Dunno how I’d have gotten home from school or to soccer practice if I needed an adult, ffs I was staying alone overnight and cooking dinner for myself by 5th grade. How do you acquire independence and skills with someone hovering all the fucking time?
we have infantalized children all the way through high school. no more open campuses, nothing. we live in a world where an 18 year old high school senior has to ask to use the restroom during the day, but could go to her night job as a porn star.
the main issue is parents suing school districts over any little thing, requiring them now to lock everyone down or else
Nah the real issue is that people will cave in to those helicopter parents making everyone else deal with whatever insanity they force onto their children’s
I’ve got 4 kids ages 15 to 3. I’m noticing that the helicoptering I’ve seen from other parents was much worse pre COVID than it is now.
I remember when my oldest kid was like 3 or 4 and hearing the word playdate for the first time. Hate that word. Sorry I’m rambling lol
not in my experience working for a large district (50+ buildings).
And depending on the porn genre, she might be denied bathroom rights in the shoot too!
Fuck that county and DA. I hope she wins. Bullshit. My 15 year old is out right now with his friends. My kids walk to and from school. Double fuck the old cunt who called the cops to begin with.
You don’t.
Source: raised by a single parent who yelled and chased me out of the kitchen anytime I tried asking questions of what he was doing.
Now 41, and have NO CLUE how to cook.
at 41 its now your job to train yourself, if you care to. if that is your excuse on a blind date, its a red flag.
Pssshhhhh, if you think lack of cooking is going to affect my dating life, don’t worry. I’ve yet to find the type of woman who’s personality type would mesh well with mine.
So, I can’t remember the last time I had a date, but I do remember always being disappointed. The VAST majority of women look down on you if you tell them that you’ll never have a drivers liscense (me, not her), that you don’t forsee yourself traveling ever, that you don’t like music, and the whole concept of marriage seems like a financial scam from start until either death or divorce.
If I were to date someone long term, I’d need them to be my speed by nature. Them being my speed has to be something that is within their personality, not me trying to get them to slow down.
My idea of a fun Friday night is to stay in, avoid the bars, and maybe watch a dvd. Most women want to go out, go to clubs, or go on a road trip somewhere. I don’t even want to leave my recliner. Although if I was with someone I’d switch to the couch.
But that person doesn’t exist.
From one single guy to another…jeez, man.
The VAST majority of women look down on you if you tell them that you’ll never have a drivers liscense (me, not her),
Go live in a city??? Most do not give a shit.
that you don’t forsee yourself traveling ever, that you don’t like music, and the whole concept of marriage seems like a financial scam from start until either death or divorce.
Wow, no wonder they ran. You start off by telling them the things you don’t like?
And I can’t tell if you think it’s a scam because marriage costs more (it’s not) or you’re implying future partners will be leeches (major red flag)
My idea of a fun Friday night is to stay in, avoid the bars, and maybe watch a dvd. Most women want to go out, go to clubs, or go on a road trip somewhere.
Let me stop you right there, bud - this is the line that made me comment. You can’t pull the “most women want” card when you’re so clearly out of touch. MOST women don’t want any one thing. They are not a monolith.
What you enjoy doing is not as unique as you think it is. I mean that as a positive - not an insult.
But that person doesn’t exist.
Do you really, honestly, genuinely, no-foolin believe that men have the monopoly on wanting a “boring” life? Is it so unfathomable that a woman would prefer chill Friday evenings?
Your problem (in your attitude, not your relationship status) is that you’re an introvert trying to find another introvert. Your dream girl is at home on Friday night, too, not meeting anyone either.
I totally agree that it’s really hard for introverts to link up because we’re all on our own little bubbles. We’re not going to big social events every weekend and we’re less likely to pursue possible interests. And to add to that, there’s fewer introverts in general which slims down the dating pool a lot. You do have to work harder to find “the one” but your requirements don’t slim it down by THAT much.
I mean none of this disparagingly but you are wrong about the existence of the partner you’re describing so please, from one single guy to another, lose the defeatist attitude.
Go live in a city??? Most do not give a shit.
I live in a city. Peoples faces change when you tell them you don’t drive. To them it says that either you’re an alcoholic whose liscense is expired, or you can’t afford a car.
Wow, no wonder they ran. You start off by telling them the things you don’t like?
Who ran? They never existed.
Let me stop you right there, bud - this is the line that made me comment. You can’t pull the “most women want” card when you’re so clearly out of touch. MOST women don’t want any one thing. They are not a monolith.
Not just women. Men too. But I’m not going to date a male.
It’s not about being anti-social. Bring over 1000 people. It’s fine, as long as they’re inside my home, and not out there in the world.
That being said, my home doesn’t have room for 1000 people. So realistically maybe 4 people. It’s not about the socialisation. It’s about the environment and location.
Also, I don’t have a dream girl. I find the concept repulsing. I would rather tell a woman everything that most women find to be deal breakers about me, then she tells me all of the things that are deal breakers about her. We discuss if those things are important to the other.
Such as, I will never ever ever ever drive a car. If that’s a deal breaker for her, why bother with going on a date?
However, I don’t enjoy traveling. I don’t forsee myself going to concerts, or other cities. Or even the coffee shop she just heard about in some magazine. But I’m not deadset against it. If it was important to her that we go to rome for 5 days, fine. We’ll go to rome. It’s not against any core belief of mine.
Whereas if she won’t date someone who doesn’t drive, we don’t need to talk.
And your entire perspective seems to come from the idea that I’m some introvert who keeps going on dates and getting rejected.
Whereas I’m not an introvert at all. I WANT someone I can relate to. In my younger days, people were always surprised because online I’d meet someone new, talk their head off in text form, with 100 new messages a minute, and then they’d meet me. They were expecting someone who can’t shut up. And I’d barely say two words, because I observe more than I talk. I just can’t observe through text without talking.
Also, I don’t have a dream girl. I find the concept repulsing
proceeds to list paragraphs of demands that a woman must meet to be considered.
Good luck with all that man, I hope you can look back at this comment one day and realize how unbelievably picky you are. A partner isn’t a pokemon, they’re allowed to have a life while still loving and sharing a home with you.
You will find that if you lead with that, you’ll be perceived as negative. If you lead with all negative and no positives, you’re going scare everyone away. People who are cynical and negative are offputting. Positivity is a choice. Think about the people in your life. Are they positive or the “well ackshually” types? You may see it as a honest, but if you’re not showing your good side too, you are giving a dishonest picture. Give only as much negative as you give positive. Be honest when things come up. Trust is important.
Why don’t you drive? Environment? If so, communicating you’re doing your bit to help the planet communicates much better when it comes up than “I don’t and will never drive”. It just come across all grumpy smurf “I hate driving!”. Generally on a first date, you meet someone at a venue, and go from there. If you hit off a good rapport, they will not care as they’ll be excited of the positives. Most dating is about feeling. Does this person make you feel good? Is there a positive aura here? Is this more enjoyable than being home? If yes, odds of a second date are quite good.
Everyone gets shy on a date, but if you both don’t talk, no one will. Feel the fear, and do it anyway, so to speak. How can you make someone feel safe if you’re not confident enough to break a silence. How come you’d expect them to do all the talking if they’re also shy?
The key point is, you can meet someone who likes what you like, but you have to create the opportunity for that to happen. If you don’t, you’re choosing the normal not meeting someone path. For record, most of my partners past and present are women that enjoy staying in and watching TV/films and even games. There are many if you want to look for them.
You will find that if you lead with that, you’ll be perceived as negative. If you lead with all negative and no positives, you’re going scare everyone away. People who are cynical and negative are offputting. Positivity is a choice. Think about the people in your life. Are they positive or the “well ackshually” types? You may see it as a honest, but if you’re not showing your good side too, you are giving a dishonest picture. Give only as much negative as you give positive. Be honest when things come up. Trust is important.
@Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world The first paragraph here is key.
You sound very familiar to me. If my hunch is correct, then most of the above post probably doesn’t speak to you. Avoiding the overwhelming task of driving, being a quiet observer who can write better than they can speak, these aren’t matters of “eco friendliness” or “shyness” - these are aspects of yourself that have always distinguished you. I also share quirks that lead people to misunderstand the roots of my decisions.
Which is why I hope you will take note when I say, that first paragraph is solid advice that should best be heeded.
I have had to learn a lot of social skills the hard way. The amount of times I screwed up, but nobody had the guts to actually explain to me what I was doing wrong, made it so much harder to correct my mistakes. The above poster is providing that rare bit of honest feedback that can keep a person like you or me from having to learn a painful lesson the hard way.
Being positive is easier said than done, but it starts in small ways. For example, consider how conscientious you may be when writing. As long as you’re putting in the effort, it’s worth it to go back and see what can be re-phrased. Sometimes I re-read and edit my own writing over and again trying to get the tone right. (Which is much easier than controlling my tone when speaking.)
Ultimately, if you want things to get better, you’re going to have to put the work into it. I know nobody wants to hear that, but I also know that most attempts to help someone with a defeatist attitude are going to be brushed off. I simply hope that hearing from a like-mind that’s been there can help you see that it doesn’t have to be this way.
Based on everything you said, you ARE an introvert. I never said you were antisocial - those are two different things. You are wrong about my perspective, you outright said you don’t date in your first post.
It seems like you totally missed my point, though. Women are not the monolith you’re pretending they are.
aktually what they want is to feel safe and comfortable with someone who understands and appreciates them. if you wanna be a home skillet thats wonderful. but yes lack of cooking definitely affects your dating potential, and this is something within your power to do something about. but really you shouldnt learn for dating points. you should learn for you. survival skill, hobby, passion, pleasure, achievement get.
if you think lack of cooking is going to affect my dating life…
I advise anyone who enjoys eating tasty food learn how to cook. Even if you live the rest of your life single, being able to knock out a tasty meal when desired is a gamechanger to your quality of life. And if you do find a romantic partner, seeing them enjoy food you’ve prepared them is a special kind of warm-and-fuzzy. 10/10
Even if you could care less about the tastiness of the food entering your face hole, everyone should know enough cooking that they can take care of themselves. I don’t care if you have or want a romantic partner, knowing how to feed yourself should be next on the list after being able to bathe and dress yourself as a fundamental life skill.
Appriciates? Eh, I guess that depends on the person.
Understands? God no. I’ve never understood a single person my whole life. I can’t imagine what would be different about anybody else.
That sucks.
If you want to try learning, start with some pasta. Put water on the stove, boil it, add salt and pasta, stir, drain when the box says (don’t cook it too long or it’ll suck), put whatever you want on it. You can start by just pouring a jar of sauce on top and upgrade to something tougher when you’re more comfortable with it.
Similar experience growing up here.
I taught myself every single adult skill in my early 20s. I couldn’t have done it without the internet.
I’m a great cook though. I’ll figure out how to wash clothes without ruining them next.
As my dad’s friend would say, “Wash with colors only? Clothes are one color: laundry-colored!”
I remember when I was maybe 14, 2001 or so, and my mom forgot to pick me up from wrestling practice after school.
We lived about 6 miles outside of town, and wrestling is a winter sport, so it was well dark.
I walked home along the side of the highway (in all black because that’s what I had that day…) after waiting well over an hour and calling several times (no cell phones). My options were to continue to sit in the glass entryway indefinitely or just leave and go home. It took me 3 hours, and when I walked in my parents were shocked that they forgot… not that I made it home safely or that I felt feelings… they were shocked at themselves that they forgot about me. (I wasn’t at that point)
I mean hell when I was 5-7 I was walking home from school daily, going around suburb town on my bike, and one time around age 6 I got lost for several hours (only a few streets from home, but so windy and confusing I was just lost…) it ended in trauma and an ER visit, but did not actually cause my parents to restrict my movement, when it absolutely should have. It was normal routine stuff back then.
I’m into parents caring more now, but man if someone had arrested my mother for allowing me freedom I’d… have felt really bad for causing it… that’s also intensely traumatic.
When I was 10 i was told to be home when the street lights came on. Otherwise my parents rarely knew where I was. Kids these days aren’t going to be able to function independently when they grow up if they can’t even take a walk on their own.
* Safety Warning * - You just said “Kids these days.” The next step down that slippery slope is “Get off my lawn!”
This has been a public service from the Internet Safety Association.
Imagine getting jailed unless you ground your kids 24/7. Pretty sure that used to be a punishment for kids, not a requirement.
I know this is probably not possible if I still wish to use English online, but does anybody know how to filter out news specifically form America? It’s becoming less and less relevant to my life as America is becoming more and more like Russia. It’s like yea, I know, the people are literal fascists, any additional details are just depressing.
I had filtered loads of buzz words before I left reddit. Now going on without being signed in is nausea inducing. Block Trump & Elon for sure.
I always felt reddit needed a grouping mechanism. I never in my life want to see anything related to baseball on my feed but I would have to block every one of their teams to make it work. Same goes for anime or manga or hentai or whatever all those drawings are.
For anime I just used to block all communities that stumble across my feed(those were like 10 or so).
“You’re guilty of leaving your child alone, therefore we’re taking you away from your child.”
Thats like the bank charging a fee for insufficent funds.
Or schools expeling you for truancy…
It’s like raiaaain,
on your wedding day
So ironic
“Your kid could have been traumatized walking home alone, now get the fuck on the ground while we arrest you in front of them and haul you off to prison while they’re left at home”
Based on the safety plan including “installing a location tracking app on the child’s phone”, the kid has a phone and could easily call for help or be called if there was a concern.
Children used to ride bikes much farther then a mile without even a quarter in their pocket to pay for a phone call.
Never needed money when you could call collect and when prompted for a name you gave a speedy, “mom pick me up at the mall!!” And of course she’d decline the call.
Bob Wehadababyitsaboy
Man I had to explain this to my fiance about a month ago. It popped in my head after being dormant for 20 years and I was just saying it out loud around her. Glad someone else out there still remembers
Remember the Duracell ad?
That would be admitting this country ain’t safe enough for a child. Doomer world
Something I’m noticing is the people who scream the loudest about the “what ifs” like rape and murder are often really fucking crazy themselves.
I started walking to school when I was eight. My parents made sure I knew the way and that was that. And on our bikes we went wayyy farther than a mile unsupervised
Do you visit them in jail?
A lot of us walked/biked to our grade school as well. I can’t remember which grade I started walking, but I was definitely doing it in 4. I’d wager even grade 3 but can’t be 100% sure.
On the weekends, it was routine for me to hop on my bike once my chores were done and just take off. The rule was just had to be home by dinner time, or call from whichever friends house I was at if I couldn’t make it back in time. No cell phones.
My oldest (8) bikes to school nearly every day.
His younger brother is allowed to walk to school next year when he is 6.
It is fairly normal here for kids, that are above 6/7, to walk to and from school if it isn’t too far.
Here we have 3 year old kids walking to kindergarten unsupervised.
Damn, I used to walk home from the bus stop that was 1/2 mile away when I was in kindergarten. These people need to calm down.
Some of these same people will complain about how kids these days don’t play outside.
Reported to police for walking less than a mile into town on a road that was 25 - 35 mph speed limit…
I’m not saying this didn’t happen, but I’m skeptical that it happened how it’s being reported. It seems the only details are coming from the mother and her attorney, which is a red flag to me. It also sounds a lot like the self reported “discrimination” that some fundamentalist Christian influencer families have claimed, when they were indeed neglecting/abusing their children. In particular the Lott family (AmericanFamilyRoadTrip on socials) who live in a bus with their 8 children, don’t get them medical attention unless forced, and recently got a “parents rights” attorney who sounded a lot like the attorney in this article.
I also find it odd that the sheriff of a town of less than 400 people would cause waves like this over an unfounded claim from a stranger. I’m curious to know what all this safety plan entails, because it could be a very reasonable plan and it’s likely that DCFS just has to meet certain criteria before they can close the case.
Again, not saying it didn’t happen, but the story seems like a good candidate for “missing reasons.”
the story seems like a good candidate for “missing reasons.”
Which is interesting as it’s coming from reason.com
There’s another fundamentalist influencer family, a conservative wannabe Eminem and his disturbingly meek wife. They also have a gaggle of children and have been investigated by DCFS. Oh and then there’s the family that Shaq buys stuff for all the time, and the one whose oldest son is in prison for possession of CSAM, and the family whose grandparents were literal Nazis.
These people all know each other, have all kinds of cronies, and spread all kinds of misinformation. I wouldn’t put it past any of them to make a fake “news” website to back up their own claims, and name it something dumb like reason.com 😂
Reason.com is a publication that’s been around for years, decidedly libertarian lean. No idea what that means for it in current political context. I used to see people from Reason on Bill Maher’s show as non-Republican conservative-ish voices.
Hm, interesting, thanks for sharing. Libertarians and fundamentalist influencers have quite a bit of overlap in the ideologies, funny enough. I don’t know how to feel about the Bill Maher tidbit though… I’m not his biggest fan, lol.
Me neither. Part of that came from watching him for a while.
As another commenter pointed out Reason magazine has been around for decades. It’s a libertarian publication so I don’t trust them to not push views a 14-year old would think is deep but any well-adjusted adult could see right through, but it isn’t like they are some fly-by-night website.
Thank you for sharing, but now I’m even more suspicious. Libertarians aren’t exactly known for their fact checking abilities, and I can’t find this news story on websites that seem any more reputable.
Lol. When I was 10 me and a friend would take a bus TO ANOTHER COUNTRY and hang out at the arena to wait for the teams so we could get our hockey cards autographed.
I still have that niklas lidstrom rookie card.
Americans have degenerated so fast.
We BEGAN our existence with slave holding white men who created documents to rule the country which stated “All men are created equally”. Then went home, treated the women in their lives like shit for the next 142 years AT LEAST, while also owning slaves.
Today slavery is mostly abolished, and women have equal rights.
Believe it or not, this IS progress…really really slow progress.
I mean, California just voted to KEEP prison labor slavery so…
Really? That’s disappointing. That sounds like a Texas thing more than a California thing.
Shit, what’s next? Texas raises their min wage to $20 an hour, and tied to inflation?
God damn! These states are losing their identity. Michigan voted red…I mean, I know I’m legally obligated to hate Michigan as a resident of Ohio, but damn. Michigan used to make me jealous of their government. Now it’s voted red.
And yes, I’m aware Ohio also voted red. But we’re Ohio. Nobody was expecting anything cool from us. Michigan had expectations.
Of coarse none of that matters. Without PA, Harris had no path to victory. So, we should all be mad at PA.
So I propose for the next 4 years we boo every PA sports team. Their residents don’t deserve happy sports.
Of coarse, that being said, who CAN you cheer??? I propose Seattle. That way, you don’t have to cheer the Yankees. Plus, you don’t get caught up in the whole Boston fued.
Who’s going to fued with Seattle? Assholes. That’s who.
Michigan used to make me jealous of their government. Now it’s voted red.
To be fair they only went red for the president. Both their senators are democrats and their representatives are 50/50.
I remember a time when Ohio was a blue state. Then a swing state. Now it is a red state. Ohio is where JD Vance came from.
Michigan used to be a blue state. Now it’s a swing state. So that gives you an idea on where they are in the timeline.
Oh no.
Well we’re kinda on track to undo start both of those things so…
I used to believe this, I truly did think that overall there was progress. But I’m worried now because it looks like we’re going backwards, I just hope we don’t slide too far that we legitimately undo it all.
It’s always been that way. That’s why the progress is really slow.
It’s all Nixons fault. He was actually going to be a really really great president. If he had won reelection, he may have been remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time.
But, he had one core problem that will always keep him from the place atop history that he SHOULD have had.
Now, you probably think I mean watergate. But Watergate was a symptom of the problem. Not the problem itself.
The problem was that he was morally corrupt. People have seeminly incorrectly remembered watergate as a desprate last ditch effort that was his only chance at winning. It wasn’t.
I know it doesn’t seem like it right now, but historically a sitting president gets reelected most of the time. Add that to the fact that he had some great policies. He was one of the best presidents in terms of environmental issues. He fully understood international policy. So much so that in 1994 before he died, he straight up predicted issues of how the soviet union breaking up would play out for russia 30 years later. He didn’t name putin by name, but he told of everything putin’s done during modern times, and how it would force them to try to go to war with a former soviet member nation. He said this would happen 30 years later, back in 1994. He wasn’t even alive to see putin take power, but understood exactly what would happen no matter who it was.
But, for all that potential to be a great president, his corrupt morals, and lust for power led him down a coarse of history that leads us to where we are today.
Because Fox News was specifically started, as quoted by Rupert Murdock, as existing for the sole purpose of influencing americans into massaging their own beliefs towards thinking anything the GOP does is alright, and any opposition is their enemy.
And that is HUGE in understanding why America is the way it is right now.
Basically, if Nixon weren’t corrupt, he wouldn’t have used a war on drugs against marijuana, because he wouldn’t have felt that exploiting Americas black citizens would be appropriate. If that doesn’t happen, he doesn’t see a declining rating among black voters. If that doesn’t happen he doesn’t feel right about the concept of watergate. If that doesn’t happen he doesn’t have to resign to avoid impeachment. If that doesn’t happen Fox News isn’t started. If Nixon never resigns, the GOP doesn’t feel angry towards Clinton and seek impeachment. If that doesn’t happen the American population doesn’t learn that impeachment is no big deal. If America never learns that, years later trump doesn’t feel immune from impeachment to the point that his actions get him impeached twice.
If fox news is never created, news treats 9/11 as a factual breakdown of events, rather than an emotional reaction that we need to support the Bush presidency with everything they want. If that doesn’t happen, America never gets divided in 2003 over the idea of our troops still being overseas.
And if fox news doesn’t exist, we don’t spend the next 10 years sucking off bush, and then being surprised that a black man won presidency.
Now I still think America would have been racist towards Obama, but not surprised. They just got told for 8 years that 9/11 was the fault of clinton and the democrats. They just almost a decade being told that minorities were ruining this country. Then a black man from their perspective is suddenly president without reason. Without the surprise element, they may have been willing to hate him for policy, rather than some imaginary sneak attack takeover of the presidency. Then if it was policy only, Obama comprimised EVERYTHING to work with them. Maybe too much actually. But the point is, republicans working WITH democrats is the very foundation of how this country is SUPPOSED to work. Instead you now have two sides of the same coin not realizing they are on the same coin. That coin being America itself. Republicans znd democrats treat each other like warring neighbor nations rather than two hands that need to shake.
And it all traces back to Nixon pulling a stunt to spy on opposition, when he really didn’t need to. I think he’d have won of his own merrits. People forget that he WAS popular. And then suddenly, within a few months, not a single American could endorse him. Because they all had empathy and morals. And Rupert Murdovk sought to change that in the future.
Well. His plan worked. We’re living his dream. And now everybody has to suffer, so the GOP can change from an organization that at one time were the good guys. Founded the EPA. Funded libraries. Vastly raised public school funding through a series of tax raises.
Hell, back in the 1800s, they even fought against slavery and the KKK.
What I’m describing is clearly an organization with beliefs that no longer represent the republicans.
But what I’m trying to say is, no matter how it happens, there’s always highs, and always lows. The pendulium goes back and forth. Never one side taking all. So if you don’t want to reverse the path we’ve taken, you need to fight for it. Not with voting. But actual revolution and rebellion. You need to show up on their doorstep, 5 million men strong, all armed to the teeth, all ready to say “no.”
And if they still say “yes”, be prepared for war. We freed the slaves through the bloodiest battle in American history. If they want to reverse it, you need to be ready to let them know in no uncertain terms, the answer is still no.
There are more slaves nowadays than ever before, we just outsourced them to the south with some middleman that way pay so nobody can say, that we are slave holders anymore.
I want jail to not be the default setting in this country.
Maybe she’s a shitty parent, but that’s something that can be worked on. She can be taught. It’s not like she’s some kind of soulless paycopath going from house to house traumatizing all the kids. There is absolutely no need to lock his person up.
And now that she’s locked up, the kid has no parent at all. Does anyone really think this is the best solution?
I wish my people weren’t so fucking lazy. Do the work. Figure something else out. Find out how to address this individual’s needs without just waving your hand and saying, put her in jail and move on.
For what it’s worth, she was “quickly” released on bail (the article doesn’t say how quickly), and the prosecution is not seeking further jail time but rather for the mom to sign a “safety plan” (although not signing could indeed lead to a year of jail time).
Your point is correct, but “the kid has no parent at all” isn’t (currently) true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Adam_Walsh
This is what started this panic. A TV movie dramatization from 1983. At this point current parents largely weren’t born yet so they don’t even know how it started, they’ve just been raised into believing this is normal. It’s not normal.
It’s also because most suburbs don’t have sidewalks and cycle paths and often lack safe crossings. Residential roads are so wide that drivers speed all the time. So kids have to be chauffeured around. Since they can’t even walk or cycle to school or soccer practice safely. That’s how it became the norm for kids to never go out alone. And people wonder why kids stay indoors all the time and play videogames or doom scroll on social media.
I think the real origins come from “do you know where you’re children are?” PSA campaign during the Atlanta Child Murders in the 70s. My parents said they remember the whole country started locking their doors and were crazy about keeping their kids inside.
So the PSA wasn’t intended for that. It actually kind of only shows up late at night after most cities curfew and is supposed to be an anti-deliquency message, lol. The Atlanta Child murders are the other high profile case that happened right around Walsh’s murder though. Both popped in the national news in around '81.
What’s important about the Atlanta Child murders is they were ALSO dramatized in 1985 after the success of the Walsh dramatization( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlanta_Child_Murders_(miniseries)). It was even more sensationalized and was specifically designed to fuel the panic. That’s why I consider the Walsh precursor really the watershed point. It was, however, gradual from the '60s as the news media really found out how to exploit it.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_children_panic for a more complete overview. You’ll see this is also intimately linked to Reagan, the satanic panic, homophobia, and the political right.
I mean, kid really did get killed… Weird to call it A TV dramatization.
a show made up of real life events recreated in dramatic format for the TV is called a TV dramatization.
settle down.
It was the dramatization that did it though. That and John Walsh testifying to Congress with way off base figures about the dangers to children. The moral panic was media driven for ratings.
More and more 70s-90s SNL skits are coming to life for real.
First one I remember was when the Gillette Track 2 twin-bladed razor came out. The ads showed an animation of how the first blade pulls the whisker out slightly, then the second blade cuts it off, allowing what’s left to snap back below the skin for a super-close shave. SNL made a parody ad for a triple-bladed razor where the second blade pulls it out even more and the third one cuts it. The slogan was: “the new Track 3 - because you’ll believe ANYTHING!” Within a year there were actual triple-bladed razors.
Mad TV did it better: https://youtu.be/UjAZnGeBcgg?si=LYu39QT2rsDGWXMB
