To Control The Social Media Scourge Parents Need To Ration Kids' Smartphone Use

A youngster is distracted from her regular class work because of text messages from bullying imps.


Let me get it out there that if wifey and I were parents (never had the inclination),  we'd be seriously rationing our offspring's use of social media - whether Instagram, Snapchat or Facebook. We'd also limit access to cell phones: only for emergencies or official business except maybe for a half hour of social contact a day. Indeed, we'd probably be much tougher than even columnist Minda Zetlin allows in her recent piece in the Sunday Denver Post ('Shut It Down!').    The premise being the grown ups have to get control of the kids' social media addictions as opposed to allowing the kids and their addictions to run them. Or in the worse case, lead to a kid's suicide.

Don't laugh or sneer. A McAfee survey report that also appeared in the Post (3 days ago, p. 12A) noted that cyber bullying has now reached epidemic proportions especially in the U S of A.  The platforms most used for bullying in the order of their percentage of young users affected included:

- Facebook  71 %

- Instagram  - 62 %

- Snapchat  49 %

In the survey, which ranged over more than 3,000 kids in multiple countries it was found there was a 22 percent overall reporting of cyber bullying, compared to 30 percent for U.S. students. This is ridiculous and shows: a) too many kids are spending way too much time with these media, and b) the parents have abdicated control to their addicted kids.

Ms. Zetlin for her part, in her article, presented these bullet points:

-  Instagram and Snapchat have the greatest negative effect on young people's emotional health, with Instagram topping the stats.

- Spending more than two hours a day on social media is detrimental to kids' mental health and a "seriously bad idea".

As I told Janice, and she agreed, if we had young teens they'd be allowed no more than one hour per day on such media.  Do what you wish within reason in that hour but once it elapses, that's it. Finito!

- Social media can mean sleep deprivation which exacts a terrible toll on kids' brains

The problem here is that "social media can be deeply addictive, even more than nicotine".

This alone screams out for parental intervention to make sure one's kids don't get hooked. In fact , if one can monitor their messages - to and from  - it's even better, lest they get snared.

The main culprit parents need to control is the pervasive  FOMO syndrome, i.e. "fear of missing out". Kids can get so hooked, even on nasty, negative images, they keep glancing at the stupid cellphones to make sure no new ones have come in.   This has to be nipped in the bud, and kids taught the Buddhist mind mode to not allow the external world or people to manage one's interior world.

Rather than waste hours on Instagram staring at stupid text messages (or photos) from deadbeat peers, far better to use that time in meditation: clearing the mind -brain of all extraneous stimuli, thoughts. They can use a master word as they close their eyes, the best being "A-U-M" (Ah-ooo-mmmm)..  If they need practice or a model - get a hold of Joseph Campbell's DVD series 'The Power Of Myth' - the specific episode on the Buddhist Monks. They will see and hear the "AUM" as never heard before, every chord and note.

- Cyber bullying is a worse problem than many believe

Indeed! Already my psychologist niece Shayl in her research on the deleterious effects of social media has found that cyber bullying imposes the most serious adverse effects, leading many to contemplate suicide.

Zetlin herself cites a recent survey that discloses that 70 percent of young people claiming they experienced cyber bullying, with 37 percent "on a high frequency basis".  Again, they can't experience such levels if they have no access to the devices.

Ration their use and watch the stats drop!   As Zetlin concludes:

"The problem of cyber bullying on social platforms is largely up to parents and teachers to solve and that's one more reason to know how much time their kids are spending on which social network".

Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I do admit that I regard Twitter especially as a "cartoon medium" that doesn't permit the full expression of thought. Having to relentlessly truncate communications to 140 characters like Trump does, inevitably breeds immaturity  - and also invites more bullying - since that's about all a truncated message is good for.

The most incredible aspect of the McAfee study that really pissed me off as a former physics lecturer? The stat that "29 percent of students used their devices to cheat."

One kid actually cited the method in "taking a photo of notes then peeking at them during a test".

Say WHAT!??  What the hell is the teacher doing? Did she or he suddenly become a zombie? How about you confiscate ALL cellphones before the kid even enters the room?  That's what I'd do.  AT the end of the test the kid can collect his or device from the security box (similar to those used in TSA lines).

The rate of teen suicides,  owing to cyber bullying,  is increasing at alarming rates and it's time thoughtful,, intelligent parents take control of their kids' devices before it's too late.  As Ms. Zetlin put it: "SHUT It DOWN!"

Pope Francis is A-OK: Conservative Catholics Need to Grow Up, Get A Life

How could any normal person with humanity's interests at stake and a yearning for peace possibly come down on Pope Francis I? It beggars the mind and imagination (the worst recesses) to think there are actually Catholics who deplore his actions and words and wonder if he is some kind of a "heretic" out to subvert Church teachings. I mean, hell, even atheists love this pope! Probably because he evinced a truly enlightened tolerance for them 5 months ago, when on delivering a homily at the Chapel of the Domus Santa Marta he said:  

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class. We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all. And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: We need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: We will meet one another there."

But according to a Sunday New York Times piece ('Some Catholics Feel Left Out of Pope's Embrace' ) this exhibition of tolerance has evidently pissed off conservative Catholics (you know, the ones who think 'Opus Dei' is just grand, and yearn for old Latin masses and more saints). In this sense they're like a certain self-professed fundie who has roundly proclaimed he "ain't sharin' no afterlife with any atheists".  Seems the afterlife cosmos is just too damned small for these close-minded folks to allow "heathens" and  "believers" i.e. those who think they know what's up there (really) to co-exist in the same post-space-time continuum.

The part of Francis' address that really got to them was not generally published in the U.S. media - but was re-published in the NY Times article (p. 27):

"Everyone has his own idea of good and evil".

Which is, of course, true. A starving child or parent of that child will, for example, regard evil as the gross systemic inequality in a supposedly rich nation that permits such a travesty to occur. Yeshua, when he was alive, regarded evil as turning from one's fellow man and employing "rule-based" theology to exclude or demonize others. This is why he upbraided the Pharisees as "whited sepulchres."  They were so obsessed with their petty rules, laws and rule-making that they lost sight of the total spiritual vision, i.e. that a true God would embrace all humans, irrespective of beliefs, or unbelief.

As the Times piece observes: "The Pope has won affection worldwide for his humility and common touch."

But not among these regressive Catholics. The Times cites one conservative Catholic blogger named Steve Skojec - "the Vice President of a real estate firm in Virginia who has written for several conservative Catholic websites".

Skojec, according to the Times (ibid.) asks if Francis' statements are "explicitly heretical" - deciding they aren't ....quite, at least not yet. But he responds in an afterthought:

"Are they dangerously close? Absolutely! What kind of Christian tells an atheist he has no intention to convert him? That should disturb Catholics everywhere!"

Actually, no. Only seriously deluded Catholics would be so disturbed. Catholics who really think they have a lock on ultimate truth and know "God" to a tee. But as I noted in my recent book Beyond Atheism, Beyond God, the most people with limited brains and neural capacity can do is formulate relative, subjective God concepts. This means apart from not being any of their damned business to meddle in others' lives,  they lack the epistemological certainty to be able to justify trying to  "convert" anyone. This is because their god beliefs are as relative, limited and subjective as any other believer's and their neural capacity is no greater than an unbeliever's!

This further supports the contention of philosopher Joseph Campbell[1] to the effect that:  

‘God’ is an ambiguous word in our language because it appears to refer to something that is known..

The problem is people bandy the symbol about as if they have intimate knowledge of what it means, or the real entity behind it. But all they have, ultimately, is a symbol reflecting their own personal predilections, acquired beliefs, interpretations of dogmas and experience. But it was for precisely this reason that French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion’s advised of only writing “God”  with a strikethrough, e.g. GOD. Thereby to indicate no one has the capacity to describe, grasp, conceptualize or manipulate the underlying entity. In effect, as author James Byrne observes:  “to think GOD as unthinkable is to reject the idolatry of the God of onto-theology. “

 If  this entity is de-conceptualized, then it can’t be debated, even by the most ardent or determined atheist.  Similarly, no one possesses the knowledge, spiritual advantage or superior moral position to “convert” any other person to what he accepts or thinks is a "one true"  God concept. Because there is no "one true God" precisely because you're only dealing with a limited concept, not the actual entity.

 

My point here is that no one, of ANY religion, is in such a superior epistemological position that he can assert his religion is the “one true one”.  This also means he’s in no position to “convert” anyone to his religion.  Is there any advantage to be gained by acknowledging that a God-concept is what people are really talking about when they use the noun “God”? I think there is.  For one thing, the acknowledged use of the term God-concept reinforces an attitude of cautious forbearance.  The implicit relativism acts as a restraint, backing the believer away from a militant stance of absolutism. Ideally, this should dispose him or her to be more tolerant - tolerant toward unbelievers and tolerant toward those of different religions.

 

What is the alternative, after all? It is that each monotheistic religion, whether Islam, or Evangelical Protestantism or Catholicism will be spurred to condemn those not numbered in its fold. Each then prescribes "hellfire" for the outliers or unbelievers, and sows the seeds for incessant strife in this world as well as spiritual apartheid in the next.

 

 

But will a guy like Stevie Skojec be able to process all of this? Probably not. Because his absolutist stance admits of no questioning, or any smidgeon of tolerance for others'. In other words, like the most extreme Islamist extremists, he won't be satisfied until all "unbelievers" are "converted" or....if we carry his reasoning forward and extrapolate it to its brutal conclusion: put to the sword. Because, there is no other way, and none of us (atheists) are going to convert willingly nor are we going to listen to any authoritarian yap from the likes of his ilk.

 

 

All of which reinforces the point that when people use the word G-o-d they’re not talking or writing about an actual entity but a limited construct or approximate mental ideation configured as a noun, which we call a God concept. Further, because it’s limited by content and comprehension, i.e. by finite minds with finite intelligence which can’t grasp all aspects, then all such concepts must be relative and subjective. This means that the Jewish concept of Yahweh, the Muslim concept of Allah, the Hindu concept of Brahmin and the Christian concept of the Trinity all stand in the same epistemological relation.  From an informational point of view, none can be selected as “true” to the exclusion of the others.

 

 

If indeed Catholics, including the conservative faction, yearn for a better world, there is only one way and that's to allow for inevitable differences in epistemological,  belief (or unbelief) approaches that reflect human cultural, geographical and experiential differences. TO presume instead that there is only one "right" way and by god you are going to demand it, is to offer a prescription for endless war, endless strife and endless hate.

 

 

You really, really want that? Didn't think so! 
 

Everyone with a grain of sense, including conservative Catholics like Steve Skojec, ought to be applauding Francis' open statements of tolerance, instead of denigrating them as one step removed from what they believe is "heretical".

 

 

 

---

[1] Campbell.: The Power of Myth, 56