That would require us paying one parent enough to cover the other parent being a child care expert. But nobody gets to profit off of that so fuck society, everybody works, and nobody gets community goods except the wealthy.
But what about those Parental Responsibilities you were talking about earlier? Are you saying we now need extra social safety nets for kids who don’t fit the mold and get bullied? Extra places for them to learn and play under supervision? Because I don’t think that’s going to be economical without boarding them there, away from their parents.
That would require us paying one parent enough to cover the other parent being a child care expert. But nobody gets to profit off of that so fuck society, everybody works, and nobody gets community goods except the wealthy.
deleted by creator
but but that requires actually effort and budget that we’d have to take away from Australian oligarchs!
A social safety net you say… like a place we could gather all the children to teach them things and let them play under supervision?
deleted by creator
What? No! They can have their own age appropriate place to learn and play under supervision.
deleted by creator
But what about those Parental Responsibilities you were talking about earlier? Are you saying we now need extra social safety nets for kids who don’t fit the mold and get bullied? Extra places for them to learn and play under supervision? Because I don’t think that’s going to be economical without boarding them there, away from their parents.
deleted by creator
So you do want a nanny state.
if social media is fediverse, you’re right; if social media is agents of surveillance capitalism, fuck social media
what’s “social” about what most people call social media?
deleted by creator
even YouTube got in an exception list. So it’s not an “all or nothing” approach, it seems.
deleted by creator
even “crash course” alone is enough of a reason to keep YouTube accessible