4 ms·

While I agree with the premise, I'd have to say there's quite a bit more artistic value to Smashing Pumpkins or Marilyn Manson, or whatever other 'satanic' arti

• fwn 10y ago
  Some content is better, some worse. Arguing with the good content of our own generation against the bad content of the next generation is probably very typical for all of us.
• CaptSpify 10y ago
  I would argue that artistic value is highly subjective. People used to argue that jazz was just random noise and nonsense for a long time.
  • thedudemabry 10y ago
    True, and I don't want to jump the overprotective-parent gun here, but what I think is worth keeping an eye on with these videos is how they are not an underrepresented group expressing their creativity, but rather a very well represented group targeting a vulnerable audience. There are no easy lines to draw, but I think it does bear further scrutiny and discussion (especially from folks used to defending forms of media from demonization.)
    • CaptSpify 10y ago
      I think that's the stance that parents should have. As a non-parent, I respect that the line between silly-but-harmless and silly-and-harmful can be very blurry. You are trying to see the world through two different sets of eyes, and those are going to conflict. It can be a tough call on where to draw the line because while I very strongly believe in free-speech and freedom from censorship for adults, I understand that for children it's completely different. Especially when all children are not the same. Ultimately I think it's important to know what your children are looking at and watching, especially when it comes to the internet.