Doug paints Nader as insane and reactionary for using the phrase "corporate porn directed at kids." I was merely pointing out the sanity and not-necessarily-reactionary nature of that phrase. The phenomenon exists.
> also, so what if someone lets their kid watch MTV?
Then that person is making a moderate mistake, unless the kid is old enough. I'd say that's somewhere around 14-16. Are you saying nobody gets to criticize another person's parenting?
> Also, couldn't MTV and the like promote the the destruction of childhood
> (as you describe it) without shaking booties and shimmying cassabas?
No, actually. How else could they, if they lost the sex ploy? Open advocacy of booze and other drugs (the only other adult trope that's commercially exploitable with kids) wouldn't be tolerated. They could try to go back to MTV of 1982, but that wouldn't fly today in marketing terms, given subsequent history. Marketing requires cutting edge titillation.
> That said, people's status as a parent is really irrelevant. By bringing
it
> into the equation, you make it about eacho f our parenting skills. It's
> perfectly possible for someone without kids to take your position without
> ever having kids and it's just as possible for someone to disagree with
you
> if they have kids.
That's what you say. I said nothing about having to have a kid to think about a kid's welfare. I'm an opponent of the epistemological claim that people can't have genuine sympathy for others. I think that's a game played by people trying to market themselves. Any sensible, ethically aware adult can think in loco parentis. I asked everybody to watch some MTV Spring Break from this angle and report back their findings.