Movie discussion boards for "Thank You for Smoking" and "Hot Coffee" perfectly show how ridiculous neoconservative ideology is

Some of these replies seriously make me roll my eyes. And cringe.

I don’t know why I clicked, but I did.

In the end, people who are greatly harmed by gross negligence DO have a right to some fair compensation, but people need to be accountable for thier own behaviors. The notion that tobacco companies can be sued by people with lung cancer is INSANE.

There is also a part where a guy comments how his grandfather smoked for decades and finally stopped, but it was too late, he got lung cancer and died. Somebody replies by saying that quitting might have caused his lung cells to regenerate too fast, leading to cancer. And that he still would have been alive today if he hadn’t stopped smoking.

There is also a guy that claims he has been smoking cigarettes “only over the weekend” for years and still hasn’t gotten addicted.

I could make the argument that the rise of MAGA comes from people living in a world where the repercussions for bad decisions come on too slowly and weakly.

Protecting people from bad decisions prevents them from learning. Likewise, keeping people from needing to learn how to wade through information to find the real deal, just means that they pick whatever reaffirms their own beliefs and carry on, not having to ever evaluate past that.

And when they die because of the bad “choices”, the people who would benefit either don’t know that these others died, or believe it’s fake news.

My understanding is that there are some people who simply are less likely physically addicted to tobacco smoking. That guy could well be one of those “lucky” ones. Or, he could, of course, be a troll.

I know, I just find it hilarious that he claims he’s not addicted because he smokes twice a week instead of every day.

The problem with the first part is that the sorts of things that get banned or restricted either (a) have very bad immediate consequences that harm you so much that learning from them is moot or (b) naturally take a long time to produce consequences. We don’t ban things that people naturally choose to avoid, as there’s no point.

The problem with the second part is that we already exist in that world. We already do have to wade through information to find the real deal. That’s the Internet. That’s social medial. And it did not result in things getting better. The more information you have, the more you seek information silos to help you make sense of it.

So, sure, strong (but not essentially fatal) immediate consequences would probably go a long way in helping people learn. But they’d pretty much have to be imposed on people. Removing regulation isn’t going to provide those consequences.

And the removal of restraints on information by the Internet is the cause, not the solution to the problem.

It’s not “ridiculous”. It is the logical outcome of an amoral ideology driven by the interests of money. I mean it’s ridiculous that ordinary people buy into what the Nick Naylors of the world are selling without understanding that he is simply arguing the position he is paid to argue. But that’s sort of the point of the film Thank You For Smoking (I never saw the other one).