I don’t know if it is worse but it harder to even try to justify when the groups being left behind aren’t some single digit or decimal fraction of the population but in some cases can be placed in demographics of 10,20,40 percent of a population or on more local levels even more.
So yeah- a lot of people feel annoyance that it might sometimes seem some groups need to constantly remind everyone they exist, to call attention to their identity and be very vocal with their thoughts and feelings and needs. How many times would you need to be left out on vacations, group decisions and projects, getting given what others were, having your birthday or accomplishments celebrated, etc etc. before you started to be more vocal? How many times would your thoughts or opinions need to be ignored or refused to be heard or glossed over before you started to be very vocal when you felt something was important? How many promises would you let be broken before you started being maybe a bit insistent or

2. And this is a BIG one when it comes to many social issues… traditionally and even into the present many groups are marginalized or forgotten or excluded. Wether intentional or not. This one is pretty simple but many have trouble with it. If your entire family or your close friends went on an all expense paid trip and left you behind because they all jumped in the car and forgot about you- you might be hurt? Mad? Upset? “I didn’t think about you…” in a group of 30 kids one kid is one kid. If you or your child got left behind on a field trip and the teacher said: “there are 30 kids and that kid is only one kid. I’m supposed to think about every single kid even if there is just one of them?” You might have some feelings about that.

But here are the flip sides.
1. Sometimes we don’t need to narrow the scope. It may not help at all or show a specific bias. “We need to make sure to reach young men higher math..” well.. we should probably also teach everyone else higher math? And unless some very specific factors that are keeping men from learning higher math but not impacting women, or men are falling behind other groups disproportionately in higher math skills… there isn’t any reason to narrow the problem to men there.

Wether some or all of these factors are objectively true (people often cite taxes as one reason for leaving despite the state having some of the lowest overall tax rates for anyone under the top percentages of wealth for example,) the perception of those factors is enough. There can be argument of wether such an exodus was already underway to some measure before covid 19, but it has become a major talking point during and post pandemic. Saying the pandemic triggered such events would be incorrect Saying it exacerbated them might be correct or might not be, but this modern example shows us how easily a combination of factors, even pre existing factors, can either build to a breaking point or with the right catalyst can drive collapse.

A modern American example might be the exodus of many from big cities and certain states. Real estate prices and cost of living were generally high in these areas for a long time. Crowding and congestion were generally long time issues. Crime and violence were generally issues.
A pandemic struck and through that pandemic and after many have been leaving certain areas. With California as an example, in addition to the above factors many cite social and political reasons for wanting to leave suddenly. Many of these things have existed in the state for decades or generations before. Many feel recent drought and fires are reasons to leave despite the facts that in most of the state these issues are not critically impacting the average person but serve as more of a constant pressure or annoyance.

prior to the collapse, given that many empires were weakened and we can infer that in many cases the overall security and prosperity of those empires peoples suffered.. if you start adding a persistent drought, even if not a critical drought, attacks from abroad and conflicts, even if not severe enough alone to trigger a mass migration, pandemic, even if alone not enough to cause the collapse..
We start seeing a picture of an area that under those conditions we might intuitively be like “man, if I lived there I would get out…” in that time period.

Hole theft is a serious crime impacting millions around the globe. In the next 12 comments I will go deeply into this issue and at some point work in a tangent about cultural comparisons with Mesopotamia and why parking meters don’t usually take bills even though parking prices have long exceeded amounts easily paid with pocket change. Please stay tuned.

Keep in mind comedians tell jokes and get paid to do it. Let that sink in. They trade jokes for money. Some of them are multi millionaires off jokes. Do you think comedians don’t pay tax because it seems ridiculous to tax someone on a joke? Yeah man. If you tell a joke and get paid- there is a joke tax. That joke cost you some money to tell. Salt, diamonds, those cheap crafts at the art fair- rocks. Those are rocks. If you can get money for a rock- one you found laying on the ground- that’s a tax issue. If your dog rolls in paint on a piece of paper there’s no tax there. If you sell it and make money there is tax. See a theme? A pretty constant theme?

So I mean- there once were practical reasons that maybe sitting too close was bad for your eyes. There are reasons that one might mistakenly believe that despite no evidence or contrary evidence that based on their own observations it would be bad for your eyes. There are other reasons like repeating what they were taught or just making things up to get kids to behave the way they want- but in general there’s isn’t evidence to support that having a modern screen too close to your eyes will cause harm. Well- I mean I guess if you’re close enough that your eye is touching the screen or the screen penetrates your eye sure. And sitting too close to tv is classically a bad idea because asides blocking the view it could fall on you and kill you or you could damage the tv accidentally etc.

So for each generation so far there has been this new thing to worry about causing problems or turning kids into zombies or whatever. Since the first TV sets rolled into homes and before that the first radios parents have been telling their kids some version of “turn it off and touch grass.” That isn’t new. And each new technology the adult generations say “this is way worse than when I was a kid..” and now we have parents who grew up with internet, lap tops and desktops at school and home, portable and console and arcade games, digital pets and digital music and media talking about how much worse it is now that kids are growing up with phones and tablets

Computers and all these screens like tablets etc. are all pretty new too! So each generation has faced this same sort of “panic.” Kids being born in the 1950’s were growing up in a world their parents didn’t know- one where there was TV everywhere. Home movies came and video games and computers so that even those who had grown up with screens their parents didn’t have now had kids growing up with more screens and earlier access than them. Kids born in the late 80’s and 90’s were labeled computer whizzes by adults and media because many of them started using computers at a young age. Kids born in the later 90’s and early 2000’s started being exposed much more commonly to computers and interfaces in toys and at home and school and the youngest generations have been using computers and technology extensively almost since birth.

How things got there and what they might be doing about it aren’t exactly my business or yours as she is their child to raise, but I just wanted to mention that indeed parents have responsibility for children’s behavior at these ages as they are still in sole control of her development and access. So no need to judge or point out that it is their fault etc. I am aware that they created the situation.
The point there is that she is growing up in a world of screens and her parents are worried a bit by that.

A parent might be judicious with giving their child candy or sweets for example, and expect they might get excited when recieving them- but if a child literally acted like a crack head or even got violent to attain or protect their treats a parent might be concerned the attachment isn’t healthy. So I’m sure that to some degree the aversion to kids sitting too close to the screen comes from that feeling or place- that it is a behavior that sort of imparts this perception one is too attached or too invested. My god daughter is 2 and has a phone (wifi only) to watch videos on. You cannot get her attention when she is watching it. She will not respond to her name being called or even food being placed in her face. She cries if you take it away and stops almost instantly almost any time you give it to her. While kids that age are not generally the most alert and observant- to her parents (and me) it is alarming.

Kids spill things and get food and bodily fluids and such all over. All potential hazards for a television- something that traditionally can be very expensive. Wanting to keep kids away from the TV makes sense from this perspective alone. Sitting right in front of the TV can block the view of others as well- something kids are often prone to if unchecked, making it difficult to watch anything with any focus.
There is also just a sort of psychological factor- most people have felt or feel that excessive interest and time with screens can harm the development of children and lead to other issues that can impact health and well being. There is a desperation of sorts in sitting so close to the screen as though one is being absorbed by it perhaps.

Lastly… much like parents telling children that turning the light on in the car is illegal- while there can be more than one sole reason such as a parent repeating what was heard or believing something that isn’t true etc, it could also just be a matter of prudence.
Kids are generally filthy and clumsy creatures. With a glass screen as was ubiquitous for the most part on older sets, finger prints and urges might be common and annoying- but many modern televisions can be permanently damaged relatively easily by touching the screen- and kids, more so younger kids, often intentionally or accidentally touch the screen.

Modern screens are not believed to emit radiation of a type and quantity to generally pose a danger to the eyes or tissues from close range exposure. Because of differences in how modern screen technology works, heat and light are still the main sources of radiation along with certain other electromagnetic or “radio” waves that are generally believed to be safe at the closure levels produced by modern screens. Even older screens from the 80’s and 90’s and early 2000’s generally produce less radiation of harmful types and are generally considered safe for viewing up close, and it is debatable how much one would need to watch a very old high emissions screen to cause damage if any would occur at all, but in theory very old and high emissions screens could cause damage and that could be in part the origins or one origin of the warnings.

But it’s not TOTAL crap. Cathode Ray sets are generally not common anymore at all but into the 2000’s they were still the dominant technology. Older sets from the 50’s and 60’s and some 70’s sets were still pretty common in general up into the 1980’s and 90’s. All electronics emit radiation but Very old or somewhat old and antiquated tube based televisions did actually emit small but potentially harmful doses of radiation. Radiation generally decreases in danger exponentially with distance from the source. So when those designs were the dominant technology, and for a period they were still in widespread use afterwards, it actually did make sense to tell people not to sit too close or they could damage their eyes, or at least in absence of study data, it would seem prudent advice.

.. risks- many reading this are old enough that concerns over computers that have been disproven were common- and a lot of us are old enough for various concerns over cell phones- there are still many people who are wary that keeping a phone near them can cause cancer- Wi-Fi cancer and such, wireless charging, I mean way too many people and a U.S. president raised concerns over the cutting edge technology of windmills. Some of these may or may not have at least some degree of validity- but we know these technologies are generally safe.

It is also important to note that metabolic and genetic factors, especially coupled with diet and eating habits can lead to storage of visceral fat. It is healthy to have a certain amount of this fat to cushion internal organs and provide other benefits, however excessive storage of visceral fat is generally considered more unhealthy and dangerous than “soft fat.” Surface level fat commonly associated with obesity. Asides genetics, certain habits and diets can cause one to store more visceral fat. One can be “skinny” or in their body weight range and have an unhealthy amount of visceral fat- often a “beer belly” is a sign of this. For one’s health weight can be one important metric as can body fat percentage, but these metrics only tell part of the story.

For the non obese attempting to avoid obesity, running is generally safe. It is generally high impact even if one isn’t obese so one might consider that and the data on short and long term running related injury and plan an appropriate and healthy routine for themselves.
Running can help one maintain a desired weight and improve aspects of health and fitness, but running alone won’t let a person avoid obesity generally. A proper diet or at least a reasonable diet with controlled calories intake and ideally balanced and adequate nutrition are the best defenses against obesity. Of course some people have hormonal conditions or other factors that can make standard measures of diet and exercise ineffective in avoiding obesity.

This is why it is important to consult a health professional before beginning a new fitness routine. People who are younger and generally healthy have better statistical odds that they can get away with starting any random program without seeing a doctor and not have issues, though because you can have unknown congenital defects or other hidden health conditions it is still not unwise to get cleared before starting new physical activities and checking up regularly. The older one is, the more one knows or has reason to suspect they have health issues or face risks, and the more obese one is, it generally becomes more critical to have proper clearance and supervision for exercise and even dietary changes. So perhaps some people can run from obesity. Many cannot, and many more than that probably shouldn’t run from obesity as they may run into equally or more severe problems you can’t run from but could have avoided with a more prudent regiment.