[yreg]

> And isn't it weird how "think of the children" is always ridiculed but "think of the paralyzed etc." is just fine?

Isn't the difference that "think of the children" is used to ban stuff and "think of the paralyzed" is used to enable stuff?

[computerthings]

Well, even to genuinely protect children it often means removing things from impacting them. You don't give a newborn honey; we don't invent some kind of pill that allows us to give them honey on day 1, they can't deal with honey, it's fine, just keep it away from them. Then the older they get, the more it's about giving them the tools to make their own decisions -- but children can't consent, so yes, you have to ban adults from doing some things. You can't usually just "enable" something else so they don't harm children. Children grow on their own, provided they get what they need and some stimulus, but also crucially safe space to grow in, from which to extend their feelers so to speak. That must be carved out negatively. And frankly, society totally threw them under the bus even when it was just TV and ads, with phones it's so much worse. But that's a total tangent and besides the point.

"think of the children" can and is also be used as a fig leaf, to just ban things or get control, but that fact in turn is then used as a fig leaf for dismissing any concern for children. While "think of the disabled people whose welfare the broligarchy wants to see cut" somehow is just taken without second thought.