One of FSB’s moderators suggested I should write an article about "Infantilisation". So here it is.
If we look back at the 1970's for example there may be those amongst us who say we were reckless as individuals and as such the State was reckless for having not done enough to prevent such things. There was lead in paint and petrol, asbestos roofing, asbestos insulation, sewerage on the beaches, artificial colours in sweets and fizzy drinks, smoking on trains, in aircraft and public houses: the list is endless. The youth of today must surely look back in horror at life in the 1970's and the dangers of living in the 1970's.
Whilst there may have been the odd cautionary notice in regard to the disposal of cigarette ends properly or announcements to avoid particularly large gaps in between trains and station platforms, individuals for the most part took responsibility for their own welfare surrounding the hazards of every day life. Most of the public were aware of the dangers of public toilet lavatory seats and usually put plenty of paper down first. If it was hot ,people dressed accordingly or made sure that they took a drink with them. If it was cold people knew to put on a coat. Children more often than not walked to school in all weathers. There were likely just as many perverts around then as now and it is probably true that in the 1970's perverts had a better chance to indulge their persuasions, as in the 1970's such things were often swept under the carpet and not talked about, than in 2025 where almost all children of aware of such dangers. The change whereby children are much more aware of the dangers of perverts and what to do about it in 2025 as opposed the 1970's is a welcome change, the exception of course being where the matter is still swept under the carpet if you have a particular ethnicity or where children have learnt to weaponise this new knowledge in the promulgation of falsehoods against adults for vindictive purposes.
Back in the 1970's if viewers did not like a particular television programme or radio broadcast, for example in the case of television it featured bare bums, whilst some did make complaints - let us not forget Mary Whitehouse - many would just turn off the receiver or turn to another channel.
Whilst it is difficult to exactly assign a date as to when personal responsibility and independence of mind came to be replaced by the hectoring, nannying and authoritian style of micro management of ones daily life that can be so frequently witnessed in 2025, it is suggested that the origins of the move toward treating the general public as naughty children or children that requiring instructions as to what to do and what to think, really started to gather pace around 2000 during the Labour government of Tony Blair.
Now whilst not all of the changes since the 1970's have been bad. For example: the ceasing of the use of asbestos in 1990 is a good thing, although the menace of asbestos in buildings still continues to this day in many buildings that have asbestos roofs or insultation. Some of the changes that we see in 2025 not only verge on complete infantilisation of the public but also risk disempowering the public in terms of their ability to manage their own affairs. This pernicious micro-management it is argued is having a detrimental impact on the resilience of the general public to manage their own lives.
Whilst many will find the repeated messages on station platforms to take a bottle of water with them on their journey or watch out for slippery surfaces during icy weather irritating, behind these messages it is argued there is a real attempt to disempower the public and make them dependent on those who consider themselves better or more educated than the general public. This same cabal that considers themselves better than what they view as an underling class in the general public also believe that the general public need their input to manage their own lives ,daily affairs and analytical thought processes.
What started out as announcements on train platforms in regard to how you should dress or keep cool in hot or cold weather, back around the year 2000 has now, it is asserted, crept into the media with the issuing of warnings before certain television or radio broadcasts in regard the content of the broadcast and that it may contain outmoded language that may be offensive. In the 1970's whilst films were certified as being U, A , AA or X, such announcements before television programmes were unheard of. The irony is of course in 2025 many so called comedians on the left frequently use the f....k word thinking that they are funny when in practice they are anything but funny. Use of the f..k word on public broadcasting services in 1970's was rare or unheard of. Some may argue that the difference is purely down to the evolution of language between the 1970's and 2025 and to a point that may be right. I am reminded of a woman I used to know who started work in a tea packing factory in 1944. Her father worked at the factory and was a foreman. She told me that her father had told the other workers to watch their language at work because his daughter was starting work at the factory. I can recall asking her what sort of language that her father was concerned about the other workers using in her presence, she replied in those days it would have most likely been the word "bloody".
Notices in public places are everywhere, do people need to be reminded to wash their hands in public toilets or as, in one public authority building I once visited, "to use the brush after"? There was a time when the public would do such things as a matter of personal responsibility. Of course there are always exceptions, and it is argued that even with a notice to "wash your hands "or " use the brush after" there will still be those who do not.
With the ever-increasing use of AI, it is argued, this is further evidence of the move toward disempowering the public from engaging in analytical and rational reasoning It is proposed what started out as notices in toilets and annoying repetitive messages on station platforms has developed into creating a public that is wholly dependent on others to make decisions for them.
It is suggested that this is very dangerous and authoritarian agenda and has real consequences in the future for both freedom of expression and freedom of creativity.