What the hell?
I suppose you think you were being funny and clever there, but to conflate being annoyed with the modern drama of snowflakes being "triggered" and getting "emotional and upset" did manage to induce an eye-roll.
The OP posted an opinion (the use of the word "orgy" was inappropriate and naughty) to start this thread, meaning that he was inviting feedback from the comentariate. My response was, in essence, that if a kid is old enough to watch YouTube videos that kid is old enough to have an honest, if vague, explanation of the meaning of the word "orgy" to put the comment in context.
First, I'd like to ask an honest question. Are you a parent to younger kids? Because, it would be helpful to understand your context.
As to what you just said, not quite. First, he didn't say it was naughty. In fact, there is not a single "moralizing" type word in the entire original post. The closest he comes is calling it "strange" (and I think he means "Strange given the age limitations"). And then he says it's inappropriate but specifically because of the DnD Beyond age listings context.
And YouTube works that way - they list the age limits for their videos. "Old enough to watch YouTube" could mean literally just watching Sesame Street on Youtube. I mentioned that earlier. It's fair that if someone is not a parent of a young child right now they might not be aware that's how YouTube works these days - but that is how it works these days. You can now control what type of content is accessed by an account, and there is a difference between "Content listed as safe for kids" and "Content listed as for adults" and you can be old enough for the kids labelled stuff but not the adult labelled stuff.
It should take more than an offhand use of the word "orgy" to flag a video as being "adult content."
But it doesn't. I mean, I appreciate if you ran YouTube that you would decide differently, but that's not their standards. And frankly, it wouldn't be mine either. That's not moralizing - content intended for kids is supposed to be "of a non-sexual nature" such that you wouldn't encounter content that would tend to elicit the "Mommy/Daddy, what does [named sex act] mean?".
It's not moralizing to say that a YouTube video specifically labelled as OK for kids should not be the thing that tends to trigger conversations regarding sex acts. It's not that parents should not discuss sex topics with kids - it's that random videos labelled as kid-appropriate should not be the places which start those conversations. If you want a video to start those conversations, there are videos about sex ed you can seek out. But just as you wouldn't expect Sofia the First to raise the topic of a sex act, you wouldn't expect a video labelled as OK for Kids to raise it either. Which is why the OP said it was "strange" and not "naughty".
And yes, when you create a thread about your "private decisions concerning [your] family," you are explicitly asking what "[us] guys" think about it.
But he didn't. He said it was STRANGE to find that in those videos, GIVEN THE AGE NOTATIONS for the topic. He never asked the question of "Hey what do you guys think of my decision to not discuss sexual topics with my kids". I mean, given he never even mentions the ages of his kids, I think it's pretty obvious that is not the conversation he was starting. He was asking about "IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS KIND OF VIDEO".
My comment was not moralizing, but if you would like me to I'm sure I can come up with some material to get sanctimonious about. Oh, I know! Take a seat, I'm about to get righteous about companies using Twitter as an official and sometimes exclusive conduit for communication with their customers...
It looked like moralizing to me. Here are the words you used, "If you are hell-bent on keeping your kids insulated from everything that might encourage a naughty thought, then you shouldn't let them watch YouTube videos, ever."
He never said or implied he wanted to insulate his kids from everything that might encourage a naughty thought, did he. That was you condemning him based on what you imagine he's thinking I guess? Which sure sounds like moralizing.
He said he didn't want to raise those topics WITH A D&D VIDEO LABELLED AS OK FOR KIDS. You see the difference between that and "insulate from everything that might encourage a naughty thought [in the world]." right?
And the idea that his kids should not ever be able to watch a video like Sophia the First because you think he must go to some extreme of cutting out all YouTube videos if he's going to dare take a position on the appropriateness of content in D&D videos is absurd - the kind of absurd you get from moralizing when no moralizing is being solicited. You appear to have a moral objection to his decisions, rather than a purely amoral one. As if his decision offends your sensibilities about right and wrong...IE moralizing.
Don't you think they should set an "adult" label on content that contains adult material so that they let parents know in advance that it contains adult material? Because it seems WOTC thinks just that. They agreed with the OP. They changed the label on the video to reflect that. Are they morally objectionable in your world view now too?
Yeah that was kind of out there Mistwell.
Did you have a reason why you disagree, or shall I consult my crystal ball?