[flagged]
That "kinda" is important. I didn't have the freedom to just do what I wanted to when I was a young teen. 14-year old me couldn't just take a walk. I'm in my late 40s now - my mother was particularly strict for the time period.
People have children. Some folks really are stuck at home, taking care of someone, with a life peppered with boredom. You know, like parents. Screens have a way of decorating those bits of time and lessening the monotony of it all.
Not to mention the effects of being poor - I'm not even talking outright poverty here. Just a point that you simply have to budget somewhat carefully and don't have a lot of extra money. One of the great things about the internet is the entertainment built right in. You pay for the communication access society and businesses expect from you, you get entertainment as well.
Societal expectations might also keep you in. If you need an app to make sure that your child isn't left out, it might mean that you don't have the same options to simply quit something without harming innocent folks along the way.
Other folks have touched on the addiction bit, so no need to repeat here.
It's easy for you to quit smoking? Good for you. But it's very clearly not the case for most people. Feels to me a bit like saying "it's easy to be rich, you just have to be born in a rich family like me".
This is also called "executive functioning" and it's wholly dependent on your brain chemistry, i.e. the thing that is malfunctioning in addiction.
So yes, they lack "discipline" because discipline is also physiological, it's not just (and maybe not even primarily) a reflection of the person's character. By treating them as separate you're engaging in mind-body dualism.
How is it not black and white? You say "it's easy for everyone", I say "you're wrong".
If I'm right, you're wrong. If you're right, I'm wrong. It can't get more black and white than that.
For you information, nicotine is generally considered a highly addictive substance (see for instance: https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/drugs-a-to-z) Although various people do seem to experience it very differently, and some indeed have reported to me that they feel almost no addiction. From others, I've heard such things as "I've quit smoking 30 years ago, and for 30 years I've been craving for a cigaret". My personnal experience is that it takes a good, dedicated several weeks long effort to quit; I haven't had a lot of addictions in my life but this one was by far the hardest to get rid of. But the effect of nicotine, or lack thereof, are benign, maybe that's why it gives you the impression that it's not very addictive. Turns out, the most addictive substances are not necessarily the ones with the strongest effects.
As to who is lacking discipline, well I guess we would all be better off with more discipline. Including you, who lack the discipline to do the mental work to research a topic you know little about before you comment on it, and most importantly the mental work needed to see things from other's perspective. ;)
Even after I quit I wanted a cigarette every day for a year—the battle was each day, for hundreds of days. At the time I would often dream too that I was smoking — and continued to for another few years.
Even now I think if I were told I had a year to live, I would be tempted to light up again.
It's everyone's own problem of course. But it becomes society's problem when everyone is affected.
A bigger burden are the healthy people who live into their 90s while their bodies slowly decay over the span of decades
smokers pay obscene amount of money in cigarette tax for decades only to die in their 50's or 60's instead of collecting the benefits of having also contributed into social security all their lives. most of them die suddenly from a heart attack or after a short illness.
- kill/cause damages through passive smoke
- can/do cause enormous health bills (my dad struggled on for almost 6 years)
- cleaning up their trash costs money
- set fire to stuff with thrown cigarette butts
- often dont just die and just cant work anymore thus stopping working earlier, create less value in general
I'd love to read up on current studies/research but lots of studies are 10+ years old now but the damages seem to outweigh them not having a retirement.
Screentime is a part of life. You can abstain but you fall behind in some ways.
Screen time is also linked to the pace of technology, advancement, etc. It's unavoidably pushed into our lives.
These seem like two very different issues to me.
Just because something feels like an unavoidable part of life, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true - it could just mean that that giant advertising companies convinced you that it is. I wonder if in a couple decades we’ll look back at screen addiction the same way we look at tobacco now.
Is technology the same? Yes and no...we can totally abstain from tech and live that lifestyle. But then we wouldn't be here discussing this issue at all, or ever.
So while they are both pushed: if you cut out smoking today you can still live a 'normal' life. Cutting out tech is a drastically different life.
I'd rather not discuss what is meant by 'normal' -- I hope you get where I'm coming from.
You’re right that it’d be pretty much impossible to refuse to engage with any modern technology these days (unless you lived in an Amish community or something similar); but obviously there’s a huge difference between responsible use of tech where useful or necessary (and for fun, too, in moderation!), and lying in bed mindlessly scrolling through Tiktok and/or watching cable tv for hours every day - which I see a lot more people doing in the past couple years.
> Its incredibly easy to quit too, people just lack discipline.
Hey, do you want to chat about how when I tried to quit nicotine, I went through 2 weeks of physical and mental hell, how exhausted I felt not being able to sleep more than an hour without waking up, still feeling exhausted, with mental fog so severe that made quitting feel impossible?
It isn't that clear cut either way IME.
I had a big drinking problem. I was the one that choose to start drinking. I was the one chose to stop drinking. Nobody forced me to go to the bar or the off-licence.
I accept for other people it isn't that simple.
> Hey, do you want to chat about how when I tried to quit nicotine, I went through 2 weeks of physical and mental hell, how exhausted I felt not being able to sleep more than an hour without waking up, still feeling exhausted, with mental fog so severe that made quitting feel impossible?
I had similar issues when I quit drink. Sleep was irregular, I went hot and cold for the first month. I had this like weird wave feeling go through me one night (it the only way I can describe it). I think that took like a month or two.
Of course, but that doesn't mean that you had a real choice. What would've happened if you didn't go - physically, psychologically, emotionally? I'm not looking for an answer, it's just worth thinking about.
Are you being forced to eat, drink, breathe? Can you choose not to, and for how long before you can't take it anymore and relent?
It's so easy for people to cast swift moral judgement over other people's "choices", simply because they happen to enjoy a mixture of brain chemicals that is more conducive to behavior that they see as morally righteous, and they assume that everyone else has it as easy as they do - physiologically speaking. You should be careful not to internalize that.
Yes I did. I actually find it very insulting that you would deny me my own agency.
I cured my addiction by simply not buying alcohol and abstaining. That was a choice I could have made at any point in the past.
There are people that can drink responsibly. I am not one of those people. I made the responsible choice as an adult, to abstain from it. I don't miss it either BTW. I feel actually free.
> What would've happened if you didn't go - physically, psychologically, emotionally? I'm not looking for an answer, it's just worth thinking about.
I would have a lot more money, I wouldn't have got into stupid situations, some which I almost got myself killed, I wouldn't have had to spend 5 years rebuilding my career.
> Are you being forced to eat, drink, breathe? Can you choose not to, and for how long before you can't take it anymore and relent?
The comparison you are making here is asinine.
> It's so easy for people to cast swift moral judgement over other people's "choices", simply because they happen to enjoy a mixture of brain chemicals that is more conducive to behavior that they see as morally righteous, and they assume that everyone else has it as easy as they do - physiologically speaking. You should be careful not to internalize that.
The moral judgement is often painted by some as subjective. A lot of the times it can be, but very often it simply isn't. There are good reasons it is correct for people to judge someone poorly because they abuse drugs or alcohol.
It isn't just the fact that they are making different choice that they disapprove of, it is the behaviour and consequences of that behaviour. This behaviour is frequently at best makes the person difficult to deal with, and at worst anti-social and dangerous and can often have dire consequences. That is simply a fact. Those people are correct to judge those people poorly.
I am certainty not dyed in the wool conservative either.
You just don't know what you are talking about tbh.
Sure, maybe some people really do have thyroid problems; but this idea that overweight people are somehow not responsible for their own condition is ridiculous and dangerous.
I had drug and alcohol problems in the past, it was my own choice, and my own choice to get out of that situation.
I smoked, I chose to stop.
I was unfit due to laziness, and I fixed that too.
None of those situations were the result of anything other than personal choice.
Sure they could beat the odds on either issue when get older, but it's tough when you live in a system that works against you. It's good to say individuals should hold themselves accountable and not give up in the face of adversity, but from a macro-level it doesn't help fix the problem. I'd argue the your fault / deal with it attitude on these trends make those problems worse for a population.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood-obesity-facts/childhoo...
You’re not wrong, but I think you’re missing the bigger picture. These are systemic issues, and solving them on an individual level can only go so far.
People are responsible for their own health, but we also live in a world where billions of dollars are spent on marketing and lobbying to get them addicted to junk food and make it the easiest choice. It’s still a choice, but the game is rigged.
“Just decide to stop” may have worked for you - it worked for me, too! - but on a societal level you need societal change. A lot fewer people smoke today than just a couple decades ago - not because everyone has individually somehow built up stronger willpower, but because of legislation that made tobacco harder to market, more expensive, and forbidden in many public spaces.
Although I think that if people notice themselves getting fat they should probably take action for their own sakes anyway, it falls down a bit here with this idea no one has agency..
I am not denying you anything. If you choose to believe in mind-body dualism you're free to do so, but this belief that you have agency which is completely independent of your physiology goes against everything we know about our brains and addiction.
Dualism is what's behind harmful attitudes towards addiction and every other psychological disorder. People use the same exact reasoning to delegitimize depression, ADHD, anxiety, or whatever else they can use to feel superior.
> I am certainty not dyed in the wool conservative either. You just don't know what you are talking about tbh.
Yeah, sure, whatever you say.
You are. No ifs, not buts.
> If you choose to believe in mind-body dualism you're free to do so, but this belief that you have agency which is completely independent of your physiology goes against everything we know about our brains and addiction.
This is classic over-intellectualising that often done by people, often to "win" an argument.
I never denied that the body itself can become dependant on substances and affect choices. That is obvious. The point is that people have their own agency. I had to accept I had an issue and decided to face up reality, everything after that was relatively straight forward IME.
This process took a year, so it wasn't like I woke up one morning and my mind was changed.
> Yeah, sure, whatever you say.
You are trying to latch onto anything to invalidate my point of view on the matter, based on an incorrect preconceptions of my beliefs. Which is unfortunate.
The fact is that moral judgements made by people are often for very good reasons. Even if they can't verbalise them effectively. Rather than dismissing them because you politically disagree with them, it is often worth finding out why they exist.
No, this is well-established scientific understanding of how our body and brain work. Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds. If they didn't, the entire field of psychiatry couldn't exist to treat them.
> I never denied that the body itself can become dependant on substances and affect choices.
This applies to many behaviors that have nothing to do with substance abuse, physical dependence or withdrawals, e.g. those resulting from depression and ADHD.
Yes you are. Ultimately you have to want to quit. That is a decision made by me. That requires my own agency.
From your jab earlier about my apparent "conservationism" (like that would matter at all), you've lost any good will I may of had with you in this discussion.
> Our bodies/brains have extremely strong control over our minds.
Brain / Mind are synonyms for the most. I don't even think you know what you are saying.
> If they didn't, the entire field of psychiatry couldn't exist to treat them.
I think psychiatry can help some people. However it isn't the be all and end all of how deal with addiction or the human condition in general.
> This applies to many behaviors that have nothing to do with substance abuse, physical dependence or withdrawals, e.g. those resulting from depression and ADHD.
Obviously. That doesn't mean that addicts don't have agency.
You know what your lived experience was, that doesn't make you an expert on how addiction works on a physiological level.
> Ultimately you have to want to quit. That is a decision made by me. That requires my own agency.
You're just repeating truisms. Yes of course people have to want to quit, but out of the people who want to quit, most are unable to follow through. They relapse despite fighting like hell inside their own minds.
> From your jab earlier about my apparent "conservationism"
You mean the thing that didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up, unprompted, after repeating the exact ideas I would expect from the group you claimed that you weren't apart of? And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?
That was slightly amusing, yes. I'm sorry you found that offensive.
P.S. I don't know why you accept that you were in full control of your addiction, nor do I care because I'm not trying to take away from your own personal experience. If that makes it easier for you to move forward, I'm genuinely happy for you, but you don't get to use it to lift yourself up and put others down the way you've been doing.
I actually edited out that from my reply because I knew that this would be used this way. Also "lived experience" is such a stupid phrase. Obviously I was alive when this happened.
I am not claiming to be an expert. I am claiming you are over-intellectualising something. This is something that people constantly try to do, with almost everything now. Everything is a condition, every failing someone has can be scientifically explained. I find it nauseating tbh.
> You mean the thing that didn't even cross my mind until you brought it up, unprompted, after repeating the exact ideas I would expect from the group you claimed that you weren't apart of? And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?
1) You brought this up by talking moral judgements of others. So it did cross your mind. So that is a lie. Also I feel extremely guilty about what I did. I should do.
2) I am not part of that group. I specifically said so. What I was trying to explain is that "While I am not one of these and do dogmatically believe it, there some rationale and value behind it".
> And then in the same breath accusing me of not understanding anything about addiction?
I said you didn't know what you was talking with regards to moral judgements. I specifically quoted the piece of text I was responding to. What you wrote was kinda tripe tbh.
> That was slightly amusing, yes. I'm sorry you found that offensive.
What you did was make a jab at me because you assumed I was dogmatically believed in a set of ideas. You seem to be attempting to retcon this now. I don't find it offensive. I find it tiresome. I am not an American, and I am not a conservative.
> I don't know why you accept that you were in full control of your addiction, nor do I care because I'm not trying to take away from your own personal experience.
I am not saying I was in full control of addiction.
I did make a choice to drink. Every-time I bought the alcohol (often while sober) I made a choice, full cognisant of the consequences. It was my own hubris to stopped me from taking the correct course of action sooner. There doesn't need to be a more complex explanation because it is the truth. I don't need to intellectualise it further.
I have seen other people do exactly the same thing as I did.
> but you don't get to use it to lift yourself up and put others down the way you've been doing.
I am not doing either. I have throughout this thread said "this was my mistake, I take full responsibility". I am specifically telling you that I am not better than anyone else and in fact people were correct in judging me poorly due to my own behaviour at the time.
edit: this is like saying rapists aren’t responsible for their crimes because they had a physiological response to seeing someone they found attractive.
Urges of all kinds (never wanted to slap someone and didn’t?) can be overcome with an only a little discipline.
You would know if you ever experienced depression, ADHD, or any other disorder takes away your executive function. I take it you don't consider these to be real disorders?
> Urges of all kinds (never wanted to slap someone and didn’t?) can be overcome with an only a little discipline.
Re: Discipline: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45702667
In all things, generalisation is probably too blunt, but removing the agency from everyone, turning them into victims of their own brain chemistry and advancing the narrative that they can’t possibly change their situation does them far more harm than good.
Even depression, there are things which you can do to overcome it. I’m not saying it’s easy, but you seem to be arguing it’s impossible.
The problem is that dualists (like the person I originally responded to) assume that willpower is separate from physiology, therefore what's easy for them should be easy for others, and therefore if others can't achieve the same things they are achieving then they must be lazy, lack discipline, and don't deserve additional help or compassion.
These sorts of ignorant beliefs then shape policy and make it harder for people to get help to deal with their problems, perpetuating the cycle, for example the rather famous failure of "the war on drugs". That's the only thing I'm arguing - that people need to accept that addiction is a complex and individual health problem and to start treating it as such, it's the only way we're going to move forward.
The way people judge "effort" and "difficulty" is broken, that's part of the problem. Whether you have or lack discipline is judged by the outcome, not by the effort that person made because the effort is invisible to the outside world.
Person A quits smoking (with 1 unit of effort), therefore they have "discipline"
Person B fails to quit smoking (with 10 units of effort), therefore they're judged to "lack discipline".
The problem is with your attempt to grade difficulty here. I dont think, outside of some outliers that are statically insignificant (e.g someone who can kick heroin with no problems or whatever) that the difficulty of getting in shape or quitting smoking is higher for some people than others. It's really difficult for everyone.
I think discipline is probably the wrong term, I guess drive may come closer, but whatever you want to call it, it's a function of your will to change and its a stronger force than any addiction -- clearly, or no one would ever beat any addictions.
This idea of grading and judging people on their 'difficult units' is nonsense, and pushing that as an excuse for people to be helpless is a really harmful narrative to put out there.
Okay, but where do you think that discipline comes from? Is it an inherent quality that a person is born with? I’d argue that it’s not, and it’s something that needs to be learned and exercised. Many people didn’t get the opportunity to learn it (yet?), and I don’t believe it makes them somehow inferior.
Alcohol doesn’t affect me much personally, so I’ve never understood why anyone would start drinking in the first place. But that’s where I would argue that addictions are less of a choice and more circumstantial.
After I quit drinking alcohol. I used to have a 4 pack of these 0% Ales/Larger that was supposed to taste similar. The packaging differs from the regular beer in that it has a silver top instead of dark blue on this particular. I picked up the alcoholic ones inadvertently as they were in the wrong place on the shelf.
When I took a sip, I thought it had gone off. It tasted terrible, like poison! Obviously once I checked the can, I realised my mistake. I gave them to my rest of the pack to one of my neighbours I think.