4 ms·

> I fail to see how that's substantively different/worse than the cat-calling, profanities and other verbal abuse that women and girls have unfortunately suffer

> I fail to see how that's substantively different/worse than the cat-calling, profanities and other verbal abuse that women and girls have unfortunately suffered throughout history; often out of sight, and hence less amenable to third-party anecdotes. Just because you perceive a problem as being less worse than another problem, doesn't mean its not a problem. I think it should be normalized to not give children personal devices capable of accessing the web until they are 16.

chriswarbo 5y ago
> doesn't mean its not a problem. What a silly strawman; I never said it wasn't a problem, and in fact I said the opposite.
- okeuro49 5y ago
  > What a silly strawman No, it was a criticism of whataboutism of the first part of your comment, which didn't address the problem, but rather compared its magnitude to a different problem. I think it was your comment, actually, which was the straw man of the person you were responding to. The original commenter was talking specifically about pornography, and your comment straw-manned this as somehow a wish to "wind back the clock"; involving returning to social norms where casual sexism was the norm. In fact, we can still go forward, whilst still addressing the problem the original commenter was highlighting.
  - chriswarbo 5y ago
    > compared its magnitude to a different problem. Nagging someone for their onlyfans details is a form of "cat-calling, profanities and other verbal abuse". It's not "a different problem", just because it involves an Internet word. > The original commenter was talking specifically about pornography Yes. > your comment straw-manned this as somehow a wish to "wind back the clock" No, that was a specific reference to the original commenter's claim that "art and entertainment these days are void of any real complex romantic plots or subplots. It's all quarantined off into the world of hardcore porn.". That claim is so laughably ignorant that no straw-man is needed: - It ignores Sturgeon's law (that most of everything is crap; regardless of when it was made) - It's ignoring survivorship bias (that great works will be long treasured and easily recalled; whilst the crap will get forgotten) - It's ignoring availability bias (that examples from "these days" will be drawn from what's close-to-hand; not necessarily the best of what's out there right now) - It's ignoring that porn has permeated media since pre-history; that some of the earliest photos and film are pornographic; etc. - It's claiming that this is somehow a new problem, despite kids having access to pornography long before smartphones were invented. and so on.
    - loudtieblahblah 5y ago
      >Nagging someone for their onlyfans details is a form of "cat-calling, profanities and other I like how what you got out of this was that someone was harassing someone... Which, true Rather than a underage teenager had an onlyfans. you seem to be OK with this and more worried she was being asked for it. Wtf is a teenager doing with a f* OF page ?
      - chriswarbo 5y ago
        > you seem to be OK with this and more worried she was being asked for it Again with the silly strawmen...
haswell 5y ago
> I think it should be normalized to not give children personal devices capable of accessing the web until they are 16 But do you think the government should step in and enforce such a limitation? As a counter example, I grew up in a repressive, abusive environment. My access to the Internet at that age was a lifeline. It helped me understand the real world, form deep and lasting friendships with people from diverse backgrounds with opinions I had never been exposed to, and eventually helped me escape my environment. While I acknowledge that the Internet has evolved since then, and more care is needed at that age, I see a lot of opinions that all seem based on the premise of a perfect childhood. Good parents who are actually involved and are not harming their children. Parents who themselves have a healthy outlook on all of this. Don’t get me wrong, I know such parents exist. But where they exist, this is a self solving problem. Because good parents will manage their children’s access and help them navigate the Internet safely. When bad parents do not, a government entity doing it for them can only further exacerbate the situations of those who rely on that phone to have some hope of a normal life. That’s not a silver bullet either.
- heurisko 5y ago
  > But do you think the government should step in and enforce such a limitation? No, it should be a social norm. I'm not suggesting teenagers shouldn't use the internet at all, but it should be in a family environment. e.g. what used to be the desktop in the family lounge. I think things like unrestricted access to Reddit, tiktok, Tumblr, Facebook, Instagram have proved toxic for young teenagers.

chriswarbo 5y ago

> doesn't mean its not a problem. What a silly strawman; I never said it wasn't a problem, and in fact I said the opposite.

okeuro49 5y ago
> What a silly strawman No, it was a criticism of whataboutism of the first part of your comment, which didn't address the problem, but rather compared its magnitude to a different problem. I think it was your comment, actually, which was the straw man of the person you were responding to. The original commenter was talking specifically about pornography, and your comment straw-manned this as somehow a wish to "wind back the clock"; involving returning to social norms where casual sexism was the norm. In fact, we can still go forward, whilst still addressing the problem the original commenter was highlighting.
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  > compared its magnitude to a different problem. Nagging someone for their onlyfans details is a form of "cat-calling, profanities and other verbal abuse". It's not "a different problem", just because it involves an Internet word. > The original commenter was talking specifically about pornography Yes. > your comment straw-manned this as somehow a wish to "wind back the clock" No, that was a specific reference to the original commenter's claim that "art and entertainment these days are void of any real complex romantic plots or subplots. It's all quarantined off into the world of hardcore porn.". That claim is so laughably ignorant that no straw-man is needed: - It ignores Sturgeon's law (that most of everything is crap; regardless of when it was made) - It's ignoring survivorship bias (that great works will be long treasured and easily recalled; whilst the crap will get forgotten) - It's ignoring availability bias (that examples from "these days" will be drawn from what's close-to-hand; not necessarily the best of what's out there right now) - It's ignoring that porn has permeated media since pre-history; that some of the earliest photos and film are pornographic; etc. - It's claiming that this is somehow a new problem, despite kids having access to pornography long before smartphones were invented. and so on.
  - loudtieblahblah 5y ago
    >Nagging someone for their onlyfans details is a form of "cat-calling, profanities and other I like how what you got out of this was that someone was harassing someone... Which, true Rather than a underage teenager had an onlyfans. you seem to be OK with this and more worried she was being asked for it. Wtf is a teenager doing with a f* OF page ?
    - chriswarbo 5y ago
      > you seem to be OK with this and more worried she was being asked for it Again with the silly strawmen...

haswell 5y ago

> I think it should be normalized to not give children personal devices capable of accessing the web until they are 16 But do you think the government should step in and enforce such a limitation? As a counter example, I grew up in a repressive, abusive environment. My access to the Internet at that age was a lifeline. It helped me understand the real world, form deep and lasting friendships with people from diverse backgrounds with opinions I had never been exposed to, and eventually helped me escape my environment. While I acknowledge that the Internet has evolved since then, and more care is needed at that age, I see a lot of opinions that all seem based on the premise of a perfect childhood. Good parents who are actually involved and are not harming their children. Parents who themselves have a healthy outlook on all of this. Don’t get me wrong, I know such parents exist. But where they exist, this is a self solving problem. Because good parents will manage their children’s access and help them navigate the Internet safely. When bad parents do not, a government entity doing it for them can only further exacerbate the situations of those who rely on that phone to have some hope of a normal life. That’s not a silver bullet either.

heurisko 5y ago
> But do you think the government should step in and enforce such a limitation? No, it should be a social norm. I'm not suggesting teenagers shouldn't use the internet at all, but it should be in a family environment. e.g. what used to be the desktop in the family lounge. I think things like unrestricted access to Reddit, tiktok, Tumblr, Facebook, Instagram have proved toxic for young teenagers.