Media Influence, Stereotypes, And RL/SL Comparisons

[Chris Corvinus]

On 10/1/2021 at 10:52 PM, xLunaea said:

And I just want to say, smoking overall is not a good thing. A better stress/depressant-reliever is G Y M, and always will be.

If you exercise almost every day that you can, you will be rewarding yourself for the rest of your life.

Finally something I can agree with from you.

[Arielle Popstar]

16 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well I'd rather they live longer and get a chance to fulfill their 'bucket list' or see their child/grandchild grow up, hopefully dying in old age of natural causes we have no control over.

"Preventable causes of death are causes of death related to risk factors which could have been avoided"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death

There is quite a list of addictive substances which will kill people faster than smoking. Alcohol, drugs legal or not, sugar, etc, affect both the quantity and quality of life more significantly than tobacco or the nicotine within it. Even to the degree that tobacco has a negative impact on health can be attributed to the curing methods employed by some of the tobacco companies, where they flu cure the tobacco quickly leaving a high sugar content within the leaves and it is this sugar which has the major impact on health.

If you are so bent on a crusade, try sugar which has a much higher impact on health for the general populace than nicotine does.

In a study published in 2014 in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Hu and his colleagues found an association between a high-sugar diet and a greater risk of dying from heart disease. Over the course of the 15-year study, people who got 17% to 21% of their calories from added sugar had a 38% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared with those who consumed 8% of their calories as added sugar.

Crazy thing is that most don't realize how utterly addicted they are to sugar, especially here in North America but I suppose again in a free democratic society it is My Body, My Choice.

[Finite]

25 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

There is quite a list of addictive substances which will kill people faster than smoking. Alcohol, drugs legal or not, sugar, etc, affect both the quantity and quality of life more significantly than tobacco or the nicotine within it. Even to the degree that tobacco has a negative impact on health can be attributed to the curing methods employed by some of the tobacco companies, where they flu cure the tobacco quickly leaving a high sugar content within the leaves and it is this sugar which has the major impact on health.

If you are so bent on a crusade, try sugar which has a much higher impact on health for the general populace than nicotine does.

In a study published in 2014 in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Hu and his colleagues found an association between a high-sugar diet and a greater risk of dying from heart disease. Over the course of the 15-year study, people who got 17% to 21% of their calories from added sugar had a 38% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared with those who consumed 8% of their calories as added sugar.

Crazy thing is that most don't realize how utterly addicted they are to sugar, especially here in North America but I suppose again in a free democratic society it is My Body, My Choice.

Smoking can be attributed to 3 of the top 4 causes of death in the US. Not that I am siding with anyone here. To each their own. A friend of mine who smokes has a good line whenever someone tells him "smoking is bad for your health".. He just responds "So is not minding your own business"...

Edited October 4, 2021 by Finite

[Mr Amore]

For those who've been following the 'Facebook is bad for girls' revelations, the actual whistleblower will attend a hearing tomorrow.

Far be it for me to defend Facebook, but people have always had insecurities. Before social media, we were blaming a rise in anorexia and bulimia on teenage magazines and fashion models. Decades later it's still the same issue with the blame thrown onto a topical target. Will pointing fingers at Facebook help the children? I doubt it.

Is there a responsibility on media giants to engineer public opinion? It already happens, but for their own ends.

 

Quote

Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

Some of America’s most prominent companies, including Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Disney, are backing business groups that are fighting landmark climate legislation, despite their own promises to combat the climate crisis, a new analysis has found.

A clutch of corporate lobby groups and organizations have mobilized to oppose the proposed $3.5tn budget bill put forward by Democrats, which contains unprecedented measures to drive down planet-heating gases. The reconciliation bill has been called the “the most significant climate action in our country’s history” by Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the US Senate.

Most large US corporations have expressed concern over the climate crisis or announced their own goals to cut greenhouse gases. Jeff Bezos, one of the world’s richest people, has said that the climate crisis is the “biggest threat to our planet” and the company he founded, Amazon, has created a pledge for businesses to cut their emissions to net zero by 2040. Microsoft has promised to be “carbon negative” within a decade from now and Disney is aiming to use only renewable-sourced electricity within the same timeframe.

But these leading companies, and others, either support or actively steer the very lobby groups that are attempting to sink the bill that carries the weight of Joe Biden’s ambitions to tackle the climate crisis, threatening one of the last major legislative efforts that will help decide whether parts of the world plunge into a new, barely livable climatic state.

“Major corporations love to tell us how committed they are to addressing the climate crisis and building a sustainable future, but behind closed doors, they are funding the very industry trade groups that are fighting tooth and nail to stop the biggest climate change bill ever,” said Kyle Herrig, president of watchdog group Accountable.US, which compiled the analysis.

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

19 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The tigers. Can you imagine me on drugs? There are already more than enough people who do.

Dear gods, you would find even more new and unusual ways to set people on fire.

[Elysienne Nebula]

On 9/30/2021 at 8:55 AM, Luna Bliss said:

I think it's good they removed smoking ads in the U.S.  How harmful does something have to be, or what factors should influence decisions, before society sanctions removal of ads and depictions?  For example, in SL we are allowed to depict smoking but not swastikas (at least I don't think we can depict the latter).  What makes the difference?

The difference between depicting smoking and a swastika?

The latter is an expression of support for a genocide that killed 12 million people (6 million of whom were Jewish).

The former is a depiction of something that used to be widely popular in most Western countries. It has health risks to be sure but the act or depiction of the act of smoking doesn't in any way imply support for one of the worst genocides in human history. 

[Luna Bliss]

3 hours ago, Elysienne Nebula said:

On 9/30/2021 at 8:55 AM, Luna Bliss said:

I think it's good they removed smoking ads in the U.S.  How harmful does something have to be, or what factors should influence decisions, before society sanctions removal of ads and depictions?  For example, in SL we are allowed to depict smoking but not swastikas (at least I don't think we can depict the latter).  What makes the difference?

The difference between depicting smoking and a swastika?

The latter is an expression of support for a genocide that killed 12 million people (6 million of whom were Jewish).

The former is a depiction of something that used to be widely popular in most Western countries. It has health risks to be sure but the act or depiction of the act of smoking doesn't in any way imply support for one of the worst genocides in human history. 

Well of course "the act of smoking doesn't in any way imply support for one of the worst genocides in human history".
I'm not pushing for any kind of equivalency between smoking and swastikas in the least. I'm asking for the reasons why, when society deems anything as harmful, we attempt to limit public exposure to that the substance or ideology in various media presentations.

I don't think your argument that the Holocaust harmed more people holds up as the reason, or your assertion that smoking just has "health risks", as smoking has actually killed far more people than the holocaust -- smoking causes 8 million people worldwide to die each year.

So, if we've established it's not necessarily degree of harm that causes society to limit public exposure in media presentations, what is it?
There are no doubt many factors (beyond the obvious one of genocide being so abhorrent), and that's what I'd like to explore.

One factor off the top of my head is that when we decide the harm is created by one's own volition, one's own choice, we are less critical of it and so allow its expression to a greater degree. Our sense of 'the rights of the individual' and their choices come into play with smoking whereas genocide is not the fault of the individual who suffered the harm and so we easily deem it as much worse and exercise more control. This is somewhat mitigated when children are taken into account (harm done to those who don't have the ability to choose) and issues deemed to harm those around the person exercising their personal freedom (second hand smoke, for example).

[Nick0678]

Regardless .. Comandante Che Guevara always enjoyed his cigars.

 

 

[Luna Bliss]

4 hours ago, Mr Amore said:

For those who've been following the 'Facebook is bad for girls' revelations, the actual whistleblower will attend a hearing tomorrow.

Far be it for me to defend Facebook, but people have always had insecurities. Before social media, we were blaming a rise in anorexia and bulimia on teenage magazines and fashion models. Decades later it's still the same issue with the blame thrown onto a topical target. Will pointing fingers at Facebook help the children? I doubt it.

Is there a responsibility on media giants to engineer public opinion? It already happens, but for their own ends.

I haven't followed this particular issue, but I do believe social media causes more harm than magazines and fashion models. Intensification occurs when friends are present and we personally interact with the media.

So, I do believe we should exert greater control over it when it is deemed to be especially harmful, especially for children.  Not sure how to go about that though.

[Luna Bliss]

8 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

On 10/3/2021 at 9:06 AM, Luna Bliss said:

Well I'd rather they live longer and get a chance to fulfill their 'bucket list' or see their child/grandchild grow up, hopefully dying in old age of natural causes we have no control over.

"Preventable causes of death are causes of death related to risk factors which could have been avoided"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death

There is quite a list of addictive substances which will kill people faster than smoking. Alcohol, drugs legal or not, sugar, etc, affect both the quantity and quality of life more significantly than tobacco or the nicotine within it. Even to the degree that tobacco has a negative impact on health can be attributed to the curing methods employed by some of the tobacco companies, where they flu cure the tobacco quickly leaving a high sugar content within the leaves and it is this sugar which has the major impact on health.

If you are so bent on a crusade, try sugar which has a much higher impact on health for the general populace than nicotine does.

In a study published in 2014 in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Hu and his colleagues found an association between a high-sugar diet and a greater risk of dying from heart disease. Over the course of the 15-year study, people who got 17% to 21% of their calories from added sugar had a 38% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared with those who consumed 8% of their calories as added sugar.

Crazy thing is that most don't realize how utterly addicted they are to sugar, especially here in North America but I suppose again in a free democratic society it is My Body, My Choice.

Certainly there's a long list of addictive substances which will kill people, and all of them are worthy of discussion (and on-topic as I did not specify in the topic line any particular substance although smoking was the initial subject being discussed and the spark of this thread).

However, the awareness of these other addictive substances, even if one of them killed 10 times the amount of people, does not remove the reality that smoking kills a lot of people way before their time -- nearly half a million yearly in the U.S. and 8 million yearly worldwide.
If we try to downplay this horrific reality by stressing other dangers this is merely a form of whataboutism, and that is simply a means to deflect a reality we don't want to accept (whataboutism - the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue).

For some reason you seem to want to downplay the dangers, as you've repeatedly attempted to portray positive aspects to smoking earlier in this thread and even assumed the position of 'we all have to die from something'. This last attempt seeks to downplay the dangers via making known all the other addictive substances which harm us. And labeling the control of smoking images as a "crusade" instead of a valid public health measure to protect people seems to be yet another ploy to achieve your goals.

Are you debating this issue from the position of a smoker, or from the position of believing individuals should have ultimate freedom and never be restricted in any way?

[Ceka Cianci]

7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I haven't followed this particular issue, but I do believe social media causes more harm than magazines and fashion models. Intensification occurs when friends are present and we personally interact with the media.

So, I do believe we should exert greater control over it when it is deemed to be especially harmful, especially for children.  Not sure how to go about that though.

I can tell ya how..

Don't let them have a phone until they are old enough to be responsible enough on one..

My boys still don't have cell phones and the computers we do have, they need permission to get on..

kids in school shouldn't be having phones in school.

Did they even let you have calculators when you were in school? hehehehe

[Luna Bliss]

7 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

17 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I haven't followed this particular issue, but I do believe social media causes more harm than magazines and fashion models. Intensification occurs when friends are present and we personally interact with the media.

So, I do believe we should exert greater control over it when it is deemed to be especially harmful, especially for children.  Not sure how to go about that though.

Expand  

I can tell ya how..

Don't let them have a phone until they are old enough to be responsible enough on one..

My boys still don't have cell phones and the computers we do have, they need permission to get on..

kids in school shouldn't be having phones in school.

Did they even let you have calculators when you were in school? hehehehe

It's too bad other children can't have the intelligent and watchful parent that you are.

[Ceka Cianci]

7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's too bad other children can't have the intelligent and watchful parent that you are.

The thing is, 95% of all u.s. citizens have phones.. I remember hearing that number like 5 years ago or so..

You wouldn't believe the adults that I have to tell ,every single night, Get off your phone and back to work..

Now, they posted up that they can lose their job if they get caught.. So it's a matter of time before adults at my work start losing their jobs because of a stupid phone they are addicted to..

I think the way the internet has taken over society today compared to less than 10 years ago, is a pitiful shame.

I remember when most people didn't even know what it was.. Now most walk all sure footed in it like there are no repercussions for their actions..

I'm not looking forward to what 10 years from now will look like if we keep getting so lazy with the upbringing of our children.

In my eyes that's all it is.. letting tech be the babysitter.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Ceka Cianci

[Silent Mistwalker]

24 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Did they even let you have calculators when you were in school? hehehehe

It was required once you got into high school depending on what math courses you took back in the 70s. Grandkids are still in grammar school so I don't know if that is still true.

[Ceka Cianci]

1 minute ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

It was required once you got into high school depending on what math courses you took back in the 70s. Grandkids are still in grammar school so I don't know if that is still true.

They have them bringing them in at grade school levels now..

Ever since they started teaching them to pass tests rather than actually learn learn, they've had them bringing in calculators in grade school..

But yea, High school I remember having to have them..

[Silent Mistwalker]

4 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

They have them bringing them in at grade school levels now..

Ever since they started teaching them to pass tests rather than actually learn learn, they've had them bringing in calculators in grade school..

But yea, High school I remember having to have them..

No wonder the grandkids don't like doing homework at my house. They have to actually learn! 🤫

[Orwar]

3 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Did they even let you have calculators when you were in school? hehehehe

   We were allowed them, school even provided them. But if you needed one, you had to walk up to the teacher's desk to fetch one so that everyone in class could watch you and judge you .. They weren't too bothered with whether we used them, as long as we got the answer correctly and that we reached that answer in the correct manner (i.e. arranged it correctly). But then they'd also made us learn the multiplication tables of 1-9 by rote in first grade (and how to do them backwards for division), and since that's basically all you then use after arranging a math problem, and had to do every step of every arrangement, calculator or no calculator wasn't really an issue.

   Personally I never used one, using a pen and paper is a much less chaotic process for me. Even when we were learning about square roots I preferred the analogue method .. Although I have since discovered that using a phone to just hit that one button is pretty nifty (but we also just had a donation of random old books in the workshop, and even if I showed up a day late when everyone else had taken what they wanted, I found the best thing ever - a chart of every square root from 1-999! Also a 1920's German book about new technological innovations, and a 300-something-page dissertation on the industrial production of paper. I couldn't believe no one else snatched that!).

[Sammy Huntsman]

I mean I don't think media influenced most of us to smoke, I think it is the combination of seeing our parents smoking and having to contend with second hand smoke, that attributed to the addiction. That and Asthma. 

[Nick0678]

10 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I mean I don't think media influenced most of us to smoke, I think it is the combination of seeing our parents smoking and having to contend with second hand smoke, that attributed to the addiction. That and Asthma. 

My first girlfriend influenced me.. I was just a boy (16) and she was experienced, so every time after having smex we shared a cigarette,, (That started the downfall for me.. .)

[Paul Hexem]

On 10/4/2021 at 8:16 AM, Elysienne Nebula said:

The difference between depicting smoking and a swastika?

The latter is an expression of support for a genocide that killed 12 million people (6 million of whom were Jewish).

The former is a depiction of something that used to be widely popular in most Western countries. It has health risks to be sure but the act or depiction of the act of smoking doesn't in any way imply support for one of the worst genocides in human history. 

Worth considering: Agreeing with evil or illegal activity is 100% legal, Constitutionally protected behavior, in the US. Where Linden Lab is. While they're alliwed to ban whatever they want on their platform, it's still totally legal for that person to do it, and does not harm anyone.

Only when they engage in the activity does it become illegal, because that does harm people.

Personally I think anyone should be allowed to fly whatever flags and say whatever stupid things they want, provided they don't directly harm anyone.

It's like wearing a sign that says "Hi, I'm an idiot. Please avoid me." Saves all sorts of time and hassle.

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

On 10/4/2021 at 3:17 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

There is quite a list of addictive substances which will kill people faster than smoking.

A careless smoker can kill a few hundred people in an evening.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000807064005.htm

Edited October 6, 2021 by Theresa Tennyson

[Kathlen Onyx]

4 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

A careless smoker can kill a few hundred people in an evening.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000807064005.htm

You could say the same for pot smokers but people seem to advocate for that.

[Theresa Tennyson]

Just now, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

You could say the same for pot smokers but people seem to advocate for that.

How many times a day does the average pot smoker light up, and where, versus the average cigarette smoker?

[Nick0678]

6 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

A careless smoker can kill a few hundred people in an evening.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000807064005.htm

Ahhh.  yes that over there is exactly the reason why after 25 years of smoking i decided to quit. I can't afford to take such an enormous risk and be called a murderer in case my cigarette starts a fire. Nope. No more smoking from now on.

[Kathlen Onyx]

3 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

How many times a day does the average pot smoker light up, and where, versus the average cigarette smoker?

In the case of my ex....as much as smoking