All of these things are true. In spite of this, content rating systems for video games, films, and television shows are based around age. A T rating for a game is supposed to signify that someone should at least be a teenager, 13 or older, before playing a game. An M rating supposedly means it is best to be 17 or older. The PG-13 category for movies allegedly means a child should be 13 or above, while an R rating is the cinematic equivalent of M in the gaming industry. Age, though, has nothing in itself to do with someone's philosophical maturity, psychological stability, or willingness/"ability" to "handle" artistic content like gore. It never follows logically that a 13 or 17 year old has any worldview or mental trait, so age can only be irrelevant.
Of course, all of these age markers are also arbitrary, in addition to demonstrably having no necessary relation to a child's (or adult's) readiness to consume a specific work of art. Why is 13 focused on instead of 12 so that there is a PG-12 rating? Are all 12 year olds by logical necessity different than 13 year olds in this regard? No, and it has nothing to do with age, but one child is not another, and so on this level as well, the non sequitur nature of the contrary ideology is erroneous. Also, the rating systems of other countries exemplify how arbitrary these categories are--the Australian M rating has two levels, one for 15 and older that is merely advisory and one for 15 and older that requires a guardian to accompany the child. The Australian R rating is for 18 and above, and the rating system applies to both video games and movies.
Age-based content ratings are intrinsically asinine for the aforementioned reasons already. It is not that one set of cultural norms in this arena is or could be valid and the others are not. People who think age-based content ratings are very important, such as for parents, nonetheless likely think the age recommendations of their culture are the right ones without even considering that all lines here are random by nature and made in denial of the objective truths of individualism. It is the content that would matter anyway, not the age of the player or viewer, not that age entails any particular level of worldview or personal development or that one person's psychological state must be that of another.
Stupid people are stupid because it is easy or comforting. I absolutely would not expect most parents to suddenly become rationalists when confronted about their idiocy and then immediately recognize the falsity of this sort of ageism. Hiding children away from things that have no power to mold their philosophical stances unless they allow them to is not rational parenting. Reductionistically treating a child as if he or she is just a certain number of years is not rational parenting. In the same way, opposing the consumption of entertainment by one's child because one is subjectively offended by it or on any other fallacious grounds is irrational. Age-based rating systems reflect errors and assumptions that contradict these logical facts.
[2]. See here:
No comments:
Post a Comment