TwilightVulpine

I can agree. I don't think most regulation purported to be protecting children actually does anything to help, or that they are drafted in good faith at all. There's fearmongering and overreach involved, and LGBTQ+ people, as well as sex workers, take the brunt of the impact most of the time. But these new risks are there.

Even if parents were enabled to parent more, and a lot needs to change to get there, there still would be a need to educate about these new risks and aid them to protect their kids. The average parent is not nearly aware enough of what they ought to be watching out for, or how to handle it.

And as hesitant as I am about how it would be implemented, there must be some reasonable degree which we should expect online platforms to take measures too. We can demand brick and mortar businesses to take measures for child safety, why would it be impossible online? Though unfortunately the politicians we have are not nearly internet savvy and measured enough to formulate these reasonable standards...

We blame social media the way we blamed video games, and CCCGs the way we blamed violent movies and Gangsta Rap the way we blamed Rock-＆-Roll and Dungeons ＆ Dragons.

Look, there's a lot to be critical of about parenting and the demands of current day society, but when I was a kid, being bullied 24/7 even while away from the bullies, having algorithms target my particular individual insecurities and being covertly groomed by strangers even while being actively supervised by responsible adults were not possibilities. It's not just a moral panic to blame social media, it actually created more risks for children than anything else on that list, and this is one responsible parents actually would be doing good by keeping their kids away from it.

The whole "it's okay to be white" thing is a dogwhistle to begin with. It might seem benign, if weirdly unprompted without context. The issue is that among some groups this is often followed up with accusing black movements and immigrants of wanting to get rid of white people, rather than just seeking equality, which is done to fuel racism. This is why a lot of black people might be suspicious of that statement. Nevermind that not agreeing with it might simply mean unsure rather than against.

This whole thing is a roundabout rhetorical play to bait people who are more afraid of being accused of being racist, you know, because racism is bad, than understand that racism has a whole history, that black people have good reasons to be wary of people who are a little too proud of being white. But detached white people might be fooled by a superficial read of "why is it okay to be you but not okay to be me, maybe you are the racist".

If anything he proved that he is exactly the kind of white guy that black people might be worried about. He doesn't care about them unless he's on the "winning team" and gets a reward for it.

The whole situation with house elves, goblins and other intelligent magical creatures treated as inferior doesn't make the story feel to good. It might even be understandable if the heroes realized the deeper problems that couldn't be solved simply by fighting, but the protagonist ultimately just inherits a slave and becomes an enforcer for the status quo.

In retrospect it makes a lot of words about good and love and doing what's right feel like going through the motions rather than any real values.

So very true.

HP Lovecraft was horribly racist, but his works are in the Public Domain. Neither him, his estate or any causes he supported get any money by engaging with his works. His opinions are still part of his works, but that can be criticized and modified in adaptations and derivative works.

The same can't be said of living creators who still own and profit from those works. Even if some team deliberately tries to gloss over or alter concerning aspects, the money the author gets might still be directed towards concerning movements.

In all fairness there are concerning aspects in many industries and a lot that we consume, and each person has a lot of other issues to worry about, so while disappointing, it's inevitable that people won't care about everything. But I definitely don't feel confortable giving money to someone who's spreading hate about people I care for. I used to be a big HP fan but this situation completely spoiled any interest I had in that world... and also helped me realize it was never that good anyway.

Nah. Both of you just haven't kept up with her history of equating trans women with sexual predators and trans men with poor brainwashed little girls, some of which was hinted, if disguised in polite words, in the article where she talked about the situation and defended how she totally didn't mean any harm to anybody.

Did you see when she said she'd march with trans people if they truly were persecuted? Their rights have been challenged and undermined many times since, and she didn't show any sign of that.

Because, you know, sometimes people aren't completely honest and taking them at their word is not the ultimate measure of their characters.

So don't confuse disagreeing with people here and getting downvoted with being the one clear-minded contrarian. However much internet bandwagons are a thing, you won't get the clear picture unless you go look into it. Sometimes you might get that reaction because you are wrong and that's it.

Oh yeah, that one got a serious "one more round" pull

Oh yeah, I even forgot Google Video used to be a thing.

I didn't know what this was about. I found this that can serve as context for others unaware: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/26/1159580425/newspapers-have-dropped-the-dilbert-comic-strip-after-a-racist-rant-by-its-creat

[...] Adams urged white people "to get the hell away from Black people" during a racist rant on his online video program last week, during which he labeled Black people a "hate group."

On his video show last week, the 65 year old said he had been identifying as Black "because I like to be on the winning team," and that he used to help the Black community. Adams said the results of the Rasmussen poll changed his mind.

"It turns out that nearly half of that team doesn't think I'm okay to be white," he said, adding that he would re-identify as white. "I'm going to back off from being helpful to Black America because it doesn't seem like it pays off," he said. "I get called a racist. That's the only outcome. It makes no sense to help Black Americans if you're white. It's over. Don't even think it's worth trying."

This is not the first time Adams' strip has been dropped. Last year, The San Francisco Chronicle and 76 other newspapers published by Lee Enterprises reportedly dropped Dilbert after Adams introduced his first Black character. Quinn noted that the move was "apparently to poke fun at 'woke' culture and the LGBTQ community."

I know that is a joke but it's not like 30yos have much control over the world either.

Vampire Survivors

It's a serious issue how many games now are deliberately designed with compulsion conditioning tactics to get people playing and spending not out of legitimate interest but out of a manufactured "need".

I heard stories of people who had to drop their favorite franchises, like sports ones, because they started to resort to that, and they knew they'd be too susceptible to keep playing without giving in.