Ageism on Lemmy, impossible.

As the other commenter has said, the youngest gen z aren’t children anymore - they’re teens.

Agreed, it can essentially be an ableist term for those which actively fight against this illness to have a chance at a normal life.

I do agree, it may be that the situation is exacerbated to the point where doomerism is essentially encouraged.

The thing is, there was an article where the students themselves didn’t want AI on the mandated Chromebooks. It feels force fed, and the fact is, nobody, no matter the age wants garbage screwing up their workflow.

Honestly, a lot of these articles are repeating the same story. In the end it all leads to a similar conclusion - and it isn’t age related.

The movement of sugarcoating the “internet age verification laws” has to stop. It is a weapon in disguise, and it uses minors as bullets.

Now, we have a rapist cabal, the trump/Epstein ring, and who is getting prosecuted - no one. The government cares for the minors as much as the people on that island cared for minors’ wellbeing.

It is all a play. And the fact is, age has no meaning here - no matter if you’re a child, teenager, young adult, or other - we all will be driven to submission.

Honestly I’m not opposed to age restriction, so long as its only ever accomplished using zero knowledge proofs of some kind. Or just without revealing identity.

Restriction of a class is the restriction of all. Laws like this shouldn’t be marked by shallow legal lines, this is yet again a play on discrimination.

“Green coal”

Yeah, the US ain’t evolving - it’s devolving.

And those who are/want to go off grid:

Straight to jail.

Even if op’s case was satirical, it is quite ageist honestly. It is the difference between freedom and submission. Such outdated statements about increasing the common age is just a fascist disguise - minors which includes teens have less and less rights just because the belief that children shall be protected by bans is acceptable.

If people cared about “the children” they wouldn’t let them on the Internet until they were 21.

Yeah, that’s only for the people that think they care, but are actually ageist and discriminate.

Protecting children comes in hand with protecting humanity. The sole existence of predatory algorithms, and other shit makes age meaningless.

You have a point; however, it is important to balance out the skills which are technology enabled and those that are physical. In an educational system IT would be a subject dedicated for this kind of thing.

Children, teenagers and others should absolutely be prepared for the digital world. But that means having a balanced curriculum that enables the usage of devices if so desired. Of course, that also means they should be prepared for analog life as handwriting for example, is a translational skill that is essential.

deleted by creator

While a ban may make sense on paper, it doesn’t take into consideration that fast fashion is literally designed to last a couple of days. If only the production of fast fashion was more regulated…

but do people really see no difference? If you need a legal line in the sand to determine if it’s either totally fine or straight to the guillotine then maybe there’s something wrong with you.

This is a segment of the root op. This was the general scope of this. So I’ll advise you to quit with the straw men arguments and reread the whole passage.

not stored.

This is simply incorrect. How is balant lying excusable in this situation? We shouldn’t forget about the fact that there was a massive leak of sensitive information from discord - this alone should strengthen the premise that their supposed intentions are not equal to what they factually do.

It is a drive towards fascism, the corpos and the state has no right to be disrespecting children and the youth, to do a thing they promise to do yet do the exact opposite.

This is how political cleansing begins. Once the system is turned on, voting for anything slightly left will cast you as a criminal of the state.

To answer your question, firstly consider the point of what is misinformation. Because this isn’t about the right or wrongs, but the factualities of science and countering misinformation. The function of this thread was to analyse the differences between different stages of age groups which are considered minors. This was highlighted by the root op.

What reason do we have to discuss the difference, unless you think a 30 year old fucking a 17 year old is redeemable?

Redirecting the question to you, why do you think it is reasonable to be going off topic?

It is clear the overall aim here is to reinforce the actualities. By introducing rhetorical questions such as “Why should it matter to society what the difference between the two is” it is an attack on education as a whole. Highlighting the differences and defining facts is the whole foundation of society. Of course, this isn’t ethics class, it is biology and psychology.

That is true, it is the case for all minor attractions. Within the current situation, the most prominent issue is that information is not factually based and definitions are skewed. Like the original commenter had said, this introduces ambiguity.

You’re missing the point here. This isn’t about defending whatever you seem to disagree on. Its the fact that you seem to think critical analysis is meaningless and “indifferent”. The first commenter had this message instilled, yet you are correlating this to things which where not even mentioned.

In respect to the post itself, then yes the age designation is meaningless as you cannot redefine rape and abuse. It is pretty clear that this comment thread was for a specific issue.

Pedophilia is the attraction to children younger than 12-10 to around 3, this is what was occurring mainly within that island. Of course, there where women within their teens and adults which don’t technically qualify as pedophilia but are referred to it either way - which is incorrect.

Of course, pedophilia according to dsm5 on itself is listed as a mental disorder, nepophilia is also included. However, it is to say, attraction to those above 13 is not considered as a mental disorder. It also helps to know, that biologically such individuals are closer to adults than children, so it goes in hand with your last paragraph.

It is the sake that the legal line is essentially an “anchor” point, especially since we still believe in hoaxes which are related to growth and maturity. As such this incorrect view is projected to everyone even if the facts are different to what people expect.

In essence, the whole premise overall seems to be fueled by misinformation which is causing the whole “under 18” group to appear as one and the same, no matter the age. This is a major problem I agree, and the misuse of the word pedophilia tells a big story about it.

A pedophile rapist

Also a nepophile rapist and a rapist of teens and woman.