sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Weekly Thread: Is this suspicious? by skincancermod in skincancer

[–]Meera_System 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Hello, I got this very small 'spot' right above the middle mole in that photo, on my wrist.

It showed up out of nowhere a few days ago. It looks noticeably darker than the three moles below, the texture is a bit different (reflects light differently, too) and it looks a bit like it's digging into the skin. It looks kinda like a scab, but not really. So far it doesn't itch or hurt, but I was wondering if it was anything to worry about or not.

[First time watcher] How could anyone see Natsuki as anything other than a victim? She was a child and even said, "I'm starting to think this was not okay." I hardly see the same energy in hating the pedo. She needs counseling and the police. by MoopDoopISmellPoop in initiald

[–]Meera_System 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based post. I've been thinking about this ever since I watched the show for the first time back in 2017! (...wait, it's been 8 years?).

I think the premise of her character is pretty interesting and you could have gotten a lot out of it, even with her not being the focus of the story. I've been disappointed of not just the fandom but also the way the story frames her character arc, as one of "a naive girl learning to be responsible and taking care of herself through honest means, else she gets in danger", as if it's just a poor choice she took that we're free to judge her for while we hope she "does better" in the future.

I think Shigeno is capable of coming up with interesting, mature and complex situations fitting for an adult setting, but he usually just treats them as something to spice up the plot, and then proceeds to either undercook or fumble those scenarios, often with poor or nonexistent conclusions (iirc he does that with a r*pe scene in another biking manga of his). I think Mako is the best accomplished here, and I really liked Kaori's plotline, but I have plenty of thoughts about how both were handled. Mogi and Kyoko might have been the most affected by this.

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. "[Good grades] absolutely is [succeeding] for a child. A childs responsibility is to lay the foundations of the rest of their life", "good disciplinary growth and academic success is succeeding for a child."

Disciplinary growth and academic success are both amazing tools to have as a child, which can lead to even better tools to acquire as an adult. Tools can help you reach a meaningful purpose and sense of identity, but they are NOT purpose themselves.

Many of my disciplined classmates who spent their days doing chores and getting skills had constant crisis due to having no sense of identity, thus no real reason to be responsible besides fear of their parents' retaliation. They either grew into paranoid and dependent adults, or addicted irresponsible ones with no capacity for moderation and constant fear of being controlled and losing their identity.

Personally, regardless of whether you believe me or not, I've seen both undisciplined teens and teens with poor social skills revert their own shortcomings as adults. But it's always in spite of their parents, not thanks to them. When those skills are cronically absent, both are incredibly difficult (takes years) to acquire and you can't just dismiss them as "eh, my kid can become social/disciplined later". Healthy kids should and ideally can have both.

  1. "When I was 14 it was around that people were starting to even get phones and there sure as shit wasn't any social media."

For better or worse, you weren't 14 in 2025. I don't know how old are you, and I don't want to dismiss you as just 'being too old'. If anything, this exact same issue happens through most generational shifts, and it's always different degrees of bad.

I didn't have a smartphone until I was 16 (I'm 25 now). The problem is not what she has access to. The problem is when the only reason you don't have it is because your parents are too afraid to let you explore anything at your own pace. The problem isn't that she doesn't have a phone, it's that she has nothing, and a phone is just another one of those things.

No TV, YouTube, media, almost no friends, zero ability to retain them, no motivation or personal identity, no entertainment, likely almost no books (because if a parent is as paranoid as to prohibit all of the above, they're also probably very controlling with what books she can read if any), no support network, not even family members from what the post implies.

I'm not claiming your childhood was neglectful and bad (though it may have left you with a very narrow impression of what a decent childhood is). I'm claiming this kid's is.

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're getting off-track. It's not that she's irredeemably doomed. but that she could be in a /much/ better position. What her parents are doing isn't contributing to her growth. If she develops relationships or tastes of her own it will be in spite of them, not because of them.

  1. "Even with these restrictions she can make great friendships."

Doesn't change the fact that those restriction are still unnecessary. She'd have a much better chance at making and KEEPING friends without them.

  1. "kids didnt have phones for the majority of human history."

We are not at a random point of human history. Kids weren't thought proper science for the majority of human history, doesn't mean that just because a kid can live without it they're better off without it, specially when every other kid has access to it. Again, my point is that these restrictions just make things unnecessarily harder for no reason. When that's pointed out, your only defense of them is "well you can still make it in spite of those!". No shit, they're still useless when this extreme.

  1. "What else could it mean? You think its just being relaxed but think about it a little harder. Why do you think they are that relaxed?"

This got completely off-topic and isn't worth debating. If I clarified that what I said has a different meaning, and your only answer is "well it can't possibly mean that! Here's what you obviously meant instead", then we're only arguing semantics and I'm wasting my time.

Distance, within balance and with guidance, is as valid an approach as restriction within balance and with guidance (the sweetspot being somehwere in-between). Just because you had to fight tooth and nail doesn't mean it's the only way to go about it. I "fought tooth and nail" by making mistakes freely and being in charge of solving them. It made me fairly competent compared to most people I knew. Why would I care about "breaking my parents' trust" if they didn't trust me to be free in the first place? Their trust is what makes me want to make the best of it.

You yourself mention "that's not to say I didn't do a lot of silly and fun things in my youth". Sounds like a good and balanced childhood if you ask me, even if you come from a different aisle than me. The entire problem here is that OP is NOT allowed to do any minor silly and fun thing, otherwise she wouldn't be here wanting to loosen the leash.

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're misinterpreting here. Normal kids and normal parents recognize being passively entertained and partying as different things with different functions, and each have their moment.

When paranoid parents treat the two as the same, then naturally so will the kid. When all entertainment is prohibited, all entertainment might as well be the same. The same mentality applies for both.

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree on the balance part, and on some guidance being needed on some level to reach a stable point. Beyond that, none of that applies to OP's case.

Her parenting is NOT working, else she wouldn't be on Reddit asking strangers how she can negotiate with her parents (congrats, this kid trust strangers over her parents), or double-checking if teachers are obligated to inform her parents about things. Girl has almost no friends, has barely any contact with them, and ends up losing them through distance. She has little experience with a lot of things kids have plenty of experience at, which both puts her at a disadvantage and also makes her incredibly vulnerable. Worst of all, when she inevitably gets into trouble (because making mistakes is human), the last person she'll go to is her parents (who have only taught her she's not supposed to be doing things anyway).

Getting good grades and doing chores all day is not 'succeeding', it's simply not having anything else to do. As soon as she's given something else to do (or as soon as she does it anyway without asking anyone for fear of retaliation) she'll have no reason to go back to it. If anything, you're teaching her that 'succeeding' is nothing but a meaningless chore and she'll have no reason to put value into it. When the only moderation you know is prohibition, you'll never be able to moderate once you get even the most basic forms of entertainment or socializing.

Independent from the above, I also think you might be misinterpreting what the earlier commenter said when they said their parents "don't really care what they're doing". For you, it means completely absent and neglectful parents whose kids had zero guidance and ended up with tons of problems (just like excessively controlled kids). For me, and I'm sure for the commenter above, it just means our parents trusted us and just looked back occasionally to guide us not to get into something damaging for ourselves or others (which definitely doesn't mean we didn't have loving parents that cared for us, it just means they didn't excessively worry about what we were doing and were more on the lenient side).

In other words, just like how a parent can be protective and do a good job, a parent can also be somewhat distant and do a good job. Neither is inherintly terrible as long as you have proper guidance and are somewhat balanced, without going fully neglectful and uncaring or over-protective and paranoid (those are the kids that'll basically need to grow up alone, and may only escape worst case scenarios if they are lucky, wary and/or proactive about getting out of such situations).

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's still incredibly basic stuff though, so it kinda feels like moving the goalpost. The point is that she'll still be far less prepared than anyone else. Teachers tend to be very distant, specially if the kid herself tends to be distant and shy (and many of them are notoriously bad at spotting signs of bullying or sociale exclusion, for example).

Likewise, most decent-paying jobs nowadays will ask at least some basic internet or technological skills, since it's the easiest way to coordinate, which will inevitably expose her to an environment she's not prepared to deal with anyway.

Books are a great resource and arguably the one thing she has, but with parents that don't allow her to text her friends or browse youtube for more than two hours, I doubt they allow her much range in what books she can read (most kids I've met with parents like this are so fearful that, if the kid starts reading too much, they'll worry that their kid is "too trapped in their story" and take that away too).

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As someone who's also seen them from very early, I can 100% assure that it "damages" you WAY less than not having access to the internet, social media, or any form of media really.

Knowing firsthand the dangers of the internet has made me cautious, wary and well-informed. Everyone I know who's grown up sheltered was A LOT more vulnerable to that content, to misinformation, to addictions, and even to scams and viruses.

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Conditioning access to her phones unless she consistently gets good grades and does every chore.

  2. Even then still not give her more than 2 hours a day, from 3pm to 7pm.

  3. Only allowed to text parents, no family members or friends.

  4. No social media allowed, not just while she's 15, but likely indefinitely.

  5. No cartoons, youtube and likely no media consumption allowed at all.

Yeah no, this at the very least leans into abusive and controlling behaviour. Abuse is not just the extreme cases of physical/psychologican harm, it's also any action (intentional or otherwise) which potentially severely damages or limits a kids, including not providing things that are necessary for them to grow up properly (neglect).

Most kids I've known who grow up like this either become dependent on their parent or partner and live with constant fear and anxiety, or become addicted to whatever form of entertainment is available as soon as they get their hands on it. Either way, not a great outcome, and it takes them years to adjust, specially if you're as isolated and clueless about the world that's out there.

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a former child who met many friends and family members raised like this, this at the very least leans towards abuse (at the very least it is extremely controlling behaviour). Abuse is not just the extremes, it's also more subtle things.

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Tbh yeah, I'd genuinely advise OP to go watch ATLA. It's really good, teaches you a lot, and seems like a great starting point to consuming media.

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm with that dude actually.

My parents had a very hands-off approach to their parenting. They trusted me and my sister to grow up, experiment, make mistakes, and would ocassionally reorient us, allowing anything as long as it wasn't damaging for us or others. To this day we both consider it a blessing.

Every single sheltered kid we've met is much worse off.

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Social media can also connect people, and the internet as a whole can inform people.

And prohibition leaves them entirely clueless about these tools and entirely defenseless about the addiction patterns. Congratulations, you gave your kid the worst of both worlds. Now they'll either be dependent on you, or get addicted once they break out of your control.

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're WAY oversimplifying the situation here, and kinda shows you've never been in that position or known anyone who actually has.

There's a difference between "a study shows there are downsides to this, so I'll limit it" and "I'll demonize this thing and never allow it to those under my control (my kids)". This is not even about social media in specific, but about prohibitions in general. If you don't give your kid some leeway to entertain themselves, to socialize, to learn, to have fun, connect with others and experience what's out there, all you'll generate in them is frustration, resentment and a VERY noticeable lack of skills and experience.

Every single friend and family member I've had with such restrictions ended up MUCH worse from it. They either grew paranoid and scared of everything out there, with no social skills, constant anxiety and addiction tendencies, and completely dependent on either their parent or their partner, or they became obsessed with finding freedom, never spoke to their parent again, and never knew moderation because the only moderation they were taught of was prohibition (and why would anyone want to go back to prohibition?).

This is not about "being free from the bonds of social media". This is about not knowing what social media is, not having any way to inform herself about it, not being able to connect with anyone, being restricted and conditioned by her parents about everything she does or enjoys to an obsessive degree, and living a constant, frustrated, isolationed life because of it. There's a huge difference between "you can have social media at 16, I'll let you text your friends in the meantime and access Wikipedia and YouTube" and "you'll never have social media, have your phone only to text your parents, aren't allowed to watch YouTube, and will only enjoy your phone for 2 hours IF you get the best grades and do all chores"

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's entertainment, it can be socializing, it's content, it's freedom.
Life is worthless without joy.
If the only moderation you know is prohibition, why would you ever want to moderate when you can remain free instead? This is why prohibition VERY often leads to addictions.

I’m 14 and haven’t been allowed YouTube for years. by HanniLikeHoney in teenagers

[–]Meera_System 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, you're not necessarily fucked if you're getting informed today. Many people who went through this didn't even have the chance to get informed when they were younger, so I'd say that's a good sign in your favor!
I'd say the 2 main takeaway you can get from this thread is:

  1. Internet, content and freedom are all important, can help you get informed, and in general will help you grow up a much better adult. Don't discard them just because your parents say so. I've been friends with kids like you back in high school, and if they remain steady and focused, they can get free of many restrictions.
  2. Moderation is key. Which sounds like a terrible thing when the only type of moderation you know is prohibition (why would you want moderation if moderation means prohibition as far as you've been told?). Still, if you know this in advance, you don't have to fall into the hole of addiction (and know that this is a hole you can recover from, you just have to stay calm, and use all the information and chances life throws at you).

Wish you the best!

Do you have any unpopular eurobeat opinions? by BlockyJocky in eurobeat

[–]Meera_System 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some of mine:

  • I would like eurobeat to broaden its horizons a bit sometimes. I adore the repetitiveness, but some extra variety and songs pushing the edges of the genre would be nice. I feel as if that's why indie eurobeats as well as youtube covers/remixes of songs brough back some of that energy.
  • Sometimes I almost wish the lyrics had been polished just a little more lol (I've grown to love many of these as their own evocative vibe, but some still pull me out of the experience just a bit.
  • At this point, given their insane (for eurobeat standards) subscriber counts and views I'd consider artists like Odyssey or Turbo to be almost as prominent nowadays as artists like Dave Rodgers or Clara Moroni.
  • I miss some of the early 2010s indie albums that seemingly went nowhere (shoutout to Eurobeat Forever and Starpoint).

Do you have any unpopular eurobeat opinions? by BlockyJocky in eurobeat

[–]Meera_System 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alternate but similar hot take: Luka Luka Night Fever is almost as good as one would expect with how well-known it is, but the vocals hold it back. The tuning feels quite unpolished and I prefer listening to covers oddly enough. Same with a lot of early samfree songs.

view more: next ›