all 48 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 12 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I'm curious what hooks people with gambling. Trying to prevent exposure feels like security through obscurity.

To me gambling is boring but that's not helpful for people vulnerable to its hooks.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    The "exposure" has been every mobile and multiplayer game for the last 15 years being loaded with it.

    It's no surprise that they eventually start gambling with real money. It's like having adverts for BetFred in between episodes of Bluey.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    Sure, but how does that relate to my comment regarding hooks?

    I understand exposure. I'm not disputing that that's a problem. Like, no shit, priming children to gamble is bad. I assumed that didn't need stating.

    What I'm interested in is what specifically about gambling is it that appeals to or targets those susceptible to it. I am not susceptible and find it actively boring so I was hoping to get some other perspectives to better understand that side of the issue.

    Edited to add some clarity because my question came off as snarky. I feel like we need the opposite of sarcasm tags on here - something to say "sincere" or "actual question, not being a dick, honest".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    That's the hook isn't it. They've been doing it for years, no harm done.

    That's how most addictions seem to start anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Plenty of people have the same exposure and are not hooked by it. That's my point. I'm happy to be rid of the exposure, I'm not defending it, but it doesn't address what makes a subset of people susceptible to it. My general point is that if the strategy boils down to "make sure people don't find out gambling is an option" then I think it's a pretty primitive strategy.

    Let's be clear, I don't think advertising this garbage is in anyway okay, however there's probably a lot more we can do than simply reducing exposure to adverts. Banning gambling outright seems like it wouldn't really work (prohibition, etc..) but there's probably more levers that we could use. Possibly taxing the ever-loving crap out of gambling companies for a start, but this kind of policy isn't my area and I defer to people with the background.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Yeah but actually addressing the route cause of addiction would require isolating the genes responsible and removing them, which is basically eugenics, no?

    The other way of combating this would be for quality of life to increase dramatically across the board for everyone, as debilitating addiction is a trauma/stress response. But no government is going to do this, so it's probably going to be eugenics if it is attempted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Do we have the data backing up that it's genetic?

    Edit: Someone doesn't like me asking...

    It was not a rhetorical question. If we know susceptibility to gambling is genetic that changes the approach we need to take as a society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't know, honestly I was just guessing it was linked to various gene expressions. Many folk with adhd are very susceptible addictions, so I was kinda assuming if there was a gambling gene so to speak, it would be linked to that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I could absolutely see it having a genetic component, but without data to support it I'm not going to start suggesting policy (even if policy was my area!). If we could prove it was genetic then we could start putting policies in place that treat gambling as what it is, predatory, and have an unassailable reason to not tolerate its current place in our society.

    I have nothing moral against gambling in and of itself but I do have something against preying on our people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I was in Chess Club at school (I know, I know, quite the jock!). We played chess. Then we got bored of chess and played backgammon. And backgammon without a bet is dull, so we started gambling. Then gambling became the point of playing. Then we moved on to poker.

    I remember one poker hand. The deck was made up of about five different packs of cards. Jokers, black twos, one-eyed jacks, bedside queens, and suicide kings were all wild. I ended up with a hand of five aces. Two were real aces, three were wild cards. I had to raise. I mean, how can you not raise with five aces? What is the point of playing poker if you don’t raise with five aces?

    Sadly, two other people also had five aces and one of them had three real aces and only two wild cards so they won the hand.

    I lost £20 on that single hand and hated every single moment of playing it because somehow I knew, deep down, that I was going to lose. That was a lot of money for me back then and there were other, far better things I could have dropped it on - LPs were about £5 back then, video games £10.

    But, it was a great early lesson on the ‘gotta keep going’ mindset of the gambler combined with the certainty that I was going to lose my money. I’m glad it happened, despite the short term remorse I felt immediately afterwards.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Advertising gambling should be illegal

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children)

    This

    They've legalized the shit out of it everywhere and gambling companies jumped on it and now people are wondering where it all went wrong

    Politicians are the worst

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Quite frankly, gambling should be culled kind of like tobacco (although maybe not that harsh). I think they should ban large gambling companies from operating here. Betting shops are fine if they're independently owned

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why?

    Gambling is always bad as it's just making people think they can win where in realit the vast majority will lose. It's bait and switch, and having it operating "independently" (from what?) won't change that.

    Gambling is fraud

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Fuck all celebrities and athletes that promote their fans into harmful behavior. It s not like you don't know what you're doing. You know, you just don't care because someone is dangling money in front of your eyes

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Age checks to "protect the children" from porno, nothing done for gambling.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    Sinful and silly, but their parents are probably the same so what guidance could they have besides the wrong kind.

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I find it crazy to think these are things real people think, like I always thought it was just Ned Flanders that would consider card games to be sinful and yet here we are.

    Saw a few comments like it when Balatro came out. What's next, uno is sent by the devil to corrupt the youth? Although there is probably more of an argument for that because its a good example of taking an existing card game (crazy eights) and then printing a proprietary deck and charging 10 times as much for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    All the guidance from like, schools, where they're taught stuff? Hopefully not that it's "sinful" but the realities of gambling instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (21 children)

    But if someone doesn't tell you it's morally wrong to take advantage of fools/disturbed individuals that might be putting their whole life savings on red or black (and that you should only reap where you sow and not be greedy in general) and endangering not only themselves but also their families, how are we truly gonna convince someone in a to restrain themselves, specially if they're in a position of comparative power?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (19 children)

    Morally wrong yes, sinful no.

    Frankly if someone used a religious framework to justify why something is good/bad it's safe to say a lot of people will take away from it the exact opposite.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    How do you have something being morally wrong without a religious framework

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Are you suggesting that all atheists are immoral?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    If atheism is true, morality doesn't exist. Most Atheists still feel some sense of mortality because we do have a knowledge of objective right and wrong. Although one can be misled into thinking some right things are wrong and some wrong things are right, without an infallible moral framework to turn to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Your second sentence contradicts the rest of your comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    My second statement is asserting that their is mortality and that atheism is false, that some atheists being moral is evidence against atheism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    I think sinfulness and immorality are usually one and the same but perhaps you're right and I'm overreaching. I'm happy with calling it morally wrong. 👍

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    No def not, most people I know and myself would be killed under any religious moral system because their entire existence is sin because that's what's written, but they're some of the kindest, most humanist and sane people I've met, they just aren't religious because most religions would want them dead.

    Often they have individual moral frameworks that are some variation of the marxism-adjacent maximization of happiness/minimization of suffering or nietzchean fulfillment of potential.

    I also have no problem calling it sinful either if it's a useful shorthand tbf, it's just words after all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    The punishment for sin is death. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It's mercy that God's let you live this long. How shall we escape?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I genuinely cannot tell if you are being facetious or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    No def not, most people I know and myself would be killed under any religious moral system because their entire existence is sin because that’s what’s written

    They're right, except you can set it to "everyone I know"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Any religious moral system that says God allows and wants you to murder kind, sane and humane folks can be safely disregarded. What the fuck, lol. Nobody who fears God's judgment (which is a basic prerequisite to call yourself a monotheist!) can argue for that or act that way; how would you explain that shit to Him? But, you know, people... I mean, the Crusades were framed through "Deus Vult" (and the Zionist neo-Crusades are more or less excused the same way, right?), some things don't change and all of those bloodthirsty murderers are burning in Hell, I'm pretty sure. 😔

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sin is a religious construct, not an ethical one. One religion considers something a sin, another considers it a sacrament. Unless one is forcing compliance with a single specific religion at a state level it's not particularly useful.

    I'd argue that morality is also a construct but the distinguishing factor is that it is not tied to a specific religion and all the baggage associated with it (such as religion as identity, in-groups, that sort of thing).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    My POV: morality is (largely?) innate, and if I lined up 100 people and we really went full Socratic method we'd see it, with only a few ridiculously disturbed and confused people arguing against whatever we acknowledged. It's just complex, because some things are very case-to-case and people just want moral rulings under 10 words because complexity is scary and they lack discernment (the Germanic "a rule is a rule is a rule and I follow it because I'm a good boy" attitude comes to mind, for instance, which can easily end up in "I was just following orders, I was being a good boy!"), but the vast majority of people are reasonable enough we'd come to an understanding given enough time... in the vacuum of propaganda and brainwashing, ofc.

  • source
  • parent