u/Darkbetter

(This is going to be from my basic psych classes while getting my edu degree so don't expect much. Also Piaget's etc. could work too but Kohlberg is the big dick when it comes to moral development in education so rolling with him. So this is basically Buzzfeed levels of psychology i.e. total bullshit)

According to Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development, there are three levels of moral development: Pre-Conventional, Conventional, Post-Conventional. The first level lasts from ages 3-7 (actually age ranges aren't strict at all and different sources can wildly differ from one another), and it is pretty simplistic; they obey the rules because of fear of punishment (so they break them when they think they can get away with it), and afterwards they focus on rewards instead of punishment, asking "What's in it for me?" before they act. The last level starts at age 13-14, and here they finally realize that not everything is black and white; there are nuances, something being legally right does not make it morally right; and ideally, as they become an adult, they should be able to identify which laws and rules are moral with and according to their own (developed) conscience, striving to create a more fairer society for all.

The conventional level is our main focus here, and it lasts from ages 6-13. This level is about others. It kicks off with the child's need to be liked (called "good boy attitude"), their morality is steered by the approval of their peers. They help others, not out of the goodness of their heart, but because they want their approval, and they are willing to look the other way when their friends break the rules. (Hmm... Redditors probably did not fare well during this stage, now that I think about it, but let's move on)

The second part of this level (so fourth stage) is about fixed rules, law and order. The child thinks the laws and rules in place are infallible. It is not acceptable to break them in any way whatsoever. Extenuating circumstances do not exist; if you broke the rules you deserve punishment. If a starving person stole food, they must be punished according to the law, no leniency. If the law states that you have the complete ownership of a community's drinking water source, then you can do whatever you want, even if your choices affect the said community quite badly, for it is your lawful right.

Now, let's say in one of the AITA subs, someone posts his dilemma: The OP is a 19 year old university student working a part time job, who saved up to buy a PS5 for himself, and his mother asked for his savings so that they can buy braces for his little brother. His parents are going through rough times financially, so they can't afford it themselves. He asks whether he WIBTA if he were to say no to his parents. Maybe the top answer(s) would encourage him to help his brother, but I think there would be many comments telling him "NTA, it's your money, your parents are like 50 without emergency savings to dip into, you shouldn't suffer for their failings as parents 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️". Or in another post, the OP has the window seat during a domestic flight, and a child wants to look out the window during their flight, however he really doesn't want to open the window shutter as the light from the sun would make it harder for him to see the screen of his Steam Deck. So he refuses and the child becomes visibly sad, the parent makes a mean face. He asks if he's the asshole. I'd imagine that most people would answer with comments like "NTA, your seat your rules, the idiotic parent should've paid a bit more to get the window seat, the child should learn the life is not fair anyway. Good on you for not bowing down to societal pressure from these barely human crotch goblins OP!"

Then again, we don't even need a detailed hypothetical like the one above. Ask Redditors whether they would give up their seats on public transport for pregnant women/parents with toddlers/disabled people/elderly peoeple etc. A good amount would answer with the classic "That bitch should've fucked someone with a car". They got to the seat first and therefore it is their right.

Kohlberg himself stated that most people may never attain sufficient moral reasoning for the third and final level. And Redditors prove him right.

I've been playing PDX games ever since HoI2, I have hundreds of hours on Vic2 and CK2, got thousands of hours on HoI4. I rarely post a picture of my games on Reddit, but when I do, I always use screenshots. (I've written this intro in case those nerds think I post phone pics)

However, seeing people make snide comments under the posts of people who used their phones to take pictures are making my roll my eyes when I see their comment. Maybe saying "Erm 🤓 You do realize there's a screenshot button, maybe you should've pressed that instead of exposing my eyes to the monstrosity that is a phone camera's capture of a computer screen 🤓🤓🤓", and without fail at any post that used a phone pic, might've been funny, I don't know, FUCKING 10 YEARS AGO, but nowadays it just makes me think girls in high school cried when their teacher forced them to partner up with the chud who write these kinds of comments.

Worse, many people who don't use screenshots but their phone cameras are usually newbies, and I really don't think these condescending comments make them think they're welcome. I personally don't give a shit if someone uses their phone to post a picture instead of screenshots as long as the picture is legible and the bluriness around the edges are tolerable, but if you want them to get used to screenshotting, maybe do it with more neutral, less asshole-y tones. Instead of letting the bottled up rage of the high school nerd within you who got rejected by his crush crash upon some internet strangers whose only sin was using the phone in their pocket.

These people remind me of the grammar nazis of old, but holy fuck they were A: actually educating people on their grammar, i.e. something useful B: SOMEHOW LESS ANNOYING

Edit: Reddit never disappoints. Antisocial behavior is celebrated, niceness is discouraged, do you people actually wish you could muster up the social competency to say "You should've fucked someone with a car" to a pregnant lady on the public transport, as she's looking for a seat to sit while you avert your eyes on your seat?

Edit 2: Ok so I've said if you must still teach them that screenshots are the norm, you can write it nicely in the original body text. Yet people in the comments are calling me deranged for asking people to be nicer, have no arguments except for "nuh-uh" and "because I said so", attack me personally, and then they declare themselves as the winners of this discussion. Bruhhh

People point to HIMYM whenever the topic of disastrous finales are discussed. But I really didn't mind it. It's a sitcom about a friend group and there are two people, a girl and a guy, and their whole deal is "will they won't they". It's not something that was done once, throughout the seasons the focus came back to Robin and Ted multiple times. And despite the show's title, Ted was telling stories that could hardly be considered about how he met their mother. And so as the series went on, we got more bits and pieces about "the mother" but she was never the focus nor was she ever developed as a character. When it was time for the final season, and the mother/Tracy was finally introduced, there was too little time to endear her to audiences. They cheapened out and went with "newly introduced character fixes everything" to make the audience understand how she was a delightful bundle of joy that was important to Ted... shortly before dying after a short montage. And then the final scene, the kids essentially say that he never got over Robin and he didn't really talk about their mother, so he goes to be with Robin and the end.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it was obvious the series was never really about Tracy. Yeah, she was the mystery that was used to keep the viewers wonder about the next thing in the next episode or the season, but she never was the focus. And with sitcoms, if the main characters are a will they won't they couple, they end up together most of the time. I would understand the outrage if people were mad at the show as a whole way before the finale. Because who tf starts their story of how they met the mother of his children 8 years before he actually met her (oh but because she accidentally left her umbrella at the bar where he got rejected by yet another girl back in 2006 makes it consequential to the story of how he met his late wife ig)? You guys could have slammed it for having a deceptive title, not switching the focus midway through the series, not devoting at least one full season to Tracy. But nope, you're only mad about the finale. (I know there is also anger at stuff like making an entire season about the wedding etc. but they're small potatoes compared to the finale)

Let me reiterate, I'm not saying the finale's great, it's just, fine.

Now, if they were to make a reboot, I guarantee that they will write it so Robin and Ted will have broken up and Ted will be still chasing and trying to find his one true love as a 50 year old hopeless romantic... (Looking at Frasier and Scrubs...)