this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2026
483 points (92.4% liked)
Memes
17393 readers
1620 users here now
Post memes here.
A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.
An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms. The name is by the concept of memes proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1972. Internet memes can take various forms, such as images, videos, GIFs, and various other viral sensations.
- Wait at least 2 months before reposting
- No explicitly political content (about political figures, political events, elections and so on), !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca can be better place for that
- Use NSFW marking accordingly
Laittakaa meemejä tänne.
- Odota ainakin 2 kuukautta ennen meemin postaamista uudelleen
- Ei selkeän poliittista sisältöä (poliitikoista, poliittisista tapahtumista, vaaleista jne) parempi paikka esim. !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
- Merkitse K18-sisältö tarpeen mukaan
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is crucial to draw a distinction between direct and indirect harms, tangible and abstract harms. Does the problem lie in the individual's right to bodily autonomy and self determination? Or does it lie in the design of a system that forces the consequences of individuals' decisions to be diffused across the entire population? I don't really know, but it raises a lot of questions. Is it fair to punish those who don't make the choice to smoke? Is it fair to treat those who make the choice to smoke differently? Discussion around smoking induces a very, very strong bias.
Consider something else: Should I be made to feel guilty for the economic impact if I choose to cut myself with a knife vs. if someone else chooses to cut me with a knife? Obviously, any compassionate person would be more focused on what caused the decision. Anybody would know in this scenario that inducing guilt over the economics of self harm is fucked. Now, if someone else cut me, the obvious way to repair the situation would be to punish the perpetrator.
Do you see what I'm getting at? You shouldn't be mad at the smoker. Generally, nobody chooses to harm themselves. They misunderstood the risks, fell for it, and got addicted. You should be mad at the cigarette companies for not paying restitution for their societal harm. Maybe smokers should be held responsible for those they spread the social contagion of smoking to, but they are in no way culpable for the indirect, abstract harms you perceive. They aren't choosing to cost you money, your government is choosing it by not holding the perpetrator responsible.
Fair. However, what do you think about people who drive recklessly? They risk their own life and spend more money for fuel, perhaps also for a sports car but they also put others in danger, increase traffic deaths and pollution.
Is it an underlying psychological disorder that makes them do it? Is it the marketing of the auto industry and they fell for it or are they directly responsible?
It's a bad direct comparison with smoking but there is a line somewhere where people are either directly responsible or everything is predetermined and a result of outer circumstances.
I'm glad the social democracy in Germany can (so far) account for "selfish" individual decisions. It's also one of the fields where taxation could be very effective. E.g. taxes on tobacco are quite high in Germany but less for fuel and cars, mostly because of our own car industry but also because pretty much everyone depends on them, regardless of their driving style.
My comment sounded pretty salty but I just wanted to point out that harmful individual choices can affect others. What I'm actually mad about is that the social security in Germany is slowly deteriorating. There's enough money and resources to uphold it but US inspired management and economy styles direct the resources into billionaires pockets while at the same time playing the "look over there, the poor people and immigrants took your money and get everything for free" game.
If you want to drive recklessly, I have no problem with it IF you go somewhere where endangering others is impossible. I feel the same way about smoking. Overconsumption of fossil fuels harms the environment, the same way littering cigarette butts does, but you don't have to do either of these things to indulge in your vice. If someone chooses to harm themselves, they have a responsibility to fully mitigate the "real" risk to others. By "real", I mean unavoidable, tangible, physical and/or psychological harm caused by their actions. Not things that really result from economic math and policy decisions. The individual does not have a responsibility to constrain their choices based on their government's bad policy, and socially enforcing that they do (through guilt/shame) is really stupid. It only serves to hand governments more power than they ought to have, and it reinforces said bad policy.
I think there is a lot of confusion in society, both about what it means to mitigate harm and what harm is itself. One helpful (though not universally applicable) idea I have to clarify things is that if you need to use a calculator to determine if you're harmed or not, you should be blaming your government.