3 ms·

that's not controversial, that's just - allow me to be blunt - stupid. going outside? playing with friends? paying attention in school? the kids at risk of be

• Manu40 4y ago
  Well, in an attempt to show charity in return at least, I will say this. 1. > are the ones that already lack parental attention, already have trouble making friends and going outside. Sounds to me like that's more of an issue with: A. Parents needing to do their job. B. Parents needing to do their job. C. Parents needing to do their job. Hmmm... seems like the parents might be the problem here. Good parents go out of their way to help their kids succeed. If their kid is struggling somehow, then perhaps the parents should ... Oh, I dunno... Do their job. 2. > regarding kids only internet. who will curate the content on it? oh right companies. for profit. (or it may be managed by some public body and it will be promptly taken over by some niche special interests, and it will be just the most useless thing ever.) Yes, you might be right about this one. When I wrote that originally I forgot all about Yahoo's Yahooligans. But with that said, it's not like it can't be done on a local level where intranets are formed instead for kids to communicate with each other. My old schools used to have something similar to what I am talking about, and it worked just fine. And we already trust schools to be mostly safe for children, right?
  • pas 4y ago
    Parents are always the problem, that's the problem :) Disadvantaged families have a hard time providing the nurture their kids need to overcome the gap. This is an incredibly self-reinforcing cycle, because the more help these kids get the more help other kids get too, so the gal remains. Social status, including all the things from home ownership, how green is your lawn, how big is your investment account to extracurricular activities for admissions (and credentialism) in general - but also the larger labor market too - are all close to zero sum locally. And mobility for disadvantaged groups is ridiculously low, because - again - things like status preserving structures like zoning regulations, school districts, etc.
    • Manu40 4y ago
      > Parents are always the problem, that's the problem Perhaps. But then, when my parents recognized they couldn't sufficiently make ends meet while living in one town; they did the only thing they knew would work. They moved. I know, that's not always possible for everyone, since people tend to have such a 'I can't do X' mindset. But they didn't. They sold everything not truly needed, and made it happen. That meant that we went without some things for a while, while we lived in the bush for a year or so, while dad got his job prospects back in order, and mom got the finances figured out again. I think we sometimes put ourselves in our holes, and that's where some of these gaps come from. Not all of them mind you. Some are just... there. Like you said, when you give to all, it means all move, meaning the gap moves with all. But if more people gave up on trying to live like the Jones, and just did what needs to happen for themselves, then I think that gap would disappear more and more. At least, it worked for us. And we were not a well off family, or anything like that. It required that my mother grow large gardens, go hunting, and get into making crafts and clothes using furs and such. I had squirrel mittens one year. Squirrel, mittens. I shit you not. We also were homeschooled for that year, since the bus route didn't come through that area of the province, and gas prices were going up during a time when the paychecks couldn't cover that kind of expense. But homeschooling could be covered due to government programs, if I understand correctly. (Funny how that works, huh?) So, I totally get what you are trying to get at. I lived it. But unlike many parents out there who basically just give up and blame the government, my parents didn't give up. Oh, they still blamed the government alright; but only for what it was actually responsible for, like causing a recession. (Of which they never will ever admit to lol.) Anyways. I think the best way to end my reply here is to say this. Kids need to experience what life is really like without all the technology, so they can understand how to live life without it. So they can understand how life was like, without it. And quite frankly, I think society would be better off this way anyways, because it would have less kids trying to pretend to be adults online in places they don't belong anyways. Or rather, really shouldn't be in, without some sort of parental supervision. Example: How many Redditors in political subreddits do you think are children? How about Twitter? Should they even be in those places? There are some pretty heavy topics going on there that kids probably shouldn't be partaking in, and should be focusing more on oh, I dunno... Being kids. I know that's probably not something they would like to hear, but I know that, because I didn't much like hearing it either from my parents when I was watching the news as a kid and trying to tell them how to better manage their finances by doing things like stopping fucking smoking. See the parallel? Guess what they told me? Yeah, "Go outside and play."