I don't like the implication that those are somehow less worthy ways to spend one's time and money, or that the tendency towards those interests betrays some... divergent cognition or eccentricity. Pick any interest that you think is "proper" for an adult; the person who engages in it either enjoys it, in which case it's indistinguishable from any interest that doesn't meet that criterion, or they don't enjoy it, in which case the person is rather silly for using their free time to do things they don't enjoy.

It’s a generational article, for anyone of a certain age or older, explaining why what we see as “infantalization” serves a purpose and may yield very positive outcomes.

My problem is that it's not challenging its audience's assumption that the activities in question are childish. It tacitly grants that they're childish, and then tries to defend them by looking for a positive side. The corollary is that if that positive side didn't exist the reader would be justified in being outraged at what young people are doing.

I don’t think that’s feasible, because the activities are child-like. Asking for that perspective shift requires a lifetime.

What the article does challenge successfully is whether the negative connotations are merited. i.e., childish.

And it uses a real life example to argue that it’s not merited at the big picture level.