4 ms·
The society that supports phoneless children no longer exists. It stopped sometime in the 2010s. Taking away phones doesn't bring that infrastructure back, it c
by kelseyfrog 7mo ago
The society that supports phoneless children no longer exists. It stopped sometime in the 2010s. Taking away phones doesn't bring that infrastructure back, it culminates in something new and worse.
One example is the tension between childrens' independence and roaming and the now lack of payphones. Taking away a cell phone doesn't bring back payphones. It either reduces a child's independence or puts them in more dangerous situations. What it doesn't do is return them back to a time when a couple of quarters could call mom or dad.
- DANmode 7mo agoWho said take phones away? No, teach them some motherfucking respect, so they know, instinctually, that when someone’s talking to them for 30-60 minutes they should pocket or bag it.
- kelseyfrog 7mo agoSorry, but childrens' lack of respect was lamented in Antiquity. I don't see that changing in the next 5 years if it hasn't changed in the last 2000.
- DANmode 7mo agoAs a known exception, not as a rule. Disrespect toward supposed authority figures as a default is a very modern concept.
- kelseyfrog 7mo agoWant to back that up? Because every source I have for the last 2000 years complains it's a new phenomenon.
- DANmode 7mo agoCould you clarify your position? Just reads like you’re agreeing with me, now.
- kelseyfrog 7mo agoNo, I disagree.
- DANmode 7mo agoOkay, finally unraveled your comment: you’re saying the complaint is that in that era it was also thought of as a new phenomenon. That makes some sense - it’s been a declining slope, with a huge drop-off point. But was there also evidence of less-competent people coming out of the end of the machine that’s supposed to produce people to keep the civilization functional? Probably happened at one time or another - but it was probably also considered a problem…… My original “as a default” verbiage is doing a lot of heavy lifting, but is there for a reason.
- kelseyfrog 7mo agoI'm so sorry. But consider that you're simply wrong.
- DANmode 7mo agoI have considered that, but I’m still wholly unconvinced, due to your abandonment of the thread after a drive-by effort.
- kelseyfrog 7mo agoHuh? The validity of my take is based on some rule you have in your head? What I'm seeing is someone who is desperate to be right. Everyone for the last 2000 years has expressed the same sentiment you did. They all feel exactly the same way. The parsimonious explanation is that this is a bias that develops as we age and like any bias, we're especially blind to it and deny its existence as evidenced in this thread. I know it doesn't feel good to realize you have a bias, but that rational thing is to understand it and account for it. That too is part of growing older.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- hollerith 7mo agoTeaching them respect sounds a lot harder than just confiscating their phones.
- DANmode 7mo agoNo doubt, that’s why the pendulum has swung as far as it, in the direction it has! That doesn’t make it the right call, necessarily legal in every jurisdiction, or even moral (in certain edge cases). Calling back to my earlier comment: handing your kid an iPad for all of their free time is easy, too!
- hollerith 7mo agoYou're supposing that there existed a virtuous past in which parents taught their children respect and that if we returned to that past, there would be no need to ban smartphones in the classroom, and you believe that even though this virtuous past had no smartphones.
- DANmode 7mo agoI’m supposing that there are, have been, and will be, cultures that exhibit (and socially enforce) basic respect, yes. Even in the presence of technology.