volvoxvsmarla

Then, politely, fuck off.

Children are a part of the society that you live in, whether you liked it or not. I don't know who hurt you, but you were also a child once. You pooped your diapers, you cried, you misbehaved. How your parents have treated you when you did these things has a very direct effect on how you behave and think right now. My guess is they were shitty, it would explain your irrational anger and hatred towards kids.

Misbehaving in public is a necessary step to learning how to behave in the first place. It's a learning by doing thing. You won't get your child prepared to act kind, nice, and considerate with other people if you don't let them meet other people. You cannot teach your kid how to behave on the outside at home. How is that not obvious to you? It is inconvenient, it is annoying, it is hard, and it has to be done so that we don't have underdeveloped, immature, dysregulated asshole adults a generation's time from now.

Parents are always obligated to watch for their kids and show them how to behave. This doesn't mean they can, or should, control their every move, word, reaction, emotion, or behavior. If a 3 year old cries and it is uncomfortable for you, that's your problem. It is not the child's or the parent's duty to shut them up with a gag ball ffs. It is their duty to help them resolve and guide them through their overwhelming emotions. So that they will grow up to be emotionally healthy adults.

Children have an innate need to play. They learn via playing. They learn via trying things out and touching them. They learn to walk and run by walking and running - and falling and failing. They also learn about the world from the world's reaction. Being met with disdain for solely existing and breathing won't help them to grow up to be adults with a lot of self worth.

You don't get to decide who is part of the society and village you live in. You don't get to cherry pick your neighbors.

You don't want kids in your village go live in a cave.

It's interesting you point that out. It seems it shows the grip of Reddit and Lemmy as well. Since I am not in the US I am not in touch with their regular news outlets and media. I've never seen the Dem shooter before. Somehow he wasn't that talked about.

Yeah, I am all for a rather low age of consent, but 10 is crass.

Bottom left is the Trump shooter, bottom right the alleged Kirk shooter. No clue who the upper left dude is

The articles on that are a fascinating read, thank you!

In my opinion, watching TV was a better experience and healthier and better, including for - but not limited to - children.

(I'll preface this by saying I am referring to German TV, where you would get one break of commercial ads of 5-8 minutes within a show of 30 minutes, and two such breaks within a show of 60 minutes. I know in the US you get more, shorter commercial breaks. I think that makes the argument a bit stronger; however, I think it still applies to US TV as well.)

First off, you needed discipline. You want to watch that one show that airs at 3:10? You better be at home at 3:10 then. You had to make plans and keep this scheduled like an appointment, or plan to record it and program a VHS recorder.

Second, you also had to focus. No rewinding. If you miss it, you'll have missed it. Stay focused. No phone scrolling, no attention span shortening, no second screen. You better focus your attention.

Third, you don't binge watch. I love binge watching as much as the next person. But is it good for you? Cliffhangers are there for a reason. Having this excitement and thrill be resolved within seconds by starting the next episode takes away from the experience. Already knowing that you could just click on "play" any time you want takes something away from having to wait, waiting to know, thinking about it, imagining scenarios how something will play out in your head.

You get your daily or weekly dose of dopamine from this show, and that's it. You don't go on a bender. You are also automatically limiting your screen time. Especially for kids I think that is an important point. You can watch peppa pig endlessly on youtube, until you're absolutely sick of it, or until your parents put an end to it. But if there is just one episode of pokemon a day, that's it. You gotta wait until tomorrow. There's nothing you can do.

Let's even say you watch multiple shows in a row. Pokemon, Sailor Moon, Art Attack, Galileo, The Simpsons. Every show gives you something else. Another plot, other emotions, other characters. You have to follow different storylines or have some non-fiction program points. That's more diverse than watching 5 hours of handmaid's tale or breaking bad in a row.

And even ads. Ads allow you to zap. Allow you to release this thrill that we now do with scrolling. But it, again, is self limited - you better be back in time before the commercials end. Who of us has not had days where they spent more time looking at trailers and thumbnails on Netflix etc than they spend watching an actual movie or show.

I have to add that I absolutely love your point about isolation and watching alone. I will absolutely add this the next time I am arguing that TV was better for our brains, kids, health, and sociality.

I even feel like when people from the same household are watching the same show, they now prefer to watch it alone in their rooms at their own comfort and pace. How sad is that? Is it more comfortable? Yeah sure, maybe. But TV was more social. Having to be quiet for the sake of the others. Waiting to ask "wait what did he say I didn't get it" until there is a good time and waiting to reply until there is a good time again. This is effort. This is socializing. This is community. Using quotes from the show you watched as inside jokes.

Man I really miss TV.

That's true, there isn't much sadness going around. It reminds me a bit of the reaction to the healthcare CEO shooting.

I remember the take that resonated with me the most was in a piece by Josh Johnson at that time. He first told a story about a friend named Marty that had died from disease. "Brian Thompson was a human being. He was a husband, a father. Ok. So was Marty." It feels the same this time around.

It is sad that a person died. It is sad that kids are now left without a father. But you can simultaneously acknowledge that the person who has died has actively helped to create more people who lost their loved ones. And once you do that, it is hard to hold up the general sympathy.

It's not my thing to celebrate the death of a person. No matter how evil. I cannot wholeheartedly yell out good riddance. But weighing one against the other, I can't force a tear.

Gay bears

You live in Germany don't you

You know, there are people who falsely accuse other people of rape. It happens. And it is awful and should be punished. But it is such a miniscule minority compared to the actual number of SA cases. "Women put forward false rape accusations" falls under the same category as "easy access to abortion will lead to women treating abortion as a form of birth control" or "people will exploit social security because they are lazy and don't want to work".

Like, do they really think that happens all the time? One in three women puts forward false rape accusations, just like one in three women is actually SA'ed? Dude at work annoys me so much I'll just call him a rapist and get him fired. And sure, I'll just get a abortion every month instead of using a condom because an abortion is just sooo much more convenient. But sometimes I'm, like, keeping the pregnancy until its last month just to fuck with the doctors and demand an abortion two weeks before the due date, just for funsies. And man, have you ever lived off of social security? That's so amazing bro, I much prefer being not able to afford anything but crackers and teabags and choosing between whether to feed myself or my children, that's like a lottery, so much fun, so much better than a job!

These cases exist. I'm sure there are psychopaths who do that. But focusing on them is such a disservice to millions of people who actually suffer. It glimpses over the reality to portray some absurd extreme cases.

Well, this is the worse scenario. If he goes down the "FASD route" it will be rather easy to debunk. An "increased risk" route will be much vaguer, more believable, and harder to disprove.

This might also go down the route of "if it wasn't safe in the womb we should think twice about giving it to my baby who has a high fever" resulting in brain damage and death. (For the record: Fever is good, but high fever in babies is dangerous.)

This, then, adds up to "I didn't give my baby tylenol when it had a fever, then it was hospitalized, they gave tylenol after all, now the kid has XYZ, it was the tylenol".