7 ms·

When did Louis C.K. become the guru of the internet, and when did parents decide they should accept parenting advice from a comic who's act is extremely child u

by Klinky 13y ago

When did Louis C.K. become the guru of the internet, and when did parents decide they should accept parenting advice from a comic who's act is extremely child unfriendly? Not only do I think a child not having a cellphone(even just a basic one) is a security risk, but I'd also think it could lead to less of a social life, not more of one. Kids not fitting into their peer group and being ostracized or picked on due to a lack of a phone/smartphone probably doesn't seem like a big deal to the 20, 30, or 40-something parent. Probably because that 20,30, or 40-something parent has forgotten what it was like to be a 7th grader. It also breeds feelings of resentment, and it portrays to the child a beautiful example of hypocrisy, as the parental unit continues to use the so-called "socially destructive" devices. If you are not planning on giving your child a cellphone because you're afraid of it's destructive effect on their ability to communicate with other human beings, then what more are you doing to encourage social growth in your child? Not giving your kid a cellphone is a passive action, not a proactive action.

Helianthus 13y ago
Let's be clear, Louis C.K. is a parent, and in general any advice given to parents is a priori given to caveat emptor.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
nether 13y ago
http://www.theonion.com/articles/magazine-runs-article-about-louis-ck,32300/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/magazine-runs-article-about...
kunai 13y ago
A child will not get shot or kidnapped for not having a cell phone, and those who will ostracize your child because of the technology they don't have don't deserve to be your kid's friend anyhow. One could say that there is an ostensible social and security risk in not having a cell phone compared to if one didn't have a cell phone, but the risk really is very low, and if that level of risk disturbs you, an el-cheapo prepaid phone with no minutes on it (just 911) will suffice. I think people forget that we lived not even as early as 5 years ago where smartphones were not considered a necessity. Kids did fine with basic or no cell phones at all. And before you pull the "Did you forget 7th grade" argument, I'm in high school. I only own an unactivated iPhone for development and testing, and really never call anyone.
- jonahx 13y ago
  > and those who will ostracize your child because of the technology they don't have don't deserve to be your kid's friend anyhow. yeah, but what if they're really cool and good-looking?
  - Klinky 13y ago
    It does not have to be actual kids picking on another child, but the child can feel excluded. When I grew up my mom chronically destroyed the TVs we had because of content she didn't approve of. Sometimes we would be without a TV for years. Kids reactions to me not seeing a show because I didn't have a TV just made me feel like more of an outsider.
- Klinky 13y ago
  In the 90s there was a big fear of stranger danger, and that your child might get abducted, but maybe that was just pumped up scaremongering. It's much easier to coordinate with a child if they have a cellphone. You can send a text or call, or in a worst case scenario it could be used to triangulate a location. You have shunned having an active cellphone. That is your choice, which may not be representative of another kid's choice. I don't think parents should force a phone on to their child if the child doesn't want it.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
"when did parents decide they should accept parenting advice from a comic who's act is extremely child unfriendly?" Parenting advice is for parents, whether his stage act is child friendly is completely immaterial.
- Klinky 13y ago
  Being a parent isn't a very good indicator of good advice either. It seems that a favorite past time of parents which I have observed is commenting on the poor parenting done by others, including such gems as "they got their 11 year old an iPhone, can you believe that!?". I think that judging the character/reliability of a source before citing it to support a position is important. Though it's doubtful people are actually gleaning parenting advice from this instance of Louis C.K., and it's most likely going to be used more for confirmation bias instead. I am just suggesting people should pause to reflect on who they're aligning themselves with to confirm their biases.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Huh? None of that says anything about whether he has a point or not.
    - Klinky 13y ago
      He has an opinion, like many famous people. If his character/background doesn't matter, then we could just drop in any famous celebrity that people could use to confirm their own biases and justify their parenting decisions. If you're planning on using Louis C.K. as an example of a parent who is choosing to not give their kids cellphones, just be prepared for people to go "oh isn't he the one who jokes about [xyz inappropriate for children topic]".
      - moocowduckquack 13y ago
        Interesting. I forgot there were people like you. No, that is not what I would be planning on doing. I was just reading someone's view on not giving kids cellphones and taking it on board as something to consider, a datapoint on the wide range of human opinion. As to whether I agree with him, I don't know, I haven't thought about it enough to reach a conclusion yet.
epsylon 13y ago
> security risk That's bullshit. The only security risk is if as a parent, you don't know where your child is and who she is with. I've no scientific data to show for this, but I'm pretty sure that phones are detrimental to child development. Schools are filled with braindead children who spent their whole classes texting on their phones (anecdotal evidence from several teachers of mine). And this is getting worse, because the average age at which children are given their first cell phone is decreasing. You probably wouldn't give your children unrestricted access to television, I guess. Why allow them unrestricted access to a screen then ? > Kids not fitting into their peer group Well, considering the toxic environment that most schools are, your kid will probably get picked on anyway (for whichever superficial reason, because kids are significantly sensitive to peer pressure and thus tend to follow the most vocal and most horrible of their peer groups). As Louis C.K. says it: "Just because the other stupid kids have phones doesn't mean that, OK, my kid has to be stupid otherwise she'll feel weird"
- Klinky 13y ago
  What with the low cost of cellphone service and the high cost of raising a child, I find it hard to believe that parents don't at least equip their child with a feature phone that allows voice and text. It allows you to: A) Check in at will with your child. B) Have them communicate if they missed a bus or are getting a ride home with a friend. C) Tell you they messed up and are out after dark with friends on the wrong side of town and really need a ride home. Those factors alone seem to outweigh the negatives to me. As far as phones and school, it just sounds like cellphones are the new scourge being blamed for things the previous generation doesn't like or understand, just like music, RPGs, TV, and video games were. Kids can be cruel, but calling the understanding of technology and social networking in the 21st century "stupid" seems shortsighted. Especially when parents/adults are some of the heaviest users of social media.
  - epsylon 13y ago
    A) Well if he's smoking weed or drinking alcohol, he'll probably just won't answer your call or tell you to f* off. Kids, and teenagers especially will outright lie to you when confronted. B) Taking a ride with a friend? Have the friend's parent phone you. Missed a bus ? Take the next one. Parent's shouldn't worry about a kid being reasonably late. In any case, there are probably plenty of strangers willing to lend their phone for a quick call. (I'm assuming daytime and a non-dangerous situation here) This is exactly how I did when I was in high school. C) Well, again it's about responsibility from parents. You should know where your kid is. If you know your kid is going out for the night without adult supervision, just lend him a feature phone for that night, and take it back when he won't need it (for example, in school, where he is supposed to be under adult supervision). > As far as phones and school, it just sounds like cellphones are the new scourge being blamed for things the previous generation doesn't like or understand, just like music, RPGs, TV, and video games were. The difference is that I didn't play video games or watch TV while I was in class. I simply couldn't. But when you give children a screen that's available 24/24 and that they can bring with them anywhere, that's where (imho) the limit is crossed. > Especially when parents/adults are some of the heaviest users of social media. Well, the biggest consumers of porn are adults as well, but it doesn't mean that children should have access to it either.

by Klinky 13y ago

Helianthus 13y ago

Let's be clear, Louis C.K. is a parent, and in general any advice given to parents is a priori given to caveat emptor.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

nether 13y ago

http://www.theonion.com/articles/magazine-runs-article-about-louis-ck,32300/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/magazine-runs-article-about...

kunai 13y ago

A child will not get shot or kidnapped for not having a cell phone, and those who will ostracize your child because of the technology they don't have don't deserve to be your kid's friend anyhow. One could say that there is an ostensible social and security risk in not having a cell phone compared to if one didn't have a cell phone, but the risk really is very low, and if that level of risk disturbs you, an el-cheapo prepaid phone with no minutes on it (just 911) will suffice. I think people forget that we lived not even as early as 5 years ago where smartphones were not considered a necessity. Kids did fine with basic or no cell phones at all. And before you pull the "Did you forget 7th grade" argument, I'm in high school. I only own an unactivated iPhone for development and testing, and really never call anyone.

jonahx 13y ago
> and those who will ostracize your child because of the technology they don't have don't deserve to be your kid's friend anyhow. yeah, but what if they're really cool and good-looking?
- Klinky 13y ago
  It does not have to be actual kids picking on another child, but the child can feel excluded. When I grew up my mom chronically destroyed the TVs we had because of content she didn't approve of. Sometimes we would be without a TV for years. Kids reactions to me not seeing a show because I didn't have a TV just made me feel like more of an outsider.
Klinky 13y ago
In the 90s there was a big fear of stranger danger, and that your child might get abducted, but maybe that was just pumped up scaremongering. It's much easier to coordinate with a child if they have a cellphone. You can send a text or call, or in a worst case scenario it could be used to triangulate a location. You have shunned having an active cellphone. That is your choice, which may not be representative of another kid's choice. I don't think parents should force a phone on to their child if the child doesn't want it.

moocowduckquack 13y ago

"when did parents decide they should accept parenting advice from a comic who's act is extremely child unfriendly?" Parenting advice is for parents, whether his stage act is child friendly is completely immaterial.

Klinky 13y ago
Being a parent isn't a very good indicator of good advice either. It seems that a favorite past time of parents which I have observed is commenting on the poor parenting done by others, including such gems as "they got their 11 year old an iPhone, can you believe that!?". I think that judging the character/reliability of a source before citing it to support a position is important. Though it's doubtful people are actually gleaning parenting advice from this instance of Louis C.K., and it's most likely going to be used more for confirmation bias instead. I am just suggesting people should pause to reflect on who they're aligning themselves with to confirm their biases.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Huh? None of that says anything about whether he has a point or not.
  - Klinky 13y ago
    He has an opinion, like many famous people. If his character/background doesn't matter, then we could just drop in any famous celebrity that people could use to confirm their own biases and justify their parenting decisions. If you're planning on using Louis C.K. as an example of a parent who is choosing to not give their kids cellphones, just be prepared for people to go "oh isn't he the one who jokes about [xyz inappropriate for children topic]".
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      Interesting. I forgot there were people like you. No, that is not what I would be planning on doing. I was just reading someone's view on not giving kids cellphones and taking it on board as something to consider, a datapoint on the wide range of human opinion. As to whether I agree with him, I don't know, I haven't thought about it enough to reach a conclusion yet.

epsylon 13y ago

> security risk That's bullshit. The only security risk is if as a parent, you don't know where your child is and who she is with. I've no scientific data to show for this, but I'm pretty sure that phones are detrimental to child development. Schools are filled with braindead children who spent their whole classes texting on their phones (anecdotal evidence from several teachers of mine). And this is getting worse, because the average age at which children are given their first cell phone is decreasing. You probably wouldn't give your children unrestricted access to television, I guess. Why allow them unrestricted access to a screen then ? > Kids not fitting into their peer group Well, considering the toxic environment that most schools are, your kid will probably get picked on anyway (for whichever superficial reason, because kids are significantly sensitive to peer pressure and thus tend to follow the most vocal and most horrible of their peer groups). As Louis C.K. says it: "Just because the other stupid kids have phones doesn't mean that, OK, my kid has to be stupid otherwise she'll feel weird"

Klinky 13y ago
What with the low cost of cellphone service and the high cost of raising a child, I find it hard to believe that parents don't at least equip their child with a feature phone that allows voice and text. It allows you to: A) Check in at will with your child. B) Have them communicate if they missed a bus or are getting a ride home with a friend. C) Tell you they messed up and are out after dark with friends on the wrong side of town and really need a ride home. Those factors alone seem to outweigh the negatives to me. As far as phones and school, it just sounds like cellphones are the new scourge being blamed for things the previous generation doesn't like or understand, just like music, RPGs, TV, and video games were. Kids can be cruel, but calling the understanding of technology and social networking in the 21st century "stupid" seems shortsighted. Especially when parents/adults are some of the heaviest users of social media.
- epsylon 13y ago
  A) Well if he's smoking weed or drinking alcohol, he'll probably just won't answer your call or tell you to f* off. Kids, and teenagers especially will outright lie to you when confronted. B) Taking a ride with a friend? Have the friend's parent phone you. Missed a bus ? Take the next one. Parent's shouldn't worry about a kid being reasonably late. In any case, there are probably plenty of strangers willing to lend their phone for a quick call. (I'm assuming daytime and a non-dangerous situation here) This is exactly how I did when I was in high school. C) Well, again it's about responsibility from parents. You should know where your kid is. If you know your kid is going out for the night without adult supervision, just lend him a feature phone for that night, and take it back when he won't need it (for example, in school, where he is supposed to be under adult supervision). > As far as phones and school, it just sounds like cellphones are the new scourge being blamed for things the previous generation doesn't like or understand, just like music, RPGs, TV, and video games were. The difference is that I didn't play video games or watch TV while I was in class. I simply couldn't. But when you give children a screen that's available 24/24 and that they can bring with them anywhere, that's where (imho) the limit is crossed. > Especially when parents/adults are some of the heaviest users of social media. Well, the biggest consumers of porn are adults as well, but it doesn't mean that children should have access to it either.