So glad CityUnslicker raised this one:
Am I a nannying lefty after all?
He goes into some new game involving money.
Normally of course the rule would be Caveat Emptor (albeit the games are almost always offered free now). However, with minors involved it is different, my little boys have only a vague concept of money (learned from their mother, they simply ask for unlimited amounts of money and then spend it as fast as they can…)
You’ve touched on the concept of classical liberalism – where is the line drawn? Not nannying in the least.
I’ll go further. Even on this blog, I’ve noticed certain writers going on about “for the cheeldren”, meaning a political move is made in the interests of children, quite falsely as it happens.
I’ve no issue with that and agree with the criticism behind the word “cheeldren” but in so doing, it’s easy to miss the point made by IPJ that real issues involving children can be swept aside, passed by. So if we say “Stop – this is just not on for children,” e.g. this game, then it falls on deaf ears.
One person who uses the “for the cheeldren” expression is also a game fanatic and thus the exhortation of IPJ and now CityUnslicker might well fall on deaf ears – I’d be interested in her reaction. It’s not a criticism, just concern that some things get through which shouldn’t as we confront a flood of bansturbation.
CUS identified certain things untoward about that game. Now, what does one do? Call for a ban? That makes us bansturbators, does it not? Call for blanket rules on games, some of which shouldn’t be anywhere near children?
And what are children? I saw a Kids React youtube where they were addressing hunger games. What the hell were they doing even watching it? If in eastern countries, life is cheap, in this country and the west in general, childhood has become cheap and from where does this idea come that it’s all OK – no one can be harmed or traumatized at any age?
Where is the line drawn?
The answer with CUS is “with his own children”. Parents tend to be more conservative with their own and so they should be. So where does that leave the libertarian? I make no bones about the fact that where children are concerned, I’m far less libertarian. For goodness sake – look at my work background – of course I’m going to try to protect them.
And I concede that kids can be exposed to a hell of a lot of bad stuff before they are long-term traumatized but I’d also suggest that long-term, there is also this process of being inured until people accept something as sane and normal which is simply not – the boiling frog principle.
So where is the line drawn?