4 ms·

This reminds of the "no kids zone" concept in Korea [0]. When first hearing about it sounded just a bit extreme, but the moreI read about it the darker and glo

This reminds of the "no kids zone" concept in Korea [0]. When first hearing about it sounded just a bit extreme, but the moreI read about it the darker and gloomer it gets, and it's a phenomenon that is having a deep impact on the whole Korean society's future. [0] https://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20230609000677 https://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20230609000677

jgilias 3y ago
What the hell… Thank you for posting this. I was thinking of going for a vacation to Korea _with kids_, and now I don’t think I will. Can’t imagine needing to explain to my well-behaved 8-year old that, no, we can’t go to some place we’d want to go, because other kids can’t behave. This should totally be illegal.
- shortsunblack 3y ago
  Some people want areas without kids. Why should that be illegal? Kids ruin most things, as as society gets older and childless, those that want to have fun in said society will lobby for changes. Movies in cinema all suck ass because they need to cater ages 13 demographic. Latest Hunger Games movie is prime example. Any time violence is supposed to happen, they cut away from the violence and merely imply violence happening. No-kids zone is what made HBO so successful -- it releases shows with wildly disturbing, no kids allowed, avant garde themes. If you do not allow explicit no kids zones, people will yearn for these zones and the supply will be met. Just with different justifications.
  - jgilias 3y ago
    Some people want areas without black people, the Irish, Muslims, old people, women, men, gay people. It really has nothing to do with having or not having R-rated movies. It’s just discrimination against children, and by extension their parents.
    - shortsunblack 3y ago
      You are arguing valid points with some inherent assumptions that are not guaranteed to be met by everyone. 'Discrimination' is not "bad" per se. It is merely a social contract to prohibit it to some protected classes. Discrimination literally just means to differentiate, the negative connotations are social and cultural bias, and thus are socially constructed. Society does that because we've found that to lead better outcomes. There's no inherent naturalistic justification to these protections, besides weird Locke-ian attempts to justify "human rights" based on a higher entity (gods). Legislation is drawn as an attempt to resolute differing, conflicting ideas. It is not innate, it is not given by god(s). Knowing this, then the equivocation of "Irish, Muslisms, old people, women, men, gay people" to "people like to have areas without kids" is ridiculous. The class of a parent and their offspring is not the same as the class of a religion or a sexuality (something that you can't even choose -- whereas you can choose to be a parent (discounting rape, because that is an extraordinary circumstance)).
      - makeitdouble 3y ago
        > Society does that because we've found that to lead better outcomes. This is right to the point. Having kids socialize and be integrated in everyday life as much as possible has centuries of proven efficiency, for kids, parents, and society in general. I don't think there's any solid high minded argument that goes one way or the other, it comes down to the practical repercussions of cutting a specific group from a whole slide social activities.
      - jgilias 3y ago
        Lots of smart words, but little substance. You can totally choose to not be of a particular religion too. EDIT: And my son can’t actually choose to not be 8. He’s the person primarily being discriminated against.
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    I sympathise with many of your points -- kinda feel your expectations for the Hunger Games were a bit high though. There's a lot more lacking from those movies than violence depiction. And it's also why the "no kids zone" approach is so problematic. As you point out birth rates are falling, and society thoroughly making sure the fun stuff happens where no kids are allowed is both easier to do than ever, and accelerating that trend to an extent that is hard to describe. I think people will still want kids, and couples in the right time and place will have one. But not two, or three. Because once they'll experience how it feels to be cut from society as an adult for about a decade, it's a real tough choice to go through that again given all the other sacrifices (career, money, housing, the sheer grunt of it) while getting no sympathy for it ("previous gens all did it, why you complain ? Also can't that kid shut up ?") "no kids zone" in all nice places is fine if we all accept that we don't really need population renewal or have alternatives ways to preserve our species (There must be some movie with a plot of growing kids on a farm upstate until they're ready for societal life ?)
    - inkcapmushroom 3y ago
      >There must be some movie with a plot of growing kids on a farm upstate until they're ready for societal life ? In Logan's Run the people live in a bubble-dome city, a portion of which is essentially an unmaintained ruin that feral children run around until they're old enough to be civilized.

jgilias 3y ago

What the hell… Thank you for posting this. I was thinking of going for a vacation to Korea _with kids_, and now I don’t think I will. Can’t imagine needing to explain to my well-behaved 8-year old that, no, we can’t go to some place we’d want to go, because other kids can’t behave. This should totally be illegal.

shortsunblack 3y ago
Some people want areas without kids. Why should that be illegal? Kids ruin most things, as as society gets older and childless, those that want to have fun in said society will lobby for changes. Movies in cinema all suck ass because they need to cater ages 13 demographic. Latest Hunger Games movie is prime example. Any time violence is supposed to happen, they cut away from the violence and merely imply violence happening. No-kids zone is what made HBO so successful -- it releases shows with wildly disturbing, no kids allowed, avant garde themes. If you do not allow explicit no kids zones, people will yearn for these zones and the supply will be met. Just with different justifications.
- jgilias 3y ago
  Some people want areas without black people, the Irish, Muslims, old people, women, men, gay people. It really has nothing to do with having or not having R-rated movies. It’s just discrimination against children, and by extension their parents.
  - shortsunblack 3y ago
    You are arguing valid points with some inherent assumptions that are not guaranteed to be met by everyone. 'Discrimination' is not "bad" per se. It is merely a social contract to prohibit it to some protected classes. Discrimination literally just means to differentiate, the negative connotations are social and cultural bias, and thus are socially constructed. Society does that because we've found that to lead better outcomes. There's no inherent naturalistic justification to these protections, besides weird Locke-ian attempts to justify "human rights" based on a higher entity (gods). Legislation is drawn as an attempt to resolute differing, conflicting ideas. It is not innate, it is not given by god(s). Knowing this, then the equivocation of "Irish, Muslisms, old people, women, men, gay people" to "people like to have areas without kids" is ridiculous. The class of a parent and their offspring is not the same as the class of a religion or a sexuality (something that you can't even choose -- whereas you can choose to be a parent (discounting rape, because that is an extraordinary circumstance)).
    - makeitdouble 3y ago
      > Society does that because we've found that to lead better outcomes. This is right to the point. Having kids socialize and be integrated in everyday life as much as possible has centuries of proven efficiency, for kids, parents, and society in general. I don't think there's any solid high minded argument that goes one way or the other, it comes down to the practical repercussions of cutting a specific group from a whole slide social activities.
    - jgilias 3y ago
      Lots of smart words, but little substance. You can totally choose to not be of a particular religion too. EDIT: And my son can’t actually choose to not be 8. He’s the person primarily being discriminated against.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  I sympathise with many of your points -- kinda feel your expectations for the Hunger Games were a bit high though. There's a lot more lacking from those movies than violence depiction. And it's also why the "no kids zone" approach is so problematic. As you point out birth rates are falling, and society thoroughly making sure the fun stuff happens where no kids are allowed is both easier to do than ever, and accelerating that trend to an extent that is hard to describe. I think people will still want kids, and couples in the right time and place will have one. But not two, or three. Because once they'll experience how it feels to be cut from society as an adult for about a decade, it's a real tough choice to go through that again given all the other sacrifices (career, money, housing, the sheer grunt of it) while getting no sympathy for it ("previous gens all did it, why you complain ? Also can't that kid shut up ?") "no kids zone" in all nice places is fine if we all accept that we don't really need population renewal or have alternatives ways to preserve our species (There must be some movie with a plot of growing kids on a farm upstate until they're ready for societal life ?)
  - inkcapmushroom 3y ago
    >There must be some movie with a plot of growing kids on a farm upstate until they're ready for societal life ? In Logan's Run the people live in a bubble-dome city, a portion of which is essentially an unmaintained ruin that feral children run around until they're old enough to be civilized.