Okay, the show is "I Am Ruth." From the Guardian's review:
As we see – what [the mother] does not – [the daughter] in her bedroom, alternately posing for increasingly risque selfies and curling up beneath her duvet in despair as her notifications pile up, it becomes clear that there is something more than normal teen angst or rebellion at work. Or is it normal? One of the underlying questions posed by this drama is whether social-media misadventures – especially for girls and young women – must now be considered a standard part of the growing-up process. If so, how can parents and children possibly navigate such uncharted and deeply dangerous waters?
Posts
47 comments:
People that have a publicist, tiktok, twitter, facebook, vine, insta, snapchat, etc:
Kate Winslet
Criminalize harmful content ? ... that is harmful request.
Why are the Brits so enamored with speech crimes and censorship?
Read of a new problem with social media and young girls. Apparently, Find My Friends is a source of angst because it allows them to discover when their friends may be gathering and they weren't invited. I've always found that feature creepy.
Thank you for this. I saw an ad for Dove soap last week, which highlighted girls with anorexia and the media posts that seem to encourage it. At the end of the ad, they asked for support in helping them get legislation passed that would end harmful content on social media.
I don't know what that means, either. For the alcoholics and addicts, content with alcohol and drugs can be harmful. For the anorexics, content with thin people might be harmful. And for those in early puberty, content with confusing information about sexual identity might be harmful. What needs to be legislated?
Boiled frogs.
1. Grandparents spend their retirement years glued to Fox/CNN 12 hours per day.
2. Parents spend their days glued to Facebook, Youtube, Ebay, and Amazon.
3. Children raise themselves on smartphones with "answers" for everything, and that never forgets anything you do wrong, and where you are endlessly compared with the world's best random stranger for everything.
Young girls plainly cannot take it. They are suffering and dying and sexually abstinent (be it virginal or transgendered) -- this is what's behind morally screechy paranoid absolutist Wokism. They are perfect candidates for cults and convents. Many are on course to being a failed generation, akin those lost to famine, disease, and war. They have been figuratively raped by all the adults around them.
See "Brave New World." We are there.
My children do not get phones until they are at least 14. They also have a monitored phone that is not allowed in their bedroom. Social media isn't permitted. They have time limits for YouTube, chrome, any other app that is taking too much of their time. They're normal kids. But we have to be the parents.
Yes, censorship needs to be implemented across all ideologies, political groups, society, races, ethnicities, religions, countries of origin, and put under federal, state, local control to stop all available thoughts except those of which I approve, of course, because mine are all correct think, not wrong think, like all those others.
I am certain no one will ever use this power maliciously.
Can we give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she is speaking about those who want to put sexualized material in Elementary School libraries?
Ah, the good old days when "artists" advocated for a censorship-free world in which to express their visions.
Lady Chatterley weeps in her lover's arms.
you Know what stops girls from being pestered and pressured to have to do "risque" selfies.
Ritual Scarification.
Once a pretty girl starts taking testosterone, and has a radical mastectomy..
The requests for "risque" selfies falls off to nothing (just like her breasts did).
Of course.. The Only Problem Is: when the girl grows up (i can't Really say 'becomes a woman')..
There is NO Way Out.. She's stuck in the mutilated body of a freak. But no more requests for selfies.
Of course,
by then she's so messed up; that she'll Probably KEEP posting selfies of what's left of her body.
The GOOD NEWS IS: At least Children's Hospitals will be able to make money off of her. So. there's That
Oh, I get it. "How to show you're ignorant without saying, 'I'm ignorant.'"
Which is more likely to work?
A. Parents keep their kids off social media because they own and control the family's phone bill?
B. The government not only reaches a working definition of "harmful content", but has the resources to police it across all existing and to-be-built networks and platforms?
Vivek has a plan!
Vivek Ramaswamy
@VivekGRamaswamy
"Kids aren’t adults. Schools should ban the use of smartphones in schools & kids shouldn’t be using addictive social media products at all."
Trump is too busy writing ambiguous social media posts that even Ann Althouse can't parse.
Trump is too focused on himself. And his drama.
Downgrading youth is a progressive process, as was downgrading other aspects of butterfly... human life.
One of the underlying questions posed by this drama is whether social-media misadventures – especially for girls and young women – must now be considered a standard part of the growing-up process.
It should NOT be part of the growing-up process. My kids don't get a phone until 16, and in the years leading up to that time they are given very affirming love from their parents so that their identity is not tied to peer approval from everyone who is trying to compete with them. It helps that we do not let them spend 6-8 hours a day in the cesspit called public schools. (the classes are not the problem, it's the Lord of the Flies style of social hierarchy) This way they are not pressured on all sides to measure their worth by people who are tying to "win" the social game.
It always sucked to be a teenager, but social media amplifies the effect so it is the parent's job to intervene.
Uh, Kate. Why don't you look after your kids. Leave me out of it.
And another thing, while I am poised upon the box of soap...
The powers that be should not be criminalizing anything. To look at the government to do YOUR job is to abdicate your freedom in exchange for safety, which you will not get, because you have then let people IN POWER, decide what it is that you can or cannot see hear, experience, know. And people in power have their own ideas of what is for your own good, and you won't generally like that. Take responsibility for yourself. Foster and support individual accountability and responsibility, not external control. And for goodness sakes, strop trying to prevent people who ARE teaching their kids responsibility from doing just that.
Kate needs to ease up a little on the barbell shrugs.
Probably more than a couple Kate Winslet movies should be banned in this case
When it comes to social media, be a parent, don’t demand others censor content so you don’t have to exercise parental discretion.
Some on the left might cry hypocrisy and point to banning on books in libraries, such as being done by DeSantis in Florida, as censorship. Parents have less control over what their child is exposed to in school, but demanding books be banned from school libraries that explain oral sex and butt plugs seems a reasonable parental concern.
NOPE!
Free speech is always to be defended against official proscription of free speech, however offensive that free speech may be. Once the precedent has been set that "dangerous speech" can and should be prohibited in order to "protect"...something or someone, or fuckall, 'tis but a swift jump to indiscriminate labeling of any and all manner of speech as "dangerous." Those who feel righteous never assume their speech may (and eventually will) be prohibited for being "dangerous." This principle is why I have always objected to the implementation of "hate crimes," with their enhanced penalties for crimes that contain (or can be said to contain) a component of "hate" or prejudice, where those exact same offenses absent a hint of "hate" have lesser standard penalties.
as the authorities go after prolifers quietly praying and hounding trans activists,
don't give your kids a phone, or limit their use,
Women use children as an excuse for anything they want.
Original Mike: "Apparently, Find My Friends is a source of angst because it allows them to discover when their friends may be gathering and they weren't invited."
It's even weirder than that. Last month I went to a surprise engagement party for a friend's son and his, that day, betrothed, a really charming young woman whose charming and with-it friends I hung with for two hours before the couple's arrival.
In those two hours I learned how many Mission Impossible-like misdirections had to be built into the complicated planning for this party...entirely because of Find My Friends. While they all laughed at how cute and clever they'd been, my inner Kafka shuddered.
When I read the phrase "...people who can make change...," my first thought was that she was referring to people (like me) who can figure in their heads how much change to give for a cash purchase. $5 bill tendered for a $3.69 purchase, give $1.31 change.
Yes I can still do that, in my head- it ain't braggin' if it's true.
I'll be the first to admit that I rarely use cash. Last year, I hit the ATM twice, $100 each, for hotel tips and such, still have about $60 in my wallet. Gotta get that sweet 3% rebate from VISA, even when I buy a coke at the C store on a road trip.
Now I return you back to your regularly scheduled blog.
"To look at the government to do YOUR job is to abdicate your freedom in exchange for safety, which you will not get, because you have then let people IN POWER, decide what it is that you can or cannot see hear, experience, know."
Umm...you know, (don't you?), that the function of government is to act on behalf of the populace to achieve things that individuals cannot effect for themselves, due to cost, complexity, time, planning, etc., etc., as well as to impose uniformity and regulations and laws such that citizens will not find themselves in constant conflict with all around them, all of whom may have their own ideas as to what is to be done about any particular thing. The people IN POWER, as you put it, are rightly to be reined in by an informed and engaged public.
Unfortunately, that is the ideal, and the reality is that most people are too un- or misinformed or too busy or disinterested to participate in the oversight and governance of the government, such that those with ambitions to power come to control the people for their own benefit or for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful who sway the "people's representatives" with handsome inducement.
But, one cannot say "don't let the government do anything, you do it yourself," as this will generate constant personal civil wars among all against each other.
Note the Kate Winslet: You can prevent your kid from using Social Media -- but it means you have to be a parent! That is far preferable to having Government Ban Something, which seems to be the go-to position for Liberals in Hollywood -- or elsewhere.
Look I agree with Winslet's basic premise that social media is harmful to our children. I think parents today should definitely be monitoring their children's presence on, and use of, social media.
But there are two basic problems with censorship. It's damaging to freedom and inquiry; and we can't agree on what needs to be censored. Which is why it's best left to parents.
The bigger problem is the vast number of children being raised by single parents and the awful job of parenting being done these days.
NOPE!
Free speech is always to be defended against official proscription of free speech,
When Comrade Marvin is right, he's right. (Also when he's Right he's right)
She is one of the activists who have pushed for this unhealthy world with their division and hate. Her roots are socialist, and she is proud of it.
Dave Begley..
But Trump is beating DeSantis... the polls (rigged by democrats) say so.
It's an "unhealthy world" in meatspace right outside our doors, Lady! Maybe the people who defunded police can bring back law and order so it's safe to let our children out to play. You want all the online content you don't like to be censored* instead of doing your job as a parent to defend your child. The TV and the smartphone are not your nanny! They shouldn't be the thing teaching your children. You should be the one in that role. If you want a curated Internet then YOU curate it for your kid and leave the rest of us alone. We didn't build a connected world for your kids to use unsupervised; we built it for adults.
*Let's daydream a little shall we? Instead of your vision what if I was in charge of the Internet and I removed all the content I consider disinformation or "harmful to children" as I see fit? You'd never see the word "transgender" again online. All you Hollywood groomers would be out of business. How about we criminalize YOUR speech and banish YOU from polite society?
If y'all really really want dystopia then we can play that game. Chappelle already gave the Bat signal. What if he shows up?
The Progressives that have campaigned tirelessly for a completely open society, now want to impose controls through Government. They need to grow up, accept responsibility for their poor thinking, and start acting like adults.
Parents with children need to start being parents as a priority. That means, full access to their electronic devices, providing you're OK with them having them in the first place.
Schools and other institutions need to crack down on the adult renegade employees that are actively promoting secretive, 'parents excluded' perverting activities, sexual or otherwise. This crackdown should be ruthless and such activities a firing offense without exception. Parents can't raise their children if they are kept unaware. If they want their kid to be free to join any after-school Satan club, or gender free-for-all, (or really any social activity) they should be made to sign a permission and release first that affirms they are aware.
Censorship can't be imposed by gov't (at least in the US) and wouldn't work anyway -- prohibition never does, and tech-savvy teens will always find a way around 'parental controls.' That leaves parenting as it was understood before all of this, trying to instill values, a sense of self-worth, a sense of belonging, but that was never a cure-all even when it worked at its best. Sometimes people, even young people, have to learn from their mistakes. If they're lucky, they will have parents and peers who can pull them back from crazy stuff, but none of it comes with any guarantees.
But, one cannot say "don't let the government do anything, you do it yourself," as this will generate constant personal civil wars among all against each other.
I'm not quite a Pure libertarian. So I agree with you that government is necessary. I am pretty for down the libertarian path in that government should do only what only it can do, and nothing more. It should not do things simply because it makes less (apparent) work for us, or any other level of convenience. It should also be pushed to as local a level as possible. National governance is too hard to impact as an individual. Still, there are no ideal situations. Every time at least two people are involved there will be conflict about how things should be done.
But when it comes to the topic at hand, (which is what I meant to limit my remarks to), Individuals should be responsible for determining what they consume in the speech market. People should decide and have the freedom to decide what they they say and what they hear. The government should not be the gatekeeper. I am not in disagreement with what you said at 10:04
Robert Cook:
Did you fail to notice the first all-caps word in that comment you quote?
I, for one, distinguish between "defense of national borders" and "managing my minor child's social interactions."
If your heart hadn't gone on forever, we'd all have been better off.
Between near and far, far is better as far as you're concerned.
Shut up!
See my comment in another thread about this admin being objectively fascist. In the formal, Italian and proper sense of the term.
Add their allies as well.
John Henry
Robert Cook. Well said.
See my comment in another thread about this admin being objectively fascist. In the formal, Italian and proper sense of the term.
Add their allies as well.
John Henry
There is some hypocrisy here. I'll let it go and give her credit for seeing the problem. She is wrong about the solution.
Having a parent or parent at home who has time to watch what the kids are doing is important. The government isn't responsible for that. This has always been true.
It's annoying that I get the whoops page twice, figure at least one of the times the comment has actually gone through and then find nothing. Oh well.
Parents must take more responsibility for their children. No one is forcing you to give your child a phone. No one is forcing you to give it to them without any restrictions. Our kids don't get phones until they are at least 14. They're not allowed to have it in their rooms. They have time limits on YouTube, chrome and anything else that begins taking up too much time. They don't have social media as a general rule though our oldest just got Snapchat because we recognize her adulthood is coming soon and have decided that some social media while she's still at home is a good guardrail.
But I'm not a free speech absolutist. I think Tok should be banned for National Security reasons and requiring age verification for porn sites is a great idea.
What are the contents of your principles? Where is your faith? Losing, changing your religion.
Mom, dad, parenting is the hardest job you will ever love. Good luck.
Privacy is the gateway to wicked choices.
Kids need limits on screens and alone in bedroom time.
Hiding, alone, is never a good situation. They can do computer work and such in the common area of the home.
We've created the equivalent of a chipper machine for our children and grandchildren. How might we fix it? It really MUST be fixed!
Aa posted here on Dec 22nd, all content is harmful to women/girls as they have the
"[W]omen have the bad habit, now and then, of falling into a well, of letting themselves be gripped by a terrible melancholy..."
"... and drown in it, and then floundering to get back to the surface—this is the real trouble with women.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/12/women-have-bad-habit-now-and-then-of.html
Just what would be safe content for these girls
Women think a lot about themselves and they do so in a painful and feverish way that is unknown to men. It’s very difficult for them to identify with the work they do, it’s difficult for them to rise out of the dark and painful waters of their melancholy and forget themselves.
I should think that social media would be dangerous to those who have no objective truths or realities to hold on to.
RC gets more and more right-wing every year by saying the same things.
Post a Comment