Iteria

Here's the thing: as a parent you had a high amount of control over what your children consume. Yes, there is peer pressure, but you can just decide to make your kid uncool or weird or quirky. My child basically doesn't see ads. She travels with her own tablet and hotspot with ad-free services and ad-free mobile games. Tiktok and YouTube shorts is almost totally banned in my house, but she may watch a few videos specifically on my devices under my supervision if she wants to see something her friends send her. I don't really have a problem with tiktok per se, more how it zombifies kids with constant dopemine hits. Youtube is a whitelist since don't trust that algorithm at all.

You get the picture. I won't say that my kid is watching things wholly appropriate for her at all times, but my mission as it stands is to keep her attention span solid and teach her moderation, so some games get banned before she ever get to play them (roblox), some get banned after me seeing the impact on her cousin (fortnite) and some get banned for impact on her (mobile games are evil). The fall out can be severe, but in this respect I'm an authoritatian parent. My word is law. Your feelings don't matter. You'll thank me later. Or not. You have a long adulthood play videogames.

Do we though? Alcohol the most commonly used addictive drugs is allowed for adults and even children in many states as long as the adults approve and do it in in private residences.

Parents need to be better about paying attention to games. I remember telling my aunt about a game my 10 year old cousin wanted. She was horrified and said absolutely not. She bought it for him when he asked when they were in the store because she doesn't take any time to pay attention to game They're for kids. Even though games are clearly marked with any objectionable material. She "blindsided" by what was in the game when her son booted it up dispite the game be rated as mature, marking objectionable things and me giving her a play by play.

There are a lot of additive things that we expect parents to use their judgment on. Sugar for example. Until someone is talking to me about how we need a bad on soda and BS like that because parents can't be expected to parent their kids about it, I don't really care about the most optional of activities that is games. Children have extremely limited access if their parents don't allow it. Theu buy the phones/tables/game consoles and robust parental controls have existed for a while.

Kids can be addicted to all sorts of things and it's still on the parents. Because it's technology we for some reason stop believing parents can do a thing. Oh however would the person who controls the internet ans the devices control their child's access to social media (another one I see whining about) and video games. As a parent myself, I'm just under the impression that at least watching in my circle, the parents who don't aren't paying attention or don't actually care that much, they just don't like the outcome judgment.

That's because someone can easily track your address via a phone number. This is why I have a burner VoIP number to give out until I trust people.

What is a "pointless pursuit"? History and any marginalized population by the list. So apparently when the government makes a plan for how to invigorate an area, they don't need to know anything about it's culture and history? We don't need people who understand things like that. Every citizen is the same obviously any thing the government demands is correct and will work out for all populations.

Also why does the state even fund PhDs? PhDs don't enter industry and spin that economy baby, so that worthless. Doctors and lawyers can just take out more loans. It's fine. Looking at that why fund programs for most master's degrees? What companies require one anyway?

I'm being flippang here because even as a STEM major, I've gotten so much mileage out of the "useless" part of my degree. Being exposed to those "pointless pursuits" allowed me to build things that people actually needed and avoid the pitfalls before we exposed people to them.

When I was in school, I wondered why the state was forcing me to take these stupid humanities classes at an engineering university at that, but I see it now. Mine was a school where humanities students had to learn to code a bit, and engineers had to learn do media analysis and probably take more history than they wanted, but getting out into the world, I've found that the engineers who got that exposure are just better because they know there is a whole class of problem involving people and they know when it's time to ask for help or when it's time to do research.

Has the state been funding schools though? Because state funding has been falling across the board and if the state has an interest in being lean then they should focus on out of prop salaries of administration and sports spending. After all what interest does the state have in sports? By this line of reasons colleges should have to fund that themselves.

This is of course setting aside that humanities does help society and is in the vested interest of the state. I'm saying this as someone who was a STEM major. Giving context to the world and giving people a greater understanding is useful for every major. It allows them to understand their world and make better decisions from their station in life.

To take the stance that the state has an interest in funding "useful" degrees then no one should be allowed to do anything outside their education, which is aburd. People with different points of view and knowledge enhance professions, not destroy them. That's what happens when a profession only has one allowable perspective to deal with infinite possibilities of the world.

Unless you are actively for killing people once they hit a certain age, demographic collapse is a real problem. You cannot care for the elderly with nothing but robots. Elders need healthcare. They need people in general and unlike young people they don't move from dead rotting towns. In demographic collapse they don't even have anyone to make them because they don't have kids.

See Japan for how demographic collapse is working out. Young people are being crushed by the weight of what it takes to care for too many old people. And the cycle is only getting worse because of course young people don't have kids when very stressed. Japan has whole towns going to rot. They're economy is experiencing negative effects from not having the expected amount of workers for what they need.

You really want a gradually declining population. You want your birth rate to be about 2. 2.1 is the replacement rate. Currently the US is the only developed country doing this and mostly by accident due to immigration. The US is experiencing a much less pronounced pension crisis than other developed nations. Instead we can focus exclusively on our fascist regime bid for power. That's our of population decline as well, but we get to fight against it since the US is fairly balanced in demographics (for now. It remains to be seen how the millennial generation will handle being dominant generation in a decade or so)

There's a middle ground. I'm in a true small city of 10K and I love it. The city is all of 10 miles square. It has all the basics movie theater, most chains, etc. The city isn't walkable, but it is bikeable and I've found that to be good enough. I grew up in a city like this and I wanted that for my kid. We still drive into the local metro maybe once a month, but I don't ever need to go into the metro for basics.

But I'm not talking about moving fuck all no where. I'm talking about expanding the range impact of cities. We got this way because people all moved to cities. If people spread like a wave away from cities, then the power impact decreases. My town is went from a Christian stronghold where you couldn't drink and everything was closed on Sunday to a place where a Republicans have to battle for local spots and most highly religious laws have been repealed.

Im halfway between 2 major cities. One is the major metro and the other a mid-size city. It used to be very red going 30 minutes away from either, but now we have a sea of purple. And areas are only getting bluer.

Everywhere in GA outside of like 4 cities is bumbfuck, but being I proximity of cities and growing small towns into midsized cities is the way to win. When I was a kid my hometown was bumfuck, GA. Now it's a major city (for GA. I mean it's sub-1 million by a lot) and solidly blue when it used to be very red.

We won't see an AOC type for a long time, but a moderate republican (not a Manchin type) is a way better platform than any republican.

Public school? You mean that place that children are mandated to be? Also you forgot government. It was a whole thing. So if you're a Muslim and you want to be a part of the French government, then I hope you don't have any attachment to those head scarves. There are other religions ornamentation, but the head scarves one was the last one I saw. And whether school or a DMV clerk, it's dumb.

Also noticed I used two different labels for France rather than China. I think China is fascist with what they're doing. France is xenophobic with what they're doing.

Honestly, I feel the same about both: it's absurd. With France I get the "freedom from religion" spiel from some Frenchman, but it's veiled xenophobia to me. When you ban a kind of clothing but only for one group of people, that's basically the definition. Here, it's just fascism. At least the Chinese people are speaking out.

It's a problem because of free movement. I live in GA which us now gloriously purple. Do you know the biggest problem GA has right now? The homesteading movement. A lot of urbanites are spreading from cities. My county (which I just move to lol) was so close to flipping blue they split it in two. And that doesn't matter because I've seen democrat leaning people from the city movement even further past me deeper into rural GA.

To me, this is why they're fighting municipal broadband. I actually fucking hate cities. I've lived in the heart or Atlanta, of DC and more. I hate it. I'd rather a real small town (not bullshit suburbs). I can live here because the town has city sponsored fiber internet. It has made the whole ass area a magnet for tech people. Locals hate it. The city loves that sweet, sweet tax money. And it's like a virus prompting neighboring cities to give it a whirl. But you get just a drop of city folk to move and suddenly a whole district is blue.

That's why this widening divide is a horrible problem. I know a lot of people like me, liberal city haters who are chained to cities for jobs. Some people move because they can, but a lot more people are moving because they have to. My sister lives in bumfuck, GA because that's where she can afford rent and that is a stealth problem for the GOP IMO. Kids are going to show up and gentrify their small towns as broadcast rolls out and remote work is more common

The issue for the GOP is millennials are not getting more conservative as they age. IIRC it's like a 55/45 split in dems favor and it's gets more starkly blue the younger you go. If this trend continues of young people not getting more conservative, the GOP is beyond fucked.