Maybe you should try to focus even more on how huge of a factor parents/caretakers are in abuse, as oppose to defending social media. "Social media" and kids is seem as rather controversial these days and defending it to the high degree you are might be turning off some people who would otherwise be receptive to your preventing suicide and helping kids message.
Even Conservatives, as problematic they and their views are, do seem to value family stability and having better relation ships between parents and their kids (with some big exceptions).
I agree with Hurd. Social media access is vital to maintain for young people in today's age of grownup personal and political derelictions. However, having gotten my bad attitude from years of daily, in-home work with youth in families and communities, I sometimes feel my depictions of parents are too harsh. Many adults suffered abuses in their lives as well that accompany their troubled behaviors, and America is not supportive of families and communities. Yet, the bottom line is that America awards adults vast powers and rights, and we -- especially leaders -- have an obligation not to take our troubles out on the young or seek easy, popular scapegoats to avoid facing these real problems.
This is not a "two things can be true" situation. Social media is scapegoated because people don't want to admit they the real problem is their poor parenting/caregiving. The evidence against social media is weak to non-existent. The evidence against bad parents/caregivers is strong but consistently ignored in mainstream discourse. You cannot focus on how huge a factor parents/caretakers are in bad youth mental health without defending social media. If you don't do the latter, people will go "what about social media?" as their counterargument. You have to exonerate the scapegoat in order to get people to accept the truth.
First of all I myself have no doubt that bad parents are a big negative on the youth. I had well meaning, non abusive, but yet problematic parents, who impacted me negatively, so this feels a bit personal. And I believe the fact that the evidence against bad parents/caregivers is strong but consistently ignored in mainstream discourse is certainly real. Even in places like the Manosphere, full of trouble men, there's hardly any anger towards their parents, well except for maybe their moms, instead it's almost all blame women. And this I find extremely frustrating.
Having said that I don't think there's hardly anyone who can say that bad parenting doesn't produced bad outcomes. I think that both Liberals and Conservatives can agree on this, they just disagree on how much responsibility is on the parents and how much responsivity is on society. The thing with Haidt and others like him is that they believe that there's ALWAYS been bad parenting which is why they believe that bad parenting isn't a factor in their perception of the youth having record high Anxiety.
What's also happening with Haidt and others like him is that they aren't constantly defending parents including bad parents on the issues with the youth, instead they are IGNORING the role of bad parents. And I think that's one of the biggest reason that Haidt is so effective. If Haidt was spending half of his time defending parents including bad parents, and saying that bad parents aren't a negative on the youth's problems, or saying that bad parents don't exist, I can't see him being nearly as popular. Haidt knows his message, his audience, and he runs with it.
To shamelessly quote myself: "Today’s anti-social-media movement is fanatically more panicked that a teenager MIGHT SEE a pornographic image online than that a teenager would ACTUALLY BE sexually abused and raped by a predator at home, church, school, a sports program, Boy Scouts, or other real-world venue."
Maybe you should try to focus even more on how huge of a factor parents/caretakers are in abuse, as oppose to defending social media. "Social media" and kids is seem as rather controversial these days and defending it to the high degree you are might be turning off some people who would otherwise be receptive to your preventing suicide and helping kids message.
Even Conservatives, as problematic they and their views are, do seem to value family stability and having better relation ships between parents and their kids (with some big exceptions).
I agree with Hurd. Social media access is vital to maintain for young people in today's age of grownup personal and political derelictions. However, having gotten my bad attitude from years of daily, in-home work with youth in families and communities, I sometimes feel my depictions of parents are too harsh. Many adults suffered abuses in their lives as well that accompany their troubled behaviors, and America is not supportive of families and communities. Yet, the bottom line is that America awards adults vast powers and rights, and we -- especially leaders -- have an obligation not to take our troubles out on the young or seek easy, popular scapegoats to avoid facing these real problems.
This is not a "two things can be true" situation. Social media is scapegoated because people don't want to admit they the real problem is their poor parenting/caregiving. The evidence against social media is weak to non-existent. The evidence against bad parents/caregivers is strong but consistently ignored in mainstream discourse. You cannot focus on how huge a factor parents/caretakers are in bad youth mental health without defending social media. If you don't do the latter, people will go "what about social media?" as their counterargument. You have to exonerate the scapegoat in order to get people to accept the truth.
I'm going to some what disagree here.
First of all I myself have no doubt that bad parents are a big negative on the youth. I had well meaning, non abusive, but yet problematic parents, who impacted me negatively, so this feels a bit personal. And I believe the fact that the evidence against bad parents/caregivers is strong but consistently ignored in mainstream discourse is certainly real. Even in places like the Manosphere, full of trouble men, there's hardly any anger towards their parents, well except for maybe their moms, instead it's almost all blame women. And this I find extremely frustrating.
Having said that I don't think there's hardly anyone who can say that bad parenting doesn't produced bad outcomes. I think that both Liberals and Conservatives can agree on this, they just disagree on how much responsibility is on the parents and how much responsivity is on society. The thing with Haidt and others like him is that they believe that there's ALWAYS been bad parenting which is why they believe that bad parenting isn't a factor in their perception of the youth having record high Anxiety.
What's also happening with Haidt and others like him is that they aren't constantly defending parents including bad parents on the issues with the youth, instead they are IGNORING the role of bad parents. And I think that's one of the biggest reason that Haidt is so effective. If Haidt was spending half of his time defending parents including bad parents, and saying that bad parents aren't a negative on the youth's problems, or saying that bad parents don't exist, I can't see him being nearly as popular. Haidt knows his message, his audience, and he runs with it.
To shamelessly quote myself: "Today’s anti-social-media movement is fanatically more panicked that a teenager MIGHT SEE a pornographic image online than that a teenager would ACTUALLY BE sexually abused and raped by a predator at home, church, school, a sports program, Boy Scouts, or other real-world venue."
Well said, Mike. They are more concerned with "thoughtcrimes" than actual crimes, basically. Their Orwellian beliefs are basically voodoo on steroids.
Amen