• zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Again, we aren’t going to suddenly become good parents as a species even if you’re correct. And blaming the parents gets us where? We have to change all the inadequate parents? Yeah right. Blame doesn’t get you anything but the ability to do nothing and feel superior about it.

    Edit: Everybody that’s saying it’s the individual and not the system: same with cops? We can just tell them to be better and expect results?

    • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Refusing to blame the people responsible means you can’t take steps to correcting the behavior. You need the culprit identified first.

      • brainzzz@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Isn’t Meta really responsible for this? If they didn’t create and market and sell them, nobody, good or bad parents, would be able to buy them.

        • SageLilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          How about both? They’re not mutually exclusive. You can acknowledge that there are systems in plays incentivizing the behavior while also holding the people who do the behavior accountable.

          • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Even if they’re not mutually exclusive, the lion’s share is systemic. For parents that can mean access to healthcare, financial security, access to childcare, access to a good school, and a slew of other things. If people were able to change their finances reliably, there would be no poor people, etc etc… What’s the point of holding someone “accountable” when that maybe changes one or two parents. Even given a 100% reform rate (since I assume you want correction as opposed to punishment) you have to a) wait for deviance to occur b) catch the deviance c) take corrective action with both the parent and the child. Even if we assume only 1% of parents raise children that behave badly, there are two billion children in the world. If I were going to allocate resources to hold people accountable or to provide some sort of actual assistance to parents, 100% is going to the latter. So it’s not that it’s one or the other, it’s that one is useful and one is not.

            • SageLilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              When it comes to Meta glasses specifically if you have the means to buy them you likely have all the things you mentioned by virtue of being able to buy Meta glasses. Again, they should be made illegal and society needs to have some serious discussions about privacy on the internet. But I can also think that if you buy your kids these glasses, especially if you’re aware your kid has bullied/harassed others in the past, you should be held accountable. Shame and publicity work for a reason. If more parents are judged publicly for their poor parenting choices and purchases, they are less likely to buy said things. Again, both.

              • You think the rich parents that will give their children these glasses are capable of shame? I don’t. Some will even be proud of it (see pandemic behavior, cybertruck owners, etc).

                • SageLilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  13 hours ago

                  Depends on who’s doing the shaming. Some of them are really touchy about their image, especially when it’s people they actually know or they think are on a similar “level” or is an authority figure in their eyes. Considering social media can be very important to some of these people( and can act as an equalizer in terms of the public rallying around a topic against those in power), spreading awareness and making it very unpopular to own or wear these things will likely affect at least some of them. It also will address the systemic part by making the working class aware and thus making the politicians aware that the working class is aware. If politicians realize that supporting surveillance tech like this will cost them voters and power they may be willing to do something about it.

                  • After seeing how poorly people behaved during the pandemic, I just can’t believe that shaming is a useful tool. Antivaxxers were proud they were putting others at risk. That was not a small number of people. I knew individuals that could not even be shamed by those closest to them. I do not believe in shame as a tool for social change and the vague points you make about it do not fit with my actual experience. Not for individuals and sure as hell not for corporations or politicians.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      Blaming shitty people for doing shitty things is fine. Any decent person can recognize the threat they pose. I would never buy a child (or anyone) a pair of these fucking things.

    • Venia Silente@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Blaming is the first step towards getting a solution from the people who caused the issue in the first place. Sometimes it’s not to us, specifically, to fix things.

      Blame and shame, is the name of the game.