>Show complexity – whilst showing the impacts – and yes, appeal – of activities that may be dangerous or illegal, don’t celebrate the activity. But don’t condemn the characters either. No-one likes a wagging finger.<p>I appreciate this "rule" that the author holds. I think there really are two sides to these kinds of controversial issues - parents who don't fully understand the appeal, and teens who don't fully understand the danger - and the best way to show both sides is to tell it like it is.<p>Unfortunately, since in fiction the author has full reign over the plot, lazier (or else ignorant) authors who may not fully understand both sides might simply reward or punish characters regardless of any realistic criteria. If I tried to write such a book, I would fall into the "ignorant" category, biased not only by my limited experience but also by my natural desire to reward characters more like myself, regardless of whether their actions merit it.
Oh, really, we shouldn't?<p>And we usually haven't, but there have always been voices against, either the "save the children" crowd or something else.<p>(and yes, today SJWs are part of the problem)
In high school I was /enraged/ to learn that the books given to me were censored. Books like Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet.<p>I learned that when it came to respecting the power of speech, the Emperor had no clothes, and when deemed expedient a public institution would toss out their principles.
teenagers contribute nothing to the GDP. we could ignore them completely and they'd still turn into reasonable adults at the same rate. How about making school curricula marginally more specialized and employing the smartest 5% in challenging internships? short of that I can't imagine anything moving the needle on teens.<p>Anybody who thinks aggressive movie ratings makes a difference to young people in 2016 shouldn't be considered safe to drive a car.