3 ms·
Same with movies. Piles of dead bodies are OK for children to watch but naked skin would be highly damaging.
by tempodox 1y ago
Same with movies. Piles of dead bodies are OK for children to watch but naked skin would be highly damaging.
- scott_w 1y agoI mean, these films usually get rated 15 or 18 in the UK, so I’d not say it’s “OK for children to watch.”
- k1t 1y agoI think that's the classic US/UK culture split though. US is strict on language and nudity, but comparatively lax on violence (except blood). UK is lax on nudity and language (comparatively), but very strict on violence. UK being the country that considered the word "ninja" too violent for children, for example.
- ashoeafoot 1y agoViolence is pretty okay in the middle east, which makes it socially acceptable by inheritance in the uk.
- scott_w 1y agoI’m pretty sure GTA has never been rated below M which, as I recall, is 17+. Not a massive difference between that and BBFC’s 18 rating…
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- philwelch 1y ago> Republicans literally argue it's better for the country to have school shooters and for survivors and parents to live with PTSD for the rest of their lives than to limit access to military-grade weapons. Can you quote any Republican who has “literally argued” this or are you just spreading lies that make it easier for you to vilify and dehumanize people who disagree with you politically?