6 ms·

As a general rule, parents seem to be blamed for anything happening to a kid under any specific setting. Kids playing outside is one of them, kids talking to s

As a general rule, parents seem to be blamed for anything happening to a kid under any specific setting. Kids playing outside is one of them, kids talking to strangers, kids browsing the internet will also be seen the same...and then kids using voice chat in online games, kids talking to strangers in VR, kids just playing in VR, kids watching youtube etc. It seem well accepted that pervert/criminal will go after kids at any occasion, the community can't be expected to police itself nor stop other people from hurting kids, and kids need to be locked away or under adult supervision 24/24 until adulthood or the parents are failing their job, and they shouldn't have kids if they're not up to the challenge. I think there is a real issue on what people perceive as society's role and what parent's role is.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>I think there is a real issue on what people perceive as society's role and what parent's role is. Not only that, but you a society has become obsessed with risk mitigation over the last several decades. The problem is that people are poorly equipped to estimate risk with very low occurrences against low or unclear cost. You see it in all facets of society with a platitude of better safe than sorry. It shows up in increased medical licensing to reduce error, which means less accessible and more expensive care. It shows up in new parents who don't introduce their children to family for risk of covid. It shows up San Francisco city policy to reduce traffic death to zero even if it means reducing traffic to a standstill. At the end of the day, a life with zero risk is not a life worth living but people are scared into the safest option.
- cmurf 4y ago
  Meanwhile actual trauma, by way of active shooter drills that are not announced in advance, run rampant and unchecked. https://twitter.com/donnaprovencher/status/1628127839747772436?s=12&t=EjmauQjerGZUsb1UK4jGzw https://twitter.com/donnaprovencher/status/16281278397477724... Obsession with risk mitigation is too diplomatic for what's going on here.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > active shooter drills What the fuck
    - notch898a 4y ago
      It gets better.... they do the drill but then don't even practice the most important and highest priority of the 3 option which is to RUN. It turns out, running is too inconvenient for the teachers to deal with, because it's a lot of work to round up kids that have run away (and probably not the safest thing to begin with anyway for just a drill). So instead they drill for them to hide, which should be done only if you can't run away. The thing is, watching both the Uvalde and Christchurch massacre videos, it will become crystal clear to you that hiding is the literal worst of the three options as you become a sitting duck. So they have the drill, then drill into the kids to be sitting ducks because it is more convenient for the administrator than dealing with kids that are running. The advice I have for my kid is to not give a damn what the teacher says, to grab the nearest long durable object and smash out the windows and run away.
      - cesaref 4y ago
        > The advice I have for my kid is to not give a damn what the teacher says, to grab the nearest long durable object and smash out the windows and run away. Meanwhile, here in the UK, the advice I gave my son was to look both ways when crossing the road, not to mess around with plug sockets, and not to run when carrying a pair of scissors. I honestly don't know how the US has got itself into such a messed up state that such drills are considered necessary and routine, or how it is that the people are ok with this. I'm guessing it's a boiling a frog type scenario as it doesn't make sense otherwise.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > don't know how the US has got itself into such a messed up state that such drills are considered necessary As the comment above you says, they’re between counterproductive and unnecessary, and purely creatures of posturing and appeasing scared parents.
- stdbrouw 4y ago
  I'd be wary of putting all of these examples into the same box, though. If kids can't play outside anymore because of overprotective parents or an overprotective society, that feels to me like a net negative. If newspapers are afraid to publish because they are fearful of libel suits, then we might miss fact-checked stories that are in the public interest, and it's not clear that that's a good trade-off. On the other hand, zero traffic death policies usually result in fairly cheap and only mildly inconvenient interventions (if inconvenient at all) to improve the legibility of key intersections and dangerous roads. Drives to reduce medical error usually rely on increased training or the introduction of fixed procedures or checklists, quick wins. Safety regulations in construction require proper dust extraction and safety at heights, and really the cost in better ladders, scaffolding, safety harnesses, vacuums and so on is completely negligible compared against the occupational hazards and chronic illnesses often suffered by older construction workers. (And sometimes it's debatable. I feel like NASA could take a bigger risk on some manned missions if the astronauts agree, but on the other hand there's so much money and effort involved in these missions that it's not so strange that they want to get everything right, and that feels like the right culture and attitude. I feel like you should probably be allowed to swim anywhere you want even in still water or when there's algae, at your own peril, but really it's not that much of an inconvenience to go to a safer spot with a lifeguard.) My impression is that what really ails Western societies is not necessarily risk averseness but rather gridlock, where a small amount of people can block a lot of progress for the rest of us. Gridlock has made governments averse to big infrastructure projects (e.g. high speed trains) and big changes in regulations that could move the needle (e.g. land value taxation) but they're not really averse to the risk, they're averse to getting swamped by interest groups and influential people with a vested interest in the status quo.
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    > If newspapers are afraid to publish because they are fearful of libel suits, then we might miss fact-checked stories that are in the public interest, and it's not clear that that's a good trade-off. I'd argue the opposite. If they're afraid of libel, they're probably engaging in it and should stop. If they're sure of what they're saying and have proof of due diligence, they shouldn't be afraid. If they're not sure, they might still want to publish the information but be clear and explicit that they have no proof and state how they got hold of the information. Saying "I heard but haven't been able to verify that Person X did Thing Y" is very different from saying "Person X did Thing Y". The latter should absolutely be liable to a suit if they don't have proof or very strong evidence that it actually happened. The former shouldn't as much. Disclaimer, IANAL so I can't tell if libel laws in different countries work that way but I would expect them to do so at least in broad terms.
- chx 4y ago
  > . It shows up in new parents who don't introduce their children to family for risk of covid. This is asinine. Just because politics tells you everything is normal, everything is decidedly not normal. COVID is still an endemic and very serious disease. Dropping mask mandates were a seriously and deadly mistake.
  - pacija 4y ago
    Chicken
    - chx 4y ago
      alive and not disabled by long covid either
      - pacija 4y ago
        Unvaxed, unmasked, also alive and not disabled by long covid ;)
        chx 4y ago
        You are a danger to society. Hope you are proud of yourself. See you at the Herman Cain Awards.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    My point was not to debate the seriousness of covid but talk about relative risk. If you think covid is very serious and it's perfectly logical to take some precautions with your child. To my point, there is a huge difference between taking your child to a sports game and introducing it to one or two people over the course of a year. If you magically knew there is a 1 in 10 chance your child would die, of course don't do it. The question is when would you start to do it. One in a million chance, one in a billion? At some point the logic of better safe than sorry works against you.
    - chx 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

>I think there is a real issue on what people perceive as society's role and what parent's role is. Not only that, but you a society has become obsessed with risk mitigation over the last several decades. The problem is that people are poorly equipped to estimate risk with very low occurrences against low or unclear cost. You see it in all facets of society with a platitude of better safe than sorry. It shows up in increased medical licensing to reduce error, which means less accessible and more expensive care. It shows up in new parents who don't introduce their children to family for risk of covid. It shows up San Francisco city policy to reduce traffic death to zero even if it means reducing traffic to a standstill. At the end of the day, a life with zero risk is not a life worth living but people are scared into the safest option.

cmurf 4y ago
Meanwhile actual trauma, by way of active shooter drills that are not announced in advance, run rampant and unchecked. https://twitter.com/donnaprovencher/status/1628127839747772436?s=12&t=EjmauQjerGZUsb1UK4jGzw https://twitter.com/donnaprovencher/status/16281278397477724... Obsession with risk mitigation is too diplomatic for what's going on here.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > active shooter drills What the fuck
  - notch898a 4y ago
    It gets better.... they do the drill but then don't even practice the most important and highest priority of the 3 option which is to RUN. It turns out, running is too inconvenient for the teachers to deal with, because it's a lot of work to round up kids that have run away (and probably not the safest thing to begin with anyway for just a drill). So instead they drill for them to hide, which should be done only if you can't run away. The thing is, watching both the Uvalde and Christchurch massacre videos, it will become crystal clear to you that hiding is the literal worst of the three options as you become a sitting duck. So they have the drill, then drill into the kids to be sitting ducks because it is more convenient for the administrator than dealing with kids that are running. The advice I have for my kid is to not give a damn what the teacher says, to grab the nearest long durable object and smash out the windows and run away.
    - cesaref 4y ago
      > The advice I have for my kid is to not give a damn what the teacher says, to grab the nearest long durable object and smash out the windows and run away. Meanwhile, here in the UK, the advice I gave my son was to look both ways when crossing the road, not to mess around with plug sockets, and not to run when carrying a pair of scissors. I honestly don't know how the US has got itself into such a messed up state that such drills are considered necessary and routine, or how it is that the people are ok with this. I'm guessing it's a boiling a frog type scenario as it doesn't make sense otherwise.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > don't know how the US has got itself into such a messed up state that such drills are considered necessary As the comment above you says, they’re between counterproductive and unnecessary, and purely creatures of posturing and appeasing scared parents.
stdbrouw 4y ago
I'd be wary of putting all of these examples into the same box, though. If kids can't play outside anymore because of overprotective parents or an overprotective society, that feels to me like a net negative. If newspapers are afraid to publish because they are fearful of libel suits, then we might miss fact-checked stories that are in the public interest, and it's not clear that that's a good trade-off. On the other hand, zero traffic death policies usually result in fairly cheap and only mildly inconvenient interventions (if inconvenient at all) to improve the legibility of key intersections and dangerous roads. Drives to reduce medical error usually rely on increased training or the introduction of fixed procedures or checklists, quick wins. Safety regulations in construction require proper dust extraction and safety at heights, and really the cost in better ladders, scaffolding, safety harnesses, vacuums and so on is completely negligible compared against the occupational hazards and chronic illnesses often suffered by older construction workers. (And sometimes it's debatable. I feel like NASA could take a bigger risk on some manned missions if the astronauts agree, but on the other hand there's so much money and effort involved in these missions that it's not so strange that they want to get everything right, and that feels like the right culture and attitude. I feel like you should probably be allowed to swim anywhere you want even in still water or when there's algae, at your own peril, but really it's not that much of an inconvenience to go to a safer spot with a lifeguard.) My impression is that what really ails Western societies is not necessarily risk averseness but rather gridlock, where a small amount of people can block a lot of progress for the rest of us. Gridlock has made governments averse to big infrastructure projects (e.g. high speed trains) and big changes in regulations that could move the needle (e.g. land value taxation) but they're not really averse to the risk, they're averse to getting swamped by interest groups and influential people with a vested interest in the status quo.
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  > If newspapers are afraid to publish because they are fearful of libel suits, then we might miss fact-checked stories that are in the public interest, and it's not clear that that's a good trade-off. I'd argue the opposite. If they're afraid of libel, they're probably engaging in it and should stop. If they're sure of what they're saying and have proof of due diligence, they shouldn't be afraid. If they're not sure, they might still want to publish the information but be clear and explicit that they have no proof and state how they got hold of the information. Saying "I heard but haven't been able to verify that Person X did Thing Y" is very different from saying "Person X did Thing Y". The latter should absolutely be liable to a suit if they don't have proof or very strong evidence that it actually happened. The former shouldn't as much. Disclaimer, IANAL so I can't tell if libel laws in different countries work that way but I would expect them to do so at least in broad terms.
chx 4y ago
> . It shows up in new parents who don't introduce their children to family for risk of covid. This is asinine. Just because politics tells you everything is normal, everything is decidedly not normal. COVID is still an endemic and very serious disease. Dropping mask mandates were a seriously and deadly mistake.
- pacija 4y ago
  Chicken
  - chx 4y ago
    alive and not disabled by long covid either
    - pacija 4y ago
      Unvaxed, unmasked, also alive and not disabled by long covid ;)
      - chx 4y ago
        You are a danger to society. Hope you are proud of yourself. See you at the Herman Cain Awards.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  My point was not to debate the seriousness of covid but talk about relative risk. If you think covid is very serious and it's perfectly logical to take some precautions with your child. To my point, there is a huge difference between taking your child to a sports game and introducing it to one or two people over the course of a year. If you magically knew there is a 1 in 10 chance your child would die, of course don't do it. The question is when would you start to do it. One in a million chance, one in a billion? At some point the logic of better safe than sorry works against you.
  - chx 4y ago