless things that busybodies like to get in a snit about, then I would agree. Way too much energy and time is wasted on questioning other people’s life choices. Love, happiness, style, etc. are personal choices best left up to the person. My only caveat being that we have to be careful when it comes to children, and they deserve all the protection and guidance society can provide. But we have to be guided by science and expert advice, not emotion and hysterical religiosity.
I would even take this as far as tearing down most of the powers given to HOAs. If somebody owns their home and wants to have a neon purple front door, that’s nobody’s GD business but theirs. Decorate your home and garden as you prefer to do. But if the neighbor’s butterfly garden isn’t causing any sort of health hazard, then you have no right to tear it out in favor of a fescue monoculture.
When I was a kid, I was taught that I lived in a free country. That has been a little less true every year ever since. The idea that imposing one’s religion on other people is some sort of entitlement makes me sick. Live as you wish, allow others to do the same - as long as they are not harming anyone.
I’m not saying I disagree but can you explain this? The knee jerk response to your statement (other than the one in the OP) would be “Who are you to say what’s unhealthy and what isn’t?” or that it isn’t a matter of objectivity.
Of course many harmless things, like homosexuality, cross-dressing, drinking alcohol are considered reprehensible and harmful when those with power and influence decide that they are.
Personally, I am very much in the “let people enjoy things” camp. I am often surprised at other people’s surprise about what activities appeal to others. If some activity thrills 1 in 100,000 people it means that there are thousands of fans of the activity.
I mean, some of those things have a lot of harm involved, but perhaps not are not objectively/universally harmful.
For example, pornography. There is undeniably a lot of exploitation, and in many cases flat-out slavery and human trafficking, involved in the production of pornography. And, it’s not untrue that some people become addicted to viewing pornography, and that pornography can lead some people to develop unhealthy/unrealistic expectations about sexual relationships.
On the other hand: OnlyFans is now a thing. It does appear that a lot of OF content producers are doing so completely of their own accord, and are very happy and successful being “mattress actors” (a term that many of them, themselves, use); they are, AFAICT, completely in control of what they do, and with whom (which a lot of actors in traditional porn may not be able to say), as well as being in control of receiving pay for what they do. Is such pornography, created happily and willingly by its actors, “objectively harmful?”
Drug use is both Illegal and immoral, unless you are talking Aspirin or something similar. Gambling is often illegal. So is porn.
I have no idea of why social media use in on there, as you are posting on such a sort of platform- The SDMB is a type of social media.
Yep. We still play D&D, and I am in my AARP years. A couple of my slightly younger friends do Pokemon, and my wife loves assembling Legos (the artistic ones, true, but they are still Legos).
That still doesn’t make make using them immoral, just illegal. Many “illegal” drugs do have therapeutic uses, so unless you equate legality with morality, it’s hard to justify the claim that it’s immoral. And even if they are not being used for therapeutic reasons, that does not make their use immoral.
OK, so I don’t agree that illegality = harmfulness. Plenty of things are made illegal even though they aren’t necessarily harmful. I think marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol for example. Although if it were up to me smoking it would be illegal and gummies/drops would be legal. And the age of legality would be around 24.
And yes, each of these things can be used/done in moderation and in harmless ways. But there are also proven harms that have come from them, and that is undeniable. No, I am not going to spend the next hour searching out the studies for you; do that yourself. I will affirm that I have read them in the past and you will be able to find them if you look in good faith. Even marijuana - which is probably the least harmful of the things listed - does occasionally cause harm.
They probably each need different ages of consent, and some of them (fentenyl, for one) will never be safe on the open market. Others are dead useful but need safe, licensed oversight (hallucinogens for example.) But there can be no questions that they can also be quite harmful when used incorrectly.
Kate Wagner (of the “McMansion Hell” blog) wrote a counterargument specifically with reference to the “let people enjoy popular mainstream entertainment” variant:
An issue common to all of our LPET posters is that they think criticism means forbidding people from enjoying media in general. First of all, people are just as allowed to dislike things as they are permitted to enjoy them—you can’t trick them into changing their minds with your authoritarian meme posting. Second, I introduce this radical idea: you can still enjoy things while being critical of them—it can even lead to a greater appreciation of societal and historical context, and it can make you usefully wary of the role the shit forces of the world play in the media we consume. It can also help us maintain our political and social integrity while watching or reading or listening to whatever is offered to us. For example, my peacenik, anticapitalist proclivities may make me critical of many mainstream blockbusters, but they also afford me a greater appreciation of movies like Office Space and Dolly Parton’s classic 9 to 5. Finally, though our LPET posters think otherwise, it is indeed possible to like some things about a piece of media and dislike things about that same piece of media all at once.
My understanding is that the goal of HOAs is to preserve property values. When I bought my house, I deliberately avoided buying anyplace where I’d be subject to a HOA.
But if a person feels otherwise–and voluntarily chooses to buy someplace that is subject to one–I don’t see a problem with that. Some people are willing to put up with HOA hassles in the hope that their house’s value will grow more.
I DO have a problem with an HOA springing up on a neighborhood whose residents didn’t consent. How often does that happen?
I should have specified that I mean the kind of social media that’s just endless feeds of slop, AI and nonsense like what you typically see on TikTok and its imitators.