4 ms·
The article was fine until the swipe at trans people (nurture not nature) at the end. That was unnecessary and literally reads as "don't let your kid do gay shi
by superchroma 4y ago
The article was fine until the swipe at trans people (nurture not nature) at the end. That was unnecessary and literally reads as "don't let your kid do gay shit and they won't turn out gay". The author would probably say they were just doing good parenting, but spotlighting it whilst also chuckling and remarking about how spicy your -isms are and how people are going to call you offensive kind of gives the game away.
Anyway, I agree with the premise, a lot of parents have no control over their children and are letting them be raised by the internet. This is probably the second generation of kids this is happening to.
- racked 4y agoNot seeing the anti-trans/gay angle here at all. He's doing the kid a favour, teaching him that jokes shouldn't be repeated if he wants to be a good entertainer.
- superchroma 4y agoWell, that's fine, but as a person at least adjacent to that community it reads like a swipe when explicitly called out this way.
- 10u152 4y agoI think you’re jumping to take offence. This ain’t anti trans. Kids pretend to be lions and cats and trucks and stuff all the time. There’s a time for fun and sometimes that fun is over.
- BLKNSLVR 4y agoHighlighting the oversensitivity is how I read it, although it may have been better off not pre-disclaimering by pointing it out; just let it flow naturally, just like the described situation.
- clnq 4y agoI initially read it as just a random example situation as well, but the disclaimer clarifies the intended meaning.
- BLKNSLVR 4y agoI think the disclaimer clarifies precisely the not-intended meaning.
- clnq 4y ago> A final story to those that will say I am an ist or ism. A little more fuel for you. Why would telling kids play time is over be fuel for -ists and -isms? It seems like the author is approaching this from an angle where that story is supposed to be inflammatory. But fair enough, maybe it's just unfortunate phrasing or bad writing (the whole article isn't really Pulitzer material).
- BLKNSLVR 4y agoReplying here as your other post seems to have been deleted. I feel for your situation, and I might be coming across as using a sledgehammer when a scalpel was the right tool for the job. Electronic devices are a tool just like any other, neither good nor bad, where the 'juice' is in how they're used. Unmonitored, unconsidered, overused pacifier = bad in most circumstances. My kids are on electronic devices more than I'm comfortable with, but I work with tech and am potentially more of a techno-nerd than a number of the SWEs I work with, and so I potentially set a bad example. But I also engage with my kids about it, and have done so since they were able to understand words, plus they also have real-world friends and hobbies that balance it out, that we've made sure to encourage and model as they've grown up. It takes time, and any unconsidered 'banning' can well be as bad as unconsidered permissiveness. I think "considered attention and understanding of the context" is closer to the scalpel type answer in regards to shaping a child into a functioning adult, no matter the topic.
- clnq 4y ago
- superchroma 4y agoYes it would have been fine. The framing is what makes it read political.
- bingomolo 4y ago> nurture not nature It's fair to say that such identities are often adopted later on in life, e.g. those who take the autogynephilic pathway.
- superchroma 4y agoI don't have statistics on such things so I am not inclined to agree with such a generalization.