More than 15% of teens say they're on YouTube or TikTok ‘almost constantly’
www.cnbc.com
A new Pew Research Center study finds that more than 15% of teens say they're on YouTube or TikTok "almost constantly."

More than 15% of teens say they’re on YouTube or TikTok ‘almost constantly’::A new Pew Research Center study finds that more than 15% of teens say they’re on YouTube or TikTok “almost constantly.”

        • McKee@lemmy.worldEnglish
          25·
          11 months ago

          As long as he sticks to subjects he clearly understands. Everytime I’ve read or watched one of his take on veganism/anti-specism I was left dumbfounded and ashamed for him.

            • McKee@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              11 months ago

              There was a chapter in his book “Starry Messenger” dedicated to this subject. I unfortunately cannot reproduce the entire chapter here. However, here is a video essay on it that you can watch if you’re interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbXw13Npvlg (25min)

              One of his dumbest argument imho was trying to claim that vegans were specist towards plants, even though no scientific existence of sentience in plants exist which is the moral criteria used in most anti-specist philosophy. I will add that even if plants were all found to be sentient, we’d still kill less sentient beings by eating them directly rather than feeding them to non-human animals and then killing them.

              Here is another video of him talking about this very chapter for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9HrMdNEKPA (6min). I think this shows a complete misunderstanding of what veganism and anti-specism is about. To me it seems like he does not even consider the sentience of the animals and considers them as machines. He also seems to straw man the position to “vegans want to protect life”.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                5·
                11 months ago

                vegans were specist towards plants

                they are. they’ve identified a whole group of species and decided to treat them differently.

                • McKee@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  3·
                  11 months ago

                  Again that’s a misunderstanding of the position. The discriminatory criteria is sentience. If a plant was found to be sentient, this plant would be included in the moral circle. You can make the same argument for things we consider animals but lack all of what we currently consider needed for sentience. An example would be a sea sponge. I personally do not include a sea sponge in my moral circle and I do not think they have any sentience even though they are considered animals. I would also consider someone that says sea sponge should be included in our moral circle just because they are part of the animal kingdom to be quite dogmatic.

                  And even if we want to debate on whether a sea sponge is sentient, there is absolutely no debate on most animals we currently kill for food or exploit for entertainment. They are clearly sentient.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                    3·
                    11 months ago

                    The discriminatory criteria is sentience.

                    that’s as arbitrary as any other criteria. and you’re still treating all members of a class differently because of their membership in that class. it’s discrimination. discrimination based on species is speciesism. it’s just a speciesism you agree with.