Childhood Innocence

Published by

Clarissa

January 15, 2023

I feel absolutely rabid against anyone who tries to mar my kid’s perfect childhood innocence with unnecessary stories of horrors, injustices, racisms, Holocausts, genocides, pandemics, divorces, abusive parents, sufferings, etc.

There’s absolutely no chance she’ll fail to find out about all this. We all get to know about this crap for decades and decades of our lives. And the only thing that helps us bear the knowledge without being paralyzed by it is the strength and resilience we gather during that short time of childhood innocence when everything is perfect, simple and good. Every extra hour in that state of grace is valuable.

The short years of childhood innocence stand between us and crippling anxiety, fear of life, and an incapacity to feel safe. What kind of a perverted bastard tries to steal them from a child?

Rate this:

7 responses to “Childhood Innocence”

Avi

January 15, 2023

“What kind of a perverted bastard tries to steal them from a child?”

Answer: Someone who has been abused himself.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
Post Alley Crackpot

January 16, 2023

The kids who grow up with stuffed animals and who learn how to cooperate from an early age do better than those who don’t grow up that way.

As usual …

[sits here with my Crowder Memorial Free Speech Table and dares you to PROVE ME WRONG] 🙂

Interesting reading material for you: check out “The ‘Dead-Internet Theory’ is wrong but feels true” dated August 2021 from The Atlantic.

Well, the “Dead Internet Theory” isn’t wrong.

Exceptions test the rule: exceptio probat regulum.

And so I’ve had a test for that.

Since the 2000s, I’ve been watching a niche idea that happens to be niche because it’s the expression of an idea that only comes to people who experience a specific separation from society, and the best expression of it came from an unlikely yet completely credible source.

Every few months, I’d go out to the search engines to see if it’s still there.

Except a few weeks ago, I went looking for it and it wasn’t in the search engines, despite the site being up with all of its usual content. That specific page also wasn’t there, even though the pages around it were.

A quick note to the site’s admins confirmed the worst: the site gets by with being indexed only if all of its content remains “safe”, and for whatever reason that page was “suddenly” considered “unsafe”.

Rather than fight that search engine’s decision, the creator decided that it was easier just to make the idea disappear, as it had served the creator’s purposes at the time, believing nobody ever really noticed.

We still have an old version of the site archived on the servers that we’re moving, and so the idea hasn’t disappeared for us.

But it’s clear that part of what’s making the Internet “dead” is that the search engine people can choose to hold sites hostage until the site admins delete pages related to certain ideas.

There was nothing offensive about this particular idea.

The people responsible did this to see if it could be done and to remove access to an idea that could potentially be liberating, much in the same way as John Taylor Gatto and Paulo Freire who I’ve mentioned earlier.

There are still search engines that are capable of providing results useful for research, but there was once a day when there was no need to differentiate between Google for Normies and Google Scholar.

It’s not just childhood innocence that’s being stolen.

“And so, Crackpot, if you were to tell us here what this idea was …”

It would happen to Clarissa as well.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  January 16, 2023
  
  Well, I guess people will have to go back to spreading ideas the way they did before 2012. If anybody remembers how it’s done, of course. 🙂
  
  But yes, all true. Thank you for the great comment.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. Avi
  
  January 16, 2023
  
  @Post Alley Crackpot
  I always enjoy reading your quirky comments [that’s a compliment], even though they always make me feel not only profoundly ignorant but also decidedly unintelligent. Still, just a quip: “exceptio probat regulAm.”
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Anonymous

January 16, 2023

Have you read fairytales? They’re quite bloodthirsty. Have you noticed how often books for kids have characters that are orphans?

Kids learn about all kinds of bad things that happen to other people without being affected. Their natural selfishness protects them. What matters is their own lives and how their own parents, families, teachers, and friends treat them.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  January 16, 2023
  
  Folk fairytales are, indeed, very naturalistic. They were created at a different time in history and their audience was grownup. The concept of childhood didn’t even exist at the time when the original fairytales were created.
  
  I don’t know anybody who offers these original fairytales to children today. The Cinderella kids encounter today doesn’t include any physical mutilation of the stepsisters, for instance.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. Socal Dendrite
  
  January 16, 2023
  
  I always figured that the orphans thing is mostly just a mechanism to allow the protagonist kids to have exciting/dangerous adventures that wouldn’t be allowed to happen if the parents were in the picture.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply