You can use the same argument for just about everything. “In the past it was better”. Remember when kids new how to actually write with pens, and had to send a letter and wait a few weeks until it even arrived? The damn telephone and internet ‘ruined’ it with their ease of access and convenience.

And the goal of this petty picture is what? To show how immature trans people are?

“as well as traumas of neglect and bullying” - says it all.

You miss having a strong father figure in your life, because he was either not present, or present but didn’t really care for you or protect you. Now that we are adults, the closes relationship we can see where one male takes care of another male - is a homosexual relationship.

I have the feeling you are not gay, just really misses having a proper dad in your life, and your current feelings are just a different manifestation of the true need. You seek male affection and protection, and from the rest of the comment - the regret after masturbation - means you don’t need the sexual part at all, you just want the love you see there.

Premonday, Octay

I would agree on the first 2-3 generations, but after 6-7, the tech is mature enough that it doesn’t get destroyed just like that. Didn’t we hade the same discussions when phones started using glass instead of plastic screens?`You do remember, screens used to be made of transparent plastic, not glass?

Dude… what the fuck? This is Reddit type of response. We don’t do that here.

I actually wouldn’t mind AI in everything, if there was a simple one switch so I could easily turn it off if I don’t want to use it. The problem is only in forcing it into peoples faces.

I guess they poured to much money into AI for it to fail, and now they must force people to use it to in order to justify the investments.

If it was a good product, people would ask for more themselves.

When something happens to another person, and you see it, your brain will “imagine” this situation happening to you. Although it’s just your brain imagining things, your body will have a very real reaction to it. This reaction, mostly an emotion, will be actually the same as the other person is currently experiencing. That’s why people often say “I know how you feel” because they actually felt the same feeling through the subconciousnes.

Government can get the similar effect with a ban, without spending a dime. Kids will grow up to be normal people who can actually work, be normal, and pay taxes. Same thing, but cheaper.

Kids aren’t stupid

Well, they ain’t smart either… Even adults know better but still many end up in situations that are preventable if you have just some small amount of rational thinking. Also… you first need to know it yourself, to be able to educate your kids. Most parents didn’t grow up with TikTok nor do they use it themselves. How to educate your kids about dangers you yourself don’t know or understand?

Quite a lot of kids and teenagers have the same reaction to taking away their phone, as addicts have when taking away their drugs. I don’t think education can solve problems that are already affecting peoples mental and physical state. Not giving kids TikTok is same as not giving kids to much sugar. In small doses and controlled yes, but nothing you would give them free unlimited access to.

The government is not wrong tbh. Young people are addicted to social media and scroll endlessly all the time, and I have myself came across, mildly put, disturbing content. I deleted most of my social media and use the bare minimum to only keep up with some remote friends.

I also don’t buy the argument that it’s censoring because it’s just one of many many channels people can freely communicate. TikTok alone does not mean democracy. Also, the same way it can support democracy, so can it be used to demolish it by repeating false claims to make them appear truthful. And if you add AI on top which can generate convincing images and videos of whatever…

Well, there are people who encourage others to add alt text, and there are those who want to force everyone to add alt text. I saw both…

There is also a seemingly toxic side to this, as people call out the ones who do not add alt text to their pictures. While it is helpful and inclusive, it is not a requirement and people who don’t do it (be it unknowingly or otherwise) should not be treated badly or called out for it.

It reminded me of orchestral dubstep, which I like. Maybe something of that genre? https://youtu.be/k3ecg2mahps?t=78

I don’t think that is right. You can’t say it’s illegal for parents to provide for the children.

Staying wealthy is hard because you need to be able to manage money you have. As we can see in the world, quite a small percentage of people can do that. And there are plenty people who earn above average but still can afford under average. Yes, staying wealthy is easy when you know how, but seems that very few do. Also, you need to constantly being on the verge of survival not to be able to save/invest some money and let it compound and get to a decent amount at some point in the future.

Inheritance in wrong hands is just pocket money that will be spent in short time.

I am not from the country that is based on hardcore individualism. People want to build up something they can pass onto their children to have it better in life than their parents.

It’s not illegal. Your money is your money. If you go, you take it with you. If you don’t spend money, there is nothing to tax.

Mark my words, people who will have any social skills in the future will be the next millionaires…

Many issues with that also. First - wealthy people just move their wealth overseas, as most wealth is actually not in physical goods but freely movable virtual papers and money.

Second, if the rule applies to all, it would leave a lot of children without the base which their parents worked their whole life for, as they would probably not afford to pay tax on a house they would inherit.

And third, inheritance doesn’t mean anything really, but how someone can manage it. Being wealthy is easy. Becoming wealthy and staying wealthy is hard. Plenty of kids who destroyed empires their parents built. If the kids can manage the wealth and build upon it, why punish them for having good parents?

Because it’s immoral and it would be dual standards unless you take away from all who “didn’t earn it”, like disabled people or people temporary without jobs. Those also get money for basically existing.

There’s also the problem of incentives, if you encourage taking from those who have, you prevent new people from possibly starting businesses because why should they, if it will basically be taken away from them? Better to be jobless or do some minimal non-useful work and get money for nothing from the wealthy. You just move the problem from A to B but you didn’t solve it.