I have an extremely strict rule about watching TV at home.

The TV does not get turned on until at least 7 p.m., with the only exception being if there is something on TV that I want to watch that comes on before 7 p.m. — and weekends, which typically offer an all-day orgy of sports.

The recliner is an enemy to my balky back, and this self-imposed method of deprivation is just one of a multi-pronged approach to taking better care of that back so that I can continue to play golf, one measuring stick on a growing list of things I used to do well that I can hardly do at all now.

So, it was most likely after 7 p.m. recently when a prompt appeared on my 70-inch screen as I was watching YouTube TV, asking me if I wanted to watch commercial-free TV. The cost to be liberated from those pesky commercials was $11.99 a month or, if I wanted to pay for an entire year of no commercials, $119.99, a two-month discount of $23.89 over the year.

Since I just turned 66, I rarely pre-pay for any service that extends an entire year or beyond, but I am willing to gamble on monthly subscriptions.

Commercial breaks are not completely empty of merit, providing time for quick trips to the refrigerator and the bathroom, which occur, not coincidentally, in about the same numbers during a typical evening. But those trips can also be accommodated by using the pause button.

I do find some commercials incredibly annoying, such as when I am watching a Bruce Springsteen concert and a commercial interrupts “Badlands.”

I want it to be understood that I am not fundamentally opposed to commercials. Some of you might not know it, but I worked in the newspaper business for 36 years and, as I was reminded of frequently by those who worked in the advertising department, it was the ads, not the sale of the newspapers themselves, that paid my salary.

Clearly, I would respond, not enough ads were being sold, the evidence arriving every other Friday in the form of my paycheck. No one works harder to remain poor than do journalists.

Also, I enjoy the occasional commercial, even when it is not the Super Bowl being watched. Some I find informative, some provide a chuckle, some I find clever and entertaining, and some have nearly nude attractive women.

Increasingly, however, I am finding that many commercials are trying to deliver some subtle societal message, which I find objectionable and sometimes even offensive.

What I found most perplexing is that I am being asked to pay to have something, in this case commercials, denied me, as if I am not nimble enough to duck them on my own. I find that confusing, as I do the fact that Bud Light costs more than regular octane.

Paying to be shielded from having to watch a commercial is an interesting concept, but not out of line with what I see in a society with a surging population of Karens, like a child who throws a temper tantrum while covering his ears with his palms while humming loudly. Too many of us simply do not want to hear anything contrary to our worldview, forgetting life’s earliest lesson about sticks, stones, and words.

It is evident every day on social media, when someone you do not know who is sitting at a desk some place far away, makes decisions on what you can and cannot consume, doing so under the guise of acting in your best interest.

The cost for commercial free YouTube TV, $11,99 a month, is not prohibitive, about what I pay for a typical lunch. That is not what tipped the scale.

Instead, I decided to man up, figuring I could fend off those annoying commercials myself. I have a 66-year record of watching commercials and, as far as I can tell, remain unscarred.

Some might disagree.