comment: >
  
  Based on your other arguments I think the trouble of consent runs into an issue when you recognize that minors cannot consent to anything. The consent then falls to their parents (which whether they are bad people or not) get to decide what gets to be private. I wouldn’t say that whole sun is cruel most are kids being goofs but there are definitely some videos that cross the line and I feel like the comments typically call this behavior out and don’t celebrate bullying when it is over the line.
context: It seems like you're taking something meant for fun a little too seriously. Parenting is hard and sometimes kids are fucking assholes. >
  
  The lack of explicit consent is what immediately jumps out at me. Often there are videos showing children being embarrassed and shamed for “public consumption”. I consider that to be a form of abuse. >
  
  Would you apply this same logic to any video of other people posted to reddit? >
  
  Yes. I would. I find a lot of content online questionable because people are often being recorded without their consent.
  There are in fact, in many places, laws against this.
  “ it is illegal for any person to secretly record an oral, telephonic, or electronic communication that other parties to the communication reasonably expect to be private. (18 U.S.C. § 2511.)”
  In fact! Some of the videos of children are taken in the home. Which means there should be a reasonable expectation that it be private.
  In truth, the rights of children… might be in violation. >
  
  
  There are in fact, in many places, laws against this.
  
  Yes but you're extending that law beyond its meaning. It's very explicit when it says "reasonably expect privacy". Further, you're generally allowed to record whatever you want in public. 
  
  In fact! Some of the videos of children are taken in the home. Which means there should be a reasonable expectation that it be private.
  
  Yeah that definitely does not hold up especially given the people can literally see them recording. 
  In truth, they definitely aren't. >
  
  Kids aren't a class of person. Everyone was or is a kid. Being a kid transcends culture and language and borders. It's one of the few universals. And an attribute of that universal is that sometimes if not often, kids are fucking stupid!
  It's not their fault they're stupid, they're learning their lessons. It's something everyone can relate to because we've all been in that ignorant position. >
  
  Have you considered that kids are, in fact, fucking stupid? >
  
  Replace “kids” with modern civil rights protected minorities/demographics, and see how long that comment lasts >
  
  Kids aren't a protected minority or class in the sense you're talking about, they're a universal. Anyone in a minority or protected class group all have in common that they were once a kid. Rich poor gay straight everyone was a kid at one point. >
  
  Exactly, at a point..meaning prior tense. I don’t see how they’re universal if they aren’t a unchanging state. But the word kid does categorize a certain section of the population. No different than I can equally use any other “demographic” as a categorization, and then apply the “stupid” accusation on them. 
  But of course in those later cases, censorship will be a predictable reaction >
  
  
  Why are children exempt?
  
  Because children aren't some protected class. People of all races, sexes, etc at one point were children.
  
  It seems exceptionally cruel considering children are unable to consent and video is being taken of them
  
  What makes it cruel? Does it hurt them in any way? Or are they just going to continue living their lives exactly the way they would had they not been videotaped?
  
  Then there’s the biological truth that children as also human beings still in development
  
  Right: that's why they're so stupid.
  People like you diminish important terms, like "hate." When people like you go around calling videos of kids falling of the couch "hate," it trivializes actual, impactful hate. What you're doing is far more damaging than these videos. >
  
  spot on. let's not all trip over ourselves searching out "hate" while in reality we're just chasing the "i support all victims" dragon. >
  
  Kids are definitely fucking stupid
  Source: former child myself >
  
  Anecdotal and doesn’t address the points made. >
  
  omg you are one of those debate bros huh.
  is your username hate as well? >
  
  I consented to my username. In fact, I chose it.
  Children do not have the ability to consent. >
  
  Kids absolutely have the ability to consent, just because they can't consent to sex doesn't mean they can't consent to anything >
  
  Kids aren’t capable of consenting because they can’t understand the gravity 
  If you’re a toddler, you don’t know the effects of having images on the internet that can never be deleted and that you can’t control. You don’t know whether you’ll go “viral,” and have these images associated with you for the rest of your life. A toddler, or even a child, isn’t capable of making these decisions because they don’t comprehend the internet, how vast it is, how many creeps and people with bad intentions are on it, how many future employers are on it, etc
  There is a chance that one tantrum could follow them for the rest of their life. They don’t know any better. They can’t consent >
  
  Is /peoplefuckingdying a hate sub against cute animals? I find it pretty endearing. Same goes for /kidsarefuckingstupid. Shit, my kids did the same things! I probably did, too. >
  
  Which part is cruel? The title of the subreddit or the content of the posts?
  Did you think America's Funniest Home videos was a cruel show? It regularly showed kids doing stupid things. Gave some of them $10,000 for being especially stupid. 
  The subreddit isn't exploiting anyone. People see an image or video online of a kid being stupid and post it to the appropriate subreddit for karma. 
  Do you think r/idiotsincars is a hate subreddit also? What about r/animalsbeingjerks or /r/PeopleBeingJerks or /r/peoplearestupid ? >
  
  To be clear. They might be. I’m not an expert on the content of those subreddits.
  The thrust of my point is this:
  - Children aren’t able to consent to the video content because of the power dynamic between them and adults and adults having an advantage over children who haven’t fully developed their reasoning. So at a bare minimum, it’s exploitative.
  
  Children aren’t stupid because they haven’t developed the cognitive ability to fully understand everything and this is labeled as “fucking stupid” and is something the children have no control over.
  
  These two things coalesce into essentially a sub that blames non-consenting children for simply “existing” as children. For public consumption.
  Also “fucking stupid” implied a sort of deep dislike of children. They’re not simply kids, they’re “fucking stupid kids”. Which implies it’s broadly a negative framing. >
  
  
  Children aren’t able to consent to the video content because of the power dynamic between them and adults and adults having an advantage over children who haven’t fully developed their reasoning. So at a bare minimum, it’s exploitative.
  
  Lots of videos people post online of other people are situations where the poster hasn't gotten the person's express permission to post it. Do you take this same standard for them too? Should we ban all videos unless they come with a written agreement of their posting by the person filmed? >
  
  In an ideal world yes. But, more caution should be taken. There is law around this sort of behaviour. >
  
  There's law around recording interactions explicitly understood to be kept private between those taking part, that's very different from recording someone randomly in public which is very much legal. >
  
  Who is being affected by the alleged cruelty here? Are people committing hate crimes against children?
  Hate speech is considered a problem because it causes violence against marginalized groups. >
  
  Cruel?
  If you define hate such that it includes even if no kids get hurt by the group, then I agree. 
  But if you think it's a hate group in the sense that it will drive suffering for children, then you're inaccurate.
  Children will grow out of their stupidity, so they aren't going to get persecuted. >
  
  Stupid isn't meant in a hateful way >
  
  If someone called another person “fucking stupid”, I imagine they wouldn’t exactly feel like they’ve been complimented. I also don’t believe it’s a benign statement. >
  
  The meaning of words and phrases changes over time and with context >
  
  I must have missed when “fucking stupid” became complimentary slang…
  Lemme check..
  Urban Dictionary says…
  “a super advanced level of being stupid”
  That… doesn’t sound like a compliment. >
  
  I just learned that anything other than a compliment is hate speech. >
  
  Most of the time is just funny videos of kids falling down or doing severe damage to their parents' property, it's helpful birth control. There is a r/parentsarefuckingdumb also >
  
  I think you're just taking the sub way too seriously, although admittedly I can see why the phrase "fucking stupid" would lead you to that conclusion.
  The whole point of the sub is to have a wholesome laugh at precisely the fact that "their intellectual development isn't sophisticated", to use your words. Children make foolish assumptions, do obviously reckless things, and just generally fumble through the world in a way that's fun to have a giggle at.
  To some extent I agree that children's consent should be better considered before posting images or videos of them online, but I don't think that's the fault of that specific subreddit. >
  
  I would be inclined to agree, if it was not for fact that kids truly are fucking stupid. 
  I'm a former kid, take my word for it. >
  
  The title is meant to be humorous. Read the description of the subreddit:
  ​
  
  Just look at some of these kids, how can they be so dumb? Like what, you seriously can't hula hoop? Jesus christ. And babies know literally nothing. God damn kids are so dumb.
  
  Do you think "babies know literally nothing" is a serious complaint? No, it's a facetious overreaction. We know kids are developing, we don't expect them to know as much as adult, no reasonable adult would call a child "fucking stupid" for not knowing how to hula hoop. So it's funny to react as if the kids are adults that should know better. >
  
  
  exceptionally cruel
  
  cruel to who? are there children who have complained that their emotional development is somehow / in any way impacted? 
  
  Because of the power dynamics, the children are essentially exploited for our laughs.
  
  this is like, "we exploit corn" or "we exploit pets". these are basic and easy arguments to make. the more interesting argument is that it is indeed adults who are exploited by children.
  
  children force parents into working conditions an adult would otherwise never accept. 
  children force adults into working for them as unpaid employees
  children force adults to assume liability for their reckless behavior
  children offer nothing in return for their demands
  etc. etc. etc. 
  
  
  Meaning their intellectual development isn’t sophisticated to begin with
  
  says who? childhood development is incredibly sophisticated. every cognitive neuroscientist, psychiatrist, and psychologist would disagree w/ you. what you are trying to say, politely, is that kids are dumb. the sub just adds some flare to something you already agree with. 
  
  So the sub seems to fault them by calling them “fucking stupid” for something that is beyond their control.
  
  i mean... so what? so is lots of comedy. 
  one of the best things you learn when raising a kid is that the more you teach them to laugh rather than cry, the better off they are. laugh when they fall so they laugh. laugh when the screw something up so they laugh. learning to laugh at the comedy that is life, and especially at yourself, is one of the strongest things a person can learn, and one of the best ways to build resiliency. >
  
  The arguments around children forcing adults makes no sense. Considering parents choose to have children. Children are vulnerable, also.
  So the expectation is that children should work and understand the law?
  This is an unreasonable expectation. >
  
  they don't make "no sense". i didn't say anything that's untrue. kids have a sweet deal in life. 
  and no... the expectation is that b/c kids are dumb, they can't work or understand the law. and we cope w/ the fact that a bunch of incapable, dumb, little people have managed to exploit the entire human race by laughing at the absurdity of the human condition. 
  which again, is a much healthier response than pretending that something harmless is actually harmful. >
  
  I just took at look at their very concise, straightforward rules. They include don't be a dick, don't be a creep, don't be a racist, no harm comes to them.
  I think it's pretty normal to laugh at the antics of kids. There isn't anyone on the planet who hasn't done it. That doesn't mean the group is full of hateful people.
  I understand your objection to the word "stupid", but other than that, I see nothing that indicates the purpose of the group is to shame children.  Plus, it's pretty hard to shame someone if they aren't even aware of the group or it's content.
  I actually looked at the first few posts currently displayed and some of them make the parents look not too bright.
  As far as your claim that the group is discriminatory, I'd use the word discretionary.  If someone wants to look at funny videos of cats or nutty WalMart shoppers or bad drivers or silly kids or ugly golfing outfits, that's the entire purpose of having groups with specific content.  If that's discrimination, it's certainly not illegal, immoral or unethical IMO.
  Just because you hate a sub doesn't mean it is a "hate sub". >
  
  Because its funny as hell >
  
  It's no different than kids being dumb on America's Funniest Videos. Those videos were submitted by the parents, and, I'm assuming in most cases the same goes for the videos in that sub >
  
  I’ll point out:
  
  America’s Funniest Videos
  
  Vs
  - Kids Are Fucking Stupid
  … intent matters and words expose intent. >
  
  Do you disagree with the statement that..."kids are fucking stupid"?
  Cuz they are. Giving the benefit of the doubt the title as well as the sub itself is meant to be humorous, not hateful. This is vastly different than r/fatpeoplehate which rightfully got banned. Could they have named the sub kidsaredumb? Of course. Does it make it hateful just cuz they went with the vulgar name? Not necessarily >
  
  I don’t think kids are stupid. I think they’re kids. They simply don’t know or don’t understand. Stupidity, implies a lack intelligence or common sense.
  Kids cannot intelligent beyond their capacity and that’s not their fault and they’re still young so common sense isn’t common when you’re new to everything.
  So I imagine kids who have adults consenting for them… are sharing their mistakes with the world for karma… and that’s, in a lot of ways… no different than laughing a fat people for being fat…
  We see it as harmless… but it isn’t… 
  From a child development and parenting expert…
  “"I think that it's important to make sure that what you're sharing is positioning them in a good light and is something that if they were to look back on it, they would understand your intentions and have those same hopefully positive thoughts and feelings about it," Irwin said.
  She added that this is especially significant when it comes to sharing photos and videos of younger children who may not be asked about consent.” >
  
  So would you have a problem with a sub called r/kidsarefuckingcute? It's essentially the same thing with slightly different content (but there would be overlap). Logically you would have a problem with it for the reasons you've stated, and if not that would be a double standard. 1) they can't consent 2) aren't fully developed 3) parents posting for karma.
  Do you think the sub would be less "hateful" if the name was changed to something more benign? >
  
  You’re absolutely correct. Part of my issue is the lack of consent. People laughing at the children in moments where they are vulnerable or embarrassed for karma. That’s still bad. >
  
  Why do you think that's a bad thing? Do you think life should be taken seriously? What's wrong with laughter? >
  
  Everyone's been a kid before, everyone's been stupid before, it's just making light of that in a fun way. Not everyone's been a woman before so it's not the same. >
  
  It’s a joke subreddit. The part you wrote about kids still being in development? That’s what makes it funny. It’s taking kids’ actions and viewing them through the lens of an adult. If an adult were to do any of those things, you’d rightfully call them fucking stupid. 
  I think it’s a massive stretch to say that posting a video of a kid eating a candle means you hate children. >
  
  Despite the fact that the title is satirical and meant to be funny...Comparatively, kids are fucking stupid. Would you have a child do your taxes or work on your house or try to fix your car? Of course not, because kids are fucking stupid. 
  r/ChildrenLackTheLifeExperienceAndAreNotFullyDevelopedEnoughToRecognizeTheConsequencesOfThierActions is not as clever or catchy for that matter. >
  
  Ok… and why is “KidsAreFunny” not an option?
  Because “fucking”, the word, is meant to demean the subject. >
  
  Puppies are fucking cute and pizza is fucking delicious. You must be in a perpetual state of furious outrage, calm down man. >
  
  “Fuck” is an extremely versatile word. It has way more than one meaning.
  When fuck is paired with a negative word… so “fuck stupid” it’s meant to emphasize the intent. Not just calling someone stupid but calling them very stupid in a demeaning sense. As if they were “exceptionally” stupid. >
  
  By objective standards thier actions are stupid not funny. I went and looked at the page and some of the top videos were as follows.
  1)a child flings a tether ball and obliviously stands motionless as it swings around his head several times before hitting him and knocking him over.
  2)an infant squeezes an applesauce pouch with so much force that it blasts them in the face. Unphased they put thier mouth directly on the nozzle and squeeze the last drops into their mouth.
  3) kids at a petting zoo see a goat ram it's horns into the fence. The kids laugh before one of them decides to try ramming his own head into the fence. Guess what? It was not a smart idea.
  If a grown adult preformed any one of these actions you would not find them to be funny. It would be a sign that they had some sort of mental and or developmental disability. It's somehwhat more expected from kids because they don't know any better. AKA they are fucking stupid. If you don't like the joke well then I guess it wasn't meant for you. >
  
  For men being stupid there is r/holdmybeer. For women being stupid there is r/holdmycosmo. For kids being stupid there is r/kidsarefuckingstupid. Generally people being dumb can be r/facepalm. Just different subreddits for different kinds of stupidity. >
  
  You don’t see a difference between the four names of those subreddits? 
  r/KidsAreFuckingStupid means to demean its subject. Right?
  Wait… why isn’t r/HoldMyBeer not called “r/MenAreFuckingStupid” or r/HoldMyCosmo called “r/WomenAreFuckingStupid”?
  The last one could be..
  “r/PeopleAreFuckingStupid” >
  
  The names of the subs, yes. The content, not so different. >
  
  I taught kindergarten for 27 years. In one year kids go from not knowing A from a square to writing legible sentences. Reading. Solving equations that were wiggly lines 6 months ago. Kids aren't stupid. Idk any adult who accomplish more in 9 months >
  
  I can't believe you actually believe this.  
  Literally every human that has ever existed was a kid...and was fucking stupid.  
  You don't understand analogies or what a class of person is if you think "kids" are a class or person. Its more akin to saying "humans are fucking stupid" than it is to "women are fucking stupid".