Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content • Hacker News Board

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#221

Post by rayiner » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 1:27 AM UTC

dlisboa wrote: post #176

rayiner wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in societies, like certain parts of America, beset with pathological levels of individualism. In healthy societies, that obligation generally doesn’t lead to resentment because (1) it’s a mutual and reciprocal obligation; and (2) people understand that they have roles and obligations that arise by virtue of their very existence as a human being. To be clear, in this particular example the parents are breaching t…

I'd advise against judging health of personal interaction in a society based on interactions between parents and children. Calling one healthy over the other has many issues. Just one example: in India people help one's families to a huge extent. But kids are also brought up under heavy use of corporal punishment and there's a high degree of family involvement in children's affairs, such as dictating career choices a…

> Just one example: in India people help one's families to a huge extent. But kids are also brought up under heavy use of corporal punishment and there's a high degree of family involvement in children's affairs, such as dictating career choices and marriage. Is that a healthier society?

Yes. If an Indian village raises their kids the way Americans do everyone would die of starvation.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#222

Post by ouid » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 1:36 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #209

ouid wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not providing a 10 year old with puberty blockers when you suspect that it is because the child has been manipulated into believing that they have gender dysphoria is practicing medicine. So I am not proposing that we deny anyone access to medicine. Parents with Munchausen's manipulating their prepubescent children into socially transitioning is a good explanation for the rise in prepubscent children socially transit…

> Not providing a 10 year old with puberty blockers when you suspect that it is because the child has been manipulated into believing that they have gender dysphoria is practicing medicine. Not if there is no reasonable basis for that suspicion; in that case, it is just practicing bigotry. > Parents with Munchausen’s manipulating their prepubescent children into socially transitioning is a good explanation for the ri…

> there is no reasonable basis for that suspicion

There is absolutely a reasonable basis for that suspicion. There are simply many times more prepubescent children with claims of gender dysphoria than at any other point.

How effective a test is for diagnosis depends heavily on what my priors are about the population it is applied to. If I were to administer an HIV test to every American adult, and then started everyone who got a positive result back with antiretrovirals, I would almost mostly be giving that treatment to people without HIV. This is true even though the test is very accurate. If the number of people walking into gender clinics goes up by a factor of 5, I cannot, a priori, expect that my test has the same predictive power that it used to.

> is a much better explanation with a clear causal mechanism

A priori, they are both good explanations. An explanation is good if it's simple, predictive, and you do not have the data to disprove it. The way we distinguish between competing good explanations is through testing. So far no one has proposed a test to tell the two hypotheses apart, except perhaps to look at the rate of detransitioning among the cohort of recent transitioners. This data has yet to become available, as it requires longitudinal study, but the leading signs are not necessarily in favor of your hypothesis. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/107/10/e4261/6604653

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#223

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 1:43 AM UTC

jstarfish wrote: post #133

mablopoule wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, society would absolutely be culturally impoverished if this would be considered off-limit. Limiting the space of 'allowed' expression and saying it's okay because culture is not essential isn't really the best path to take as a society.

If you Photoshop the penis out, there would be nothing remarkable about the cover. It was child exploitation as a marketing gimmick. I think the Scorpions did something similar with putting an underage girl on the Virgin Killer album, but that may have been non-photographic (not looking it up). Decades later, Nirvana is still a topic of discussion because of it (and still earning royalties), while the kid in question…

[deleted]

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#224

Post by ryanklee » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 1:51 AM UTC

Eisenstein wrote: post #219

ryanklee wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the parent comment's point would be better formulated as: We make an exception for child actors but do so thoughtlessly; if we applied the same lines of moral reasoning that leads us to prevent children from working elsewhere, many of those lines would prevent us from making an allowance for paid child actors. But we fail to make the application of those lines of reasoning in this case because of cultural l…

Well, the difference is also that many children want to act -- I don't think any children want to work in a meat processing plant. Are we do deny them artistic expression because we think it is morally strange? We allow many exceptions to things for strange reasons because we are humans and are kind of strange. We allow kids to homeschool and we allow them hobbies -- if their hobby is acting should they not be allowe…

What children do or do not want is an unreliable signal of what is good for their long-term well being.

Being paid changes the dynamic in a deep way from being a hobby. It opens up the floodgates of manipulation and abuse.

How is it at all tertiary? It's the primary point: we don't allow children to work for pay because of the potential for abuse; children get paid to act; many child actors are abused as a result of extracting money from them and their labor.

We make an exception because it is convenient, not well understood by the public, and we all benefit from the resultant entertainment.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#225

Post by figlett5 » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 2:40 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #209

ouid wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not providing a 10 year old with puberty blockers when you suspect that it is because the child has been manipulated into believing that they have gender dysphoria is practicing medicine. So I am not proposing that we deny anyone access to medicine. Parents with Munchausen's manipulating their prepubescent children into socially transitioning is a good explanation for the rise in prepubscent children socially transit…

> Not providing a 10 year old with puberty blockers when you suspect that it is because the child has been manipulated into believing that they have gender dysphoria is practicing medicine. Not if there is no reasonable basis for that suspicion; in that case, it is just practicing bigotry. > Parents with Munchausen’s manipulating their prepubescent children into socially transitioning is a good explanation for the ri…

> in that case, it is just practicing bigotry

You people are like broken records, honestly. Any criticism automatically becomes bigotry or hate or genocide or whatever. It's absurd.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#226

Post by Eisenstein » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 3:30 AM UTC

ryanklee wrote: post #224

Eisenstein wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the difference is also that many children want to act -- I don't think any children want to work in a meat processing plant. Are we do deny them artistic expression because we think it is morally strange? We allow many exceptions to things for strange reasons because we are humans and are kind of strange. We allow kids to homeschool and we allow them hobbies -- if their hobby is acting should they not be allowe…

What children do or do not want is an unreliable signal of what is good for their long-term well being. Being paid changes the dynamic in a deep way from being a hobby. It opens up the floodgates of manipulation and abuse. How is it at all tertiary? It's the primary point: we don't allow children to work for pay because of the potential for abuse; children get paid to act; many child actors are abused as a result of…

> What children do or do not want is an unreliable signal of what is good for their long-term well being.

Sure, you can make them do things or forbid them from doing things you deem inappropriate or detrimental -- if they are your own kids. When society tells other parents what to do or not to do, then we are in different territory.

> How is it at all tertiary?

Forbidding all work is one end of the spectrum which is obviously stupid (no lawn work, no babysitting, etc) while forbidding no work is obviously stupid (let 12 year olds operate construction cranes). It is finding the in between that is difficult.

Acting for money is fine when it is what, $50 for a community gig? Or $5000? What if they are exceptionally talented? Or you say, nope, zero dollars for anything a minor produces since they cannot produce things of value?

Where do you draw the line?

Hence, the 'lots of money' part is tertiary to the 'we let them do it' part.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#227

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 3:59 AM UTC

figlett5 wrote: post #225

dragonwriter wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not providing a 10 year old with puberty blockers when you suspect that it is because the child has been manipulated into believing that they have gender dysphoria is practicing medicine. Not if there is no reasonable basis for that suspicion; in that case, it is just practicing bigotry. > Parents with Munchausen’s manipulating their prepubescent children into socially transitioning is a good explanation for the ri…

> in that case, it is just practicing bigotry You people are like broken records, honestly. Any criticism automatically becomes bigotry or hate or genocide or whatever. It's absurd.

You really need to learn to understand how conditional statements work.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#228

Post by sneak » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 4:29 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #221

dlisboa wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd advise against judging health of personal interaction in a society based on interactions between parents and children. Calling one healthy over the other has many issues. Just one example: in India people help one's families to a huge extent. But kids are also brought up under heavy use of corporal punishment and there's a high degree of family involvement in children's affairs, such as dictating career choices a…

> Just one example: in India people help one's families to a huge extent. But kids are also brought up under heavy use of corporal punishment and there's a high degree of family involvement in children's affairs, such as dictating career choices and marriage. Is that a healthier society? Yes. If an Indian village raises their kids the way Americans do everyone would die of starvation.

Sounds like a tidy solution to the human rights violation that is arranged marriage, and the closely associated tradition of honor killings, the murder of a woman by her immediate family for refusing to submit herself sexually to those chosen by her family for her.

The idea that someone could hold such cultures up as an ideal is literally insane to me.

It seems to me that these systems stem from the basic concept that women and children are the personal inanimate property of their family unit, to be disposed of however the family wishes, like a used car or a plot of land. The idea that this is healthy or normal appears to be a rationalization and not rooted in any basis besides tradition.

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#229

Post by rayiner » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 4:56 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #228

rayiner wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just one example: in India people help one's families to a huge extent. But kids are also brought up under heavy use of corporal punishment and there's a high degree of family involvement in children's affairs, such as dictating career choices and marriage. Is that a healthier society? Yes. If an Indian village raises their kids the way Americans do everyone would die of starvation.

Sounds like a tidy solution to the human rights violation that is arranged marriage, and the closely associated tradition of honor killings, the murder of a woman by her immediate family for refusing to submit herself sexually to those chosen by her family for her. The idea that someone could hold such cultures up as an ideal is literally insane to me. It seems to me that these systems stem from the basic concept tha…

> It seems to me that these systems stem from the basic concept that women and children

It's more about having a narrower sense of the scope of the individual relative to the collective and the relevance of individual choice. Both facilitated marriages and parents' involvement in career choices arise from the quite sound premises that (1) young people are bad at making decisions and can benefit from the acquired and collective wisdom of the family; and (2) that people have a moral obligation to perpetuate society and support families, and fulfilling those obligations isn't about individual choice. (Note that both principles apply equally to men and women.)

Re: Influencer parents and the kids who had their childhood made into content

#230

Post by jemmyw » Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 7:06 AM UTC

ivraatiems wrote: post #78

I have some good friends who've gone the other way: they've asked that there be as close to no photos or videos of their child on any social media as possible. They don't post about him online, and they keep pictures of him in photo albums. When he was born, they asked all of us to please refrain from taking photos of him without their permission. I completely support this and I intend to do something similar for my…

We did the same. My mother wasn't very understanding but she did comply. I think we caused her some issues because my sister posted on Facebook but it's all good now.