• intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    It wasn’t the comment that lacked nuance; just your reading.

    All the stuff you added went without saying.

    • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Parents jobs arent to protect their kids.

      What the fuck else does that mean? If you want to believe you can read minds and assume what a person is talking about, whatever.

      But if someone makes a statement, maybe take it at face value rather than “ah yes they must mean something else”

      fucking idiot

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m pretty autistic, so you’re not allowed to write this off as “people using magic communication I can’t understand because I’m smart” or whatever your model of the current situation is.

        When a person says it is not a parent’s job to protect their kids, you already know what it means. It’s right there in your three bullet point.

        • dont get into strangers cars
        • dont let strangers into the house
        • look both ways when crossing the road

        If a parent’s job were protecting their kids, these would read:

        • Don’t let your kids near roads or cars
        • Don’t give your kids control over the door
        • Don’t let your kids cross roads

        Like, if I was given care of a dog for a week while their owners went on vacation, and my job were to “protect the dog”, I wouldn’t be putting the dog in any of the situations where its own choices were the source of its safety.

        Are you ready to stop pretending that you don’t see?

        • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          The first line of my reply literally says I dont think this is what you mean, BUT …. I very clearly stated I assume that isnt exactly what the commenter meant. The rest of my comment is to clarify what the poster defined as “protection”.

          If someone came up to me and asked protect something, contextually yes obviously I understand that.

          That isnt the situation here. The comment chain is someone with a “hot take” on what “parents protecting children” means. It being a hot take I feel it is completely valid to put aside any assumption that the commenter is talking about “well obviously I mean protect them from x y z”. Because its a potentially unpopular hot take. It’s not a common idea in society.

          Unless you can read minds it is very possible this commenter meant it literally. IE how kids are raised in the film 300. “Heres a stick. go fight a wolf kid”.

          Im not writing it off. I assumed what they meant but followed up for clarification. Did you just expect replies to be “agree” or “disagree” with zero further discussion?