Re:Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
by blsapologist42 on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @06:37PM
(#33977887)
It could certainly be true that a modest harm to 80 million people is comparable to a serious harm to a smaller number. Of course fentanyl is pretty clearly a more serious issue but I think it's plausible they are in the same ballpark.
Re:Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
by jonathankoren on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @11:22PM
(#33979972)
Come back when people start getting held at knifepoint so someone can get fix of TikTok.
Re:Bipartisan Legislation to Ban TikTok
by jonathankoren on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @01:46PM
(#33973760)
Mix in the fact that you can't die by simply walking past fentanyl or even touching it like the copaganda says, and you're on to something.
This is disingenous, as reported by common-sense. For example, my city does not have sidewalks lined with tents full of TikTok users, but the same cannot be said of the comparand.
This has either or both of the following knock-on effects:
- Undermine trust in the speaker for people who feel the 'seam' in the analogy. American institutions are really good at undermining themselves in this way. Remember DARE? It took me years to trust any authority again after hearing their nonsense about cannabis, back in the nineties. They used to call it things like "herbal heroin", etc.
- Promote stigmatization of TikTok users, and social-media users more generally. It's like taking the Smudge Tool in photoshop and moving some of the stigma from fentanyl to TikTok. This will have the unintended effect of further isolating people who depend on social media because they are disabled and/or shut-in; socially isolated; physically isolated; LGBTQ; autistic; etc. You aren't accessing community now, you're ~high on fentanyl~. Like.
American politicians love lines like this because they feel good in the short term but contribute to the ruin of polity in the longer run. Which is why these quips are the proper analog of fentanyl.