Ryick @ Ryick @lemm.ee Posts 0Comments 6Joined 2 wk. ago
it is one of the few things I can see people actually pointing at when saying TikTok is bad
Yes, and this article reinforces that idea, regardless of whether or not TikTok = bad is correct, which is my point.
If it had happened on Friendster; then it would have been because of the specific user(s) creating and posting such content, not because of the platform. To say platform = bad because a user or users post negatively affecting content is a sweeping generalization which does not reflect reality, meaning that the negative connotation of TikTok = bad is still incorrect. The users which created and posted such content, in this case, are to blame.
If students see such content on social media; then the first thought should not be: platform bad; it should be: who posted it, and for what reason(s).
You can replace TikTok with any social media platform. That’s why this argument is illogical in that it blames TikTok.
If this were an unbiased and honest article; then it would read “Kids are short-circuiting their school-issued Chromebooks for social clout.” The subtle message, in this article, is TikTok = bad, which is illogical because events such as this will occur regardless of platform or even lack of a platform. It will ALWAYS happen. The question is how to mitigate these events as much as possible, because it’s impossible to completely eradicate “kids doing X for social clout.” It’s a part of learning and being human.
If the imprisonment of innocent people becomes anything other than rare, or if innocent people are being exiled or killed, then that implies logical analysis is not being followed or even considered but, instead, replaced with an immature and short-sighted subjective reality, meaning all else has already failed.
I wouldn’t confuse tolerance and ability to reason with weakness. Picking up an AR15 is just a last resort when, literally, all else fails, not a first resort.