Totally depends on the ages and the circumstances. My 2 year old watching Paw Patrol on mute at his sister's 1 hr violin recital (other than while she is actually performing), because she is desperate for DH & I both to see her big day and we couldn't come up w/ child care? He is being good. It is a developmentally unreasonable expectation for a 2 year old to sit still for 1 hour w/ no distraction at all; even 1 hour w/ muted PP is a big stretch (he actually spent half the time doing a sticker book as well). We praised him repeatedly. A 10 year old ignoring Grandma for an hour while he watches his phone? Fine if that's OK w/ the parents, but no affirmative credit from me. Lots of gray area in between.

Anonymous wrote:I get it, OP. I've encountered this sort of thing, and it's irritating at best. Less the screens and more the adult attitude. I think it's always one of two ways of thinking (and/or), both of which I take issue with.

1) A child who is low-maintenance, or behavior that is easy for an adult to manage, is deemed "good." (Worse, the opposite is implied "bad"-- if not outright stated.) This is sometimes just lazy or simple-minded shorthand, and isn't intended to be a moral judgment, but it's annoying to hear people say or ask-- for example if Larla is a "good baby." Meaning she sleeps a lot and doesn't cry. It's problematic, and though it's "meant well," it grates on me.

+1 I agree that this is more about the attitude than the screens themselves. I see #1 sometimes, with members of the current grandparent generation. Good is shorthand for "easy."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand people who say it's not being good, and we don't allow a lot of screentime.

When I was a kid, I was a total bookworm. The kind of kid who wanted to read while I was walking, always had a book with me, etc. So if I'm engrossed in a book, would that be considered being good? Or is that ok because it's more acceptable?

Oh please. It’s not like the kid has books on Kindle. It’s not even close to the same thing, and you should know what, as a reader.

I actually sort of get what PP is saying here. Why does one distraction count as being “good” while another does not. Obviously one is more valuable than another, but especially if a kid is too young for reading to themselves to be an option, why does TV invalidate good behavior just because theres a distraction method society now frowns upon?

Because it's not GOOD behavior. It's non-destructive, non-annoying behavior, but he's not actually engaged with his surroundings in any way. Reading isn't particularly good behavior either, especially if the kid is completely absorbed in it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand people who say it's not being good, and we don't allow a lot of screentime.

When I was a kid, I was a total bookworm. The kind of kid who wanted to read while I was walking, always had a book with me, etc. So if I'm engrossed in a book, would that be considered being good? Or is that ok because it's more acceptable?

Oh please. It’s not like the kid has books on Kindle. It’s not even close to the same thing, and you should know what, as a reader.

I actually sort of get what PP is saying here. Why does one distraction count as being “good” while another does not. Obviously one is more valuable than another, but especially if a kid is too young for reading to themselves to be an option, why does TV invalidate good behavior just because theres a distraction method society now frowns upon?