In a rare ongoing consensus, Republicans and Democrats have long agreed that the age of 16 is the perfect time for children to be used as political props.
And their assertions have now been backed by science.
A group of sociologists have monitored children in the news media for the past several years and concluded that although 15 is a bit young and 17 a smidge too old, 16 is the ideal age for a child to enter the harsh glare of the media to discuss controversial topics that even adults can’t debate without crying and throwing things.
For example, when 16-year-old Nicholas Sandmann was splashed all over the “news” by “journalists” in his confrontation with Nathan Phillips, polled viewers noted that he was “old enough to take responsibility for his actions,” (which included offensive smiling and hat-wearing) and could therefore endure the resulting death threats and other public harassment. His defenders, meanwhile, pointed out that he was of an age that his intellectual views could be taken seriously.
On the other hand, Nicholas was evidently just young enough that supporters could demand that as “merely an innocent child,” he should be left alone, and his detractors could argue that he was “just a dumb kid” who was too young to have formed any educated views.
These initial findings have subsequently been confirmed, with 16-year-old activists (who shall remain unnamed, as they are merely innocent children and dumb kids) increasingly being utilized to each side’s advantage. And given the effectiveness of the practice, one has to wonder if eventually, all the adults in political power will began acting like 16-year-olds, hurling Twitter insults and mocking each other’s physical appearances.
One would certainly hope that society would never devolve into such behavior, and it fortunately seems unlikely that any elected officials would ever sink to such depths of impropriety.
Be First to Comment