343
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 3 days ago

Is comparing social media to a dangerous drug over the top? Not according to the U.S. Surgeon General’s office, which in 2023 released an advisory titled “Social Media and Youth Mental Health” (download it now before RFK Jr. suppresses it!), which summarized extensive evidence of mental health damage to children and adolescents who consume excessive amounts of social media.

Okay, that comparison's still wayyyy over-the-top.

[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 58 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I read the first paragraph of this article and I already think it sucks. If heroin was fully legalized, zero restrictions, we’d be much better off than the current situation we have right now with the war on drugs, fentanyl analogs, and xylazine. Full stop.

Second paragraph:

Heroin distribution and sales would quickly become a huge, multibillion-dollar industry. They would become a significant part of GDP, even though heroin harms and often kills those who consume it. Given the increasingly naked corruption of U.S. politics, the heroin industry would be able to purchase massive political influence, enough to block any attempts to limit the harm it does — the harm it knows it does, because heroin industry executives would surely be aware of the damage their products inflict.

This is already happening. Who is this author and why is he so ignorant of the past few decades of opiate problems in the US? There is not a significant fundamental difference between heroin and any other opiate/opioid. I say this as someone who has experimented with many types of them.

Based on this I’m not gonna read the rest of the article because he’s already demonstrated a head-up-ass perspective.

[-] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago

Paul Krugman is a nobel-prize winning economist who used to have a column in the NY Times. He has a relatively impressive record of predicting terrible things.

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

And while I certainly don't want to push back on the difference between heroin and other opium derivatives, it's worth noting that legally speaking they're both exactly as illegal when not used as prescribed for the treatment of pain or disease.

It's not a blog post about heroin or opiates, though, so quibbling over the imperfections of his analogy is kinda missing the point. Please give it another read if you have a few minutes; the analogy is fairly apt, though very depressing as an American.

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Paul Krugman is a nobel-prize winning economist who used to have a column in the NY Times.

Aka totally discredited.

The "nobel in econ" is as much of a fraud as econ in general.

Anybody who knows this goofball knows not to listen to his crap.

[-] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

An ad hominum attack and a distinction without a difference is a hell of a response to "who is this guy".

Do you want to show the class where on your wallet the Keynesian model of economics touched you? (Or do you perhaps have a "Krugman sucks and you shouldn't listen to him" link you'd like to share?)

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Since you went for an Appeal to Authority as the very first paragraph of your comment, a response that trashes that person's authoritative credentials is logic in the very context you created and thus not an Ad Hominum.

Without that first paragraph on your post you would've been right to claim Ad Hominum.

[-] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

You didnt attack any of his actual credentials, though. You just said that he should be dismissed because he wrote for a particular newspaper and the award he was given by the Swiss government was not one of the awards given by the Swiss government funded by the gift of a 19th century arms merchant.

If you want to rebut my statement that Krugman "has a pretty good track record", please do so! But you didn't, and haven't, and instead asserted your own biases as fact.

Which is obviously your right to do but, again, is a really weird response to a "who is this guy" post.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Mate, I'm not the person who answered your original comment.

I just saw you making claims about somebody else making fallacious statements when in fact it was you who started with a big fat fallacy and then bitched and moaned about how they were the ones being fallacious when somebody else countered it by pointing out that at least one of the points of "evidence" that you yourself presented for Mr. Krugman's "pretty good track record" (whatever the fuck such vague and ill-defined expression means) was in fact a Swedish Central Bank Prize For Economics In Honor Of Alfred Nobel, which is commonly misportrayed as a genuine Nobel Prize - even by Krugman himself - when it is no such thing.

Of all the things to use to claim somebody has a "pretty good track record", him having something he himself calls a Nobel Prize which is not in fact a Nobel Prize actually weakens that point rather than strengthens it, as it casts suspicion on his honesty.

As it so happens for a while I had a lot of exposure to Mr. Krugman's opinions - on and after the 2008 Crash, when I in fact worked in the same Industry as he did - and in my opinion he was often full of shit and all over the place, at least back then, and a pretty good illustration of the caricatural Economist "who has predicted 10 of the last 2 downturns". One could say that he likes to throw shit at the wall, wait to see what sticks and then claim he was a genius for spotting it.

I'll repeat myself: had you not started with an Appeal To Authority in your original post and absent all those words of praise for the person making that point, just let the logic of the point speak for itself, you would have been better off.

[-] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

A mere casual endorsement is not an appeal to authority. If you don't like the guy that's fine, but it's not a logical fallacy to, for example, describe a late night comedian as "a kinda funny guy.". (A logical fallacy would require that someone assume Krugman is RIGHT because of his record, not that he's merely worth reading )

How is dismissing someone because of where they worked NOT an ad hominem attack?

How is splitting hairs over which awards given by the swedish government are and aren't "nobel prizes" NOT a distinction without a difference?

[-] Devial@discuss.online 20 points 3 weeks ago

Has this dude never heard of the tobacco, alcohol or gun Industry ?

He's talking about commercial heroin like it's some outlandish and unthinkable idea that a harmful thing would become a billion dollar industry

[-] pdxfed@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

He's deliberately making the point accessible because he's writing for all levels of readers, including Americans.

He won the nobel prize for economics and was one of the few sane voices during the great recession.

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

He won the nobel prize for economics and was one of the few sane voices during the great recession.

There is no nobel prize for economics. It's an even phonier prize made up by bankers. Even if there were an actual nobel, that's no reason for believing anybody's opinions far outside their realm of expertise (eg. krugman here).

More importantly krugman has been consistently liberal trash since forever.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

If heroin was fully legalized, zero restrictions, we’d be much better off than the current situation we have right now with the war on drugs, fentanyl analogs, and xylazine. Full stop.

If we hadn't invaded Afghanistan and started importing heroin in bulk through Ahmed Wali Karzai's mafia connections, we wouldn't have tons of cheap heroin to hook people to begin with. Also, we did have fully legalized (functionally) zero restrictions opioids, back under Bush Jr.

That's what Oxycotin was.

If you want to describe the US as a criminal nacro-state, you can start at the Florida pill-mills that flooded the country with hundreds of billions of dollars in highly addictive prescription drugs and made the Sackler Family some of the wealthiest people on the planet.

Based on this I’m not gonna read the rest of the article

[-] ijon_the_human@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Who is this author and why is he so ignorant of the past few decades of opiate problems in the US?

The author is Paul Krugman, a little known economist, writes for the papers I think.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 weeks ago

Sorry if I'm getting whooshed, but Krugman is an infamous economist. He takes really big swings and is sometimes incredibly wrong.

[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

I’ve heard the name before but I’m not super tuned into this area. The analogy just really struck out for me in the first two paragraphs, monumentally so. If he writes with this amount of conviction about something he clearly has no idea about, I’m not likely to trust anything else that he writes in the same article. It’s important to know your limitations.

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago

Another shill for the NYTimes... Check their op/ed pages. Full of worthless libs saying dumb shit.

[-] Fredthefishlord 3 points 3 weeks ago

Freely available heroin is not a good thing. Drug addiction would get significantly worse. Decriminalize possession, criminalize distribution. That's a more balanced approach

[-] demonsword@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Freely available heroin is not a good thing. Drug addiction would get significantly worse.

same thing was argued about cannabis and there was no explosion of addiction predicted by the puritanist false Cassandras.

[-] Fredthefishlord 2 points 3 weeks ago

That's because Cannabis is not a substance with a strong chemical addiction. There has been a significant increase in cannabis usage. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/ss/ss6511a1.htm

Strictly, Cannabis isn't really any worse than alcohol.

Heroin is far worse. Drugs are addictive, and when available legally it will encourage more people to try them.

[-] prole 2 points 3 weeks ago

They weren't saying it was a good thing, just that it would be better than what we have. Which is true.

[-] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah because the tobacco, pain reliever, and social media industries clearly show how great and non predatory totally legal heroin would be.

[-] zebidiah@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

Sackler heroin? ... Only if Bayer gives up the patent!

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Krugman is a worthless hack. Sensational headline with implicit endorsement of prohibition is a prime example.

Edit about the "nobel": Everybody who's talking about this "nobel prize". There is no nobel prize in econ. It's a phony award made up by bankers. That's how pathetic the pseudo-science of economics is. They need to make up their own fake awards for relevancy. So please don't tout the phony awards of this pseudo-scientists. I could make up an award for flat earthers but that wouldn't legitimize flat earthism.

(And even if there were a nobel for econ... Who cares about awards if the underlying "science" is still trash?)

[-] willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Here's one of the best traders talking about the same issue:

https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=bMK8ct6ybjQ&t=1918

It's eloquent and funny at the same time.

I included a timestamp to jump (almost) directly to the most relevant bit (also 33m, but 31m sets up a better context for an extra 2min of time compared to going directly to the 33m mark). But the whole video is worth watching.

Yes, Krugman is a hack.

[-] cyberwolfie@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

Being one of the best paid traders in the world does not necessarily qualify you to advise the government... There are plenty of morons who (for some time) are able to make a killing as a trader due to taking excessive risks and being sufficiently lucky for some stretch of time.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

So it would be OK to hit the suppliers with bombs like the US does in South America?

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Only if they attack unrelated people that the racist orange rapist doesn't like.

[-] Suoko@feddit.it 6 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not sure heroine is the right sample, I know digital products cause addiction like heroine, maybe cocaine would be more realistic when talking about possible increase in GDP, with all that heroin around the US population would be wiped out in a couple of gen

[-] lmr0x61@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

Damn Paul, from downtown!

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

As well as just your average narco state. We love our drugs

[-] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 2 points 3 weeks ago

Seems like the Opium Wars all over again.

this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
343 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

78305 readers
4254 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS