• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 26th, 2026

help-circle
  • Is there any justification in folks selling crap unhealthy junk food? It has any number of ingredients that are harmful to humans short and long term. It is addicting and habit forming. The health consequences on a macro level hurt society.

    There are any number of sometimes pleasurable but undeniably harmful things sold for a profit. I’m not saying I think gambling should be legal, but I am pointing out that it’s a slippery slope re: what crosses the line?

    I don’t spend money on gambling but I do sometimes spend money on other things I know are bad for me. Is the answer to outlaw unhealthy things?

    It’s not just the capitalists that want to make money - there are people who WANT to gamble. Make it illegal it will still happen - just without regulation. Prohibition didn’t work.


  • They for sure create targeted advertising towards likely repeat-spend customers. Big box liquor stores I’m sure use algorithms to encourage repeat purchases.

    Again - not defending predatory gambling sites at all - just aware that almost every business model is about targeting big spenders and getting them to spend more. Example: micro transactions in gaming.

    “Everyone does it” doesn’t make it ok, but if we don’t like that gambling sites care more about profit than the wellbeing of users? Certainly they are not alone in that.


  • I mean gambling is shitty but we don’t hold folks that make alcohol responsible for folks getting addicted to alcohol.

    I’m not familiar with legal gambling, but theoretically there is a percentage of users that partake casually for fun - yes? And others who get addicted. Same with booze.

    Obviously the overall experience of gambling is more predatory/distasteful, but I’m not sure that means they should be legally responsible for the folks who get addicted. If the booze makers and sellers are not responsible for providing a potentially addictive product, why are they?




  • Kid leadership structure brings out the best in the older kids - often folks will rise to what you expect of them. Expect them to have good ideas, to be kind, to be inclusive and compassionate, to give you honest feedback, to be willing to take feedback themselves. Acknowledge and appreciate their struggles and their growth. It means so so much to get feedback from adults who aren’t your parents at that age!

    Good kid leadership makes it cool to be inclusive = healthy group. If insecurity creates cliques and social hierarchy = not safe. Kids might admire and respect you, but what is “cool” will be decided by their peers… so you pretty sincerely will need help and advice from the older kids to keep the group healthy.

    And don’t forget they aren’t just emotional / spiritual / intellectual - kids have bodies. Bring them outside. Play silly physical cooperative non-competitive games. Once they have had exciting shared physical experiences they will be that much more able to engage with each other on deeper levels.

    It was very formative for me to be part of those groups. I deeply appreciate the people who make those experiences available - especially folks like you who are earnestly trying to do it well! 🙂

    One group I was in would regularly do a white board list of “what is good / appreciate” and “what we can do better / want more or less of”. It was a very positive and egalitarian way for kids to give feedback to leadership as well as to each other. Felt great to anyone who was publicly appreciated and very positive modeling for being open to feedback / valuing improvement. Gave us a real sense of ownership. It wasn’t just the adult leaders making a program for us - it was us helping each other create a group that we wanted to be part of.


  • I went to Christian youth groups/retreats for three different churches when I was a early teen and loved them all. They had these things in common

    • run by kind young adults that I admired and connected with easily
    • created safe spaces for awkward age kids to connect with each other
    • had an outdoor / trip component
    • explored values and exposed us to stories/ideas without being heavy handed or judgmental
    • also pizza 🍕

    Basically they were set up to help and support us, not to judge or control. They taught kindness by example and helped us learn how to be kind to each other.

    Questioning / doubting / being confused was seen a way to grow faith - not as a sin or a threat. They let kids talk to each other as we figured out for ourselves what we believed. They shared candidly appropriate stories about their own journeys.

    Thank you for wanting to give kids a good experience! Obviously there are folks in the catholic faith who have abused power in the past. Parents will associate you with that so taking safety seriously and encouraging parents to ask questions = important.

    It takes time to build up a good community of kids - but once you have it they recruit each other. One of the most effective things you can do is invest in recruiting and training a “jr counselor” kid leadership structure. Having good kids that are a year or two older than you to look up to is really powerful- and older kids who accept responsibility for reaching out to new kids helps create a safe space.

    Have in-jokes. Be active. Be silly. Go outside. Kids are so creative and amazing- follow their lead wherever you can.


  • Right. They MEANT “if you mention Claude I don’t trust anything else you said”.

    They just didn’t SAY that.

    I’m not a fan of AI and don’t use it - however I can’t say I have found humans to be particularly clear, accurate or reliable either. Myself included… we all make mistakes. 🙂




  • pidgey@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world•Don't paste the AI.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    Judging or dismissing a PERSON for using tools you don’t respect = valid.

    Saying you “invalidate” content that is “properly researched and legitimately correct” = what?

    I mean most people have no idea how to “properly research” - this has been true for centuries - sloppy research is not a new phenomenon. If something was “properly researched” why would you reject it?