It's not the deeds, it's the hate. by Fremdfirma

Quick lunch break post - brought to you by McDonalds freebie WIFI.
(can't say much about the food, but the free node is a nice touch!)

I do believe their plan was likely influenced or inspired by media, and this is a parental failure, but that one is complicated, as I will detail later.

No doubt a certain do or die dare element was present.

I do *NOT* believe a single minor scolding preceded this any more than I believe the LAPD was "merely restraining" Rodney King...

All too much of the time adults who are themselves guilty of some misconduct depend on the Sembler/Lichfield "all children are lying manipulators" myth, which is just that, children do not lie nearly as much or in as much deep detail as adults, and they're terrible at it besides, not having the experience or amount of forethough required for a sustained deception.

But it's not like anyone asked them anyway, right ?
Just took the teachers word for it right up front and likely dismissed anything they had to say.

And yes, these were "square peg" kids, some of whom MIGHT have real issues going on, but a substantial percentage are just incompatible with the public school system assembly line.

What's ironic is that by the determination that lead these kids to BE in that class, they were incapable of such complex planning and cooperation, now think about that for a minute - when it meant something to them, they most assuredly were.

I am leaning toward a suspicion of the teacher being verbally abusive or demeaning over a period of time towards the class, and them deciding to "freak her out" a little bit in retaliation, as the root of this.

A big part of the issue, the vital spark here is the us and them mentality practiced by the adult world towards that of children and vice versa, it generates needless conflict, and out of conflict does come hate.

For children to overcome the almost automatic respect social conditioning of any kind instills for authority figures and act directly against them in such a blatant fashion speaks of a deeper ill than a mere scolding would explain.

I will have to get back to the parental involvement thing tho, outta time here.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 8:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"unsupervised socialization"
Wasn't this whole thing about a teacher ? Then how can you claim that it's unsupervised when clearly - it is ?

Heh.. ok. So are you suggesting that the supervision was complicit? If this was supervised, how did it happen?

The point is, you leave a bunch of kids together for long enough and crazy crap is going to happen. The socialization kids experience in the typical public school setting is NOT what I call 'supervised'. Ninety percent of their interactions happen under the radar and out of sight of any teachers or parents. It's touted by the advocates of institutionalized education as an important learning opportunity for kids - all about dealing with life's tough lessons and such. Apparently, learning "prison yard ethics" is part of growing up. I think it's insane.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

So rather than go down the trail discussing obviously bad analogies - or claiming to play along with arguments you don't really mean - how about addressing, from your perspective, the unique causes of these kinds of uniquely US occurrences ?

I don't think there's anything unique about it. It might happen more often here. We do tend to glamorize violence so it's probably more likely in the States. Also more likely to be blown out of proportion and make it to the national news freakshow.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:06 AM

Like I said, kids are socialised by the people that raise them, the point of letting them play together is to allow them to fully learn social interactions.

I didn't learn what was right and wrong from other kids, if you think that's the purpose of kids playing together then you are trying to abducate responsability for raising your children. In functional families people treat each other very well. Sibling squables aside you are treated better and fairer by your relations than you will be by anyone else. Obviously that doesnt give you the tools to deal with the real world where people may be dishonest or not so concerned with your interests. The point of meeting other people is to learn about diversity and how to deal with people who have different views and agendas.

This is far from Jail Yard ethics, it's realising that other people may not put your welfare before their own, that's an important lesson.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"So are you suggesting that the supervision was complicit? If this was supervised, how did it happen?"
These kids don't have phones so they can yak after school ? Parents who might wonder why exactly their steak knife is in the kid's backpack ? It appears that by detecting the goods and the plot the school actually did a better job of supervising than the parents. So perhaps the parents are complicit - wouldn't you agree ?

"you leave a bunch of kids together for long enough and crazy crap is going to happen"
But it doesn't happen elsewhere. So what is it about the US in particular that makes it happen ?

"It's touted by the advocates of institutionalized education as an important learning opportunity for kids - all about dealing life's tough lessons and such."
It is ? That's a very broad brush to paint with. And not accurate or instructive to the cause of these kinds of things.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:28 AM

Fletch2,

The point is the extent to which such interaction is part of a child's day. If it's a couple hours and not a compulsory experience, sure, it can be great for kids. But when they're are locked down for 8-10 hours a day it becomes their entire world. In that case it is very much like a jail yard.

I'm not suggesting the brutality and violence are the same, but the overall nature of the institutional authority structure is the same. The social dynamics are bound to similar as well. And in my observation, they are.

Rue,

I'm not saying anyone is complicit - just that they weren't supervised when they were hatching their plan.

As far as a broad brush, yeah. I'm indulging in broad ideological arguments because it seemed like you wanted to and I'm bored. It's not that I'm being insincere at all, but as I've said, we're making something out of not much at all here. It should have never made the news.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:38 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"It might happen more often here. We do tend to glamorize violence so it's probably more likely in the States. Also more likely to be blown out of proportion and make it to the national news freakshow."

"I'm not suggesting the brutality and violence are the same, but the overall nature of the institutional authority structure is the same. The social dynamics are bound to similar as well. And in my observation, they are."

If this particular instance is unimportant and we are going to discuss broader issues, then let's discuss them with facts.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Eliminated from the list were non-juvenile offenders.
43 juvenile-perpetrated school shootings world-wide, 35 in the US with no other country having more than 1 instance. I'd say the US has a unique problem, and not just a problem of institutional authority.

1) Feb. 2, 1996 Moses Lake, Wash.
2) Feb. 19, 1997 Bethel, Alaska
3) Oct. 1, 1997 Pearl, Miss.
4) Dec. 1, 1997 West Paducah, Ky.
5) Dec. 15, 1997 Stamps, Ark.
6) March 24, 1998 Jonesboro, Ark.
7) April 24, 1998 Edinboro, Pa.
8) May 19, 1998 Fayetteville, Tenn.
9) May 21, 1998 Springfield, Ore.
10) June 15, 1998 Richmond, Va.
11) April 20, 1999 Littleton, Colo.
12) April 28, 1999 Taber, Alberta, Canada
13) May 20, 1999 Conyers, Ga.
14) Nov. 19, 1999 Deming, N.M.
15) Dec. 6, 1999 Fort Gibson, Okla
16) Dec. 7, 1999 Veghel, Netherlands
17) Feb. 29, 2000 Mount Morris Township, Mich
18) March 2000 Branneburg, Germany
19) March 10, 2000 Savannah, Ga.
20) May 26, 2000 Lake Worth, Fla.
21) New Orleans, La.
22) Jan. 17, 2001 Baltimore, Md.
23) Jan. 18, 2001 Sweden
24) March 5, 2001 Santee, Calif.
25) March 7, 2001 Williamsport, Pa.
26) March 22, 2001 Granite Hills, Calif.
27) March 30, 2001 Gary, Ind.
28) Nov. 12, 2001 Caro, Mich.
29) Jan. 15, 2002 New York, N.Y.
30) April 26, 2002 Erfurt, Germany
31) April 29, 2002 Vlasenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina
32) April 14, 2003 New Orleans, La.
33) April 24, 2003 Red Lion, Pa.
34) Sept. 24, 2003 Cold Spring, Minn.
35) Sept. 28, 2004 Carmen de Patagones, Argentina
36) March 21, 2005 Red Lake, Minn.
37) Nov. 8, 2005 Jacksboro, Tenn
38) Sept. 29, 2006 Cazenovia, Wis.
39) Jan. 3, 2007 Tacoma, Wash.
40) Oct. 10, 2007 Cleveland, Ohio.
41) Nov. 7, 2007 Tuusula, Finland
42) Feb. 11, 2008 Memphis, Tennessee
43) Feb. 12, 2008 Oxnard, California

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:57 AM

Unfortunately in the adult world being locked up for 8 hours a day with people you may not like is called a typical work day. In fact it's called a typical day for folks that live in most urban environments. I don't know that you do your kids any favours by shielding them from that.

As an aside. A few years ago I had a crazy work schedule that left me watching TV at the wee early hours. I developed an interest for real life forensics shows on Discovery and Court TV. One of the most common things you heard was the grieving parents "Mary-Beth came from a small town, back home we leave our doors unlocked, she was too trusting for the big city...."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 9:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I am leaning toward a suspicion of the teacher being verbally abusive or demeaning over a period of time towards the class, and them deciding to "freak her out" a little bit in retaliation, as the root of this.

Some "veteran" teachers are fossilized remnants of an older era when teachers routinely smacked or (unable to do that) belittled and harassed students.

It seems to me that the laws governing interactions between adults should also apply to interactions between adults and children, and that means: No, you don't get to verbally abuse someone (in CA that would be assault) and you don't get to hit them (in CA that would be "battery"). Part of teaching good behavior is what is called 'modeling'... a fancy way of saying Practice what you preach!

I think it's kinda funny that the instigator(s) of this incident clearly had a greater degree of control over at least 9 of the students (the typical special ed class is anywhere from 10 to 20 students) so maybe the teacher could learn from the student!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 10:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Also, there there is something both unique and horrific about the USA that prompts these kinds of incidents. And it's not just "institutionalized authority" that's causing the problem because some of the most highly regulated nations are also the safest. And happiest.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 10:30 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"True enough, but it's the ten percent, the rational 'firewall', that defines us as human."

Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal. Robert A. Heinlein

That is my favorite quote yet. Have you ever tried to make it through an entire day without a rationalization. It can't be done.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 10:32 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Not to over-simplify all you big-brained folks' opinions...but I see this incident as just a natural progression in the continual deterioration of our once-civilized society. I can't point to any specific moment in time when morality, ethics, and honesty started to disappear from the social landscape, but certainly things like MTV, the internet, and tabloid TV have contributed greatly to the current social atmosphere of anything goes...and the more shocking & outrageous & demented, then the more publicity and money, and a book deal, and a reality TV show based on your vile, disgusting "life". The adventures of Paris Hilton, Anna Nicole, and Britney plastered in all our faces 24/7 de-sensitizes & sends out negative messages to our youth to anything resembling what used to be considered social manners, grace, humility, and proper behavior. I know many of you are gonna jump on my ass here for saying this, but what else is it then? The world is a disgusting stained toilet, and there are no moral authority figures left anymore to set examples of social appropriateness. They've all self-destructed too. (sports, religion, govt.) And we individuals can not, and will not ever criticize people's "right" to be stupid asshole jerks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 10:43 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The world is a disgusting stained toilet, and there are no moral authority figures left anymore to set examples of social appropriateness.

Wrong on both counts.
If the world is so bad, please explain why I still see smiles on children's faces so often, or the warm feeling I get when I think of my Wife, or why soup kitchens still serve the less fortunate, or why Serenity is getting another Special Edition....
And no moral authorities...clearly you forget James T. Kirk, sir.

Half-full Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 10:46 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
You are "socialised" by your family not your peers, the values you have you get from the folks that raise you... or at least that's the theory.

My friends and I had a plot going on against someone or another from about the 4th grade on. Actually I still make up devious plots to get people to this day. I've never even considered trying to pull one of them off. My parents not only taught me the difference between right and wrong, and the difference between fantasy and reality, they taught me to think independently. Good parents teach their kids to think for themselves so when they are in a group situation they won't follow the strongest personality, but decide for themselves what is right. Looking back though I'm not sure I had the fantasy/reality idea totally clear when I was in 3rd grade.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Unfortunately in the adult world being locked up for 8 hours a day with people you may not like is called a typical work day. In fact it's called a typical day for folks that live in most urban environments. I don't know that you do your kids any favours by shielding them from that.

Well, that's an honest disagreement, and I respect your point of view. But I don't share it. In fact, I feel pretty much the opposite. I think I do my kids a favor by encouraging them to avoid that kind of environment. I think it's indirectly doing the world a favor as well. Part of the reason so many people are consigned to life as 'machine parts' is that we're trained from birth to accept the notion that that's "just the way it is".

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 12:06 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I question nearly every day the pathology of the "Jack Bauer/ Chuck Norris" model of justice (which we see in Hero, Auraptor and Finn) which justifies any action as long as it's "for a good cause"... which inevitably morphs into vengeance, the insidious fantasy of "the hero" and the attendant single-minded and self-destructive individualism which undermines our one REAL chance of overthrowing our oppressors (as opposed to the fantasies that are shoved into our eyeballs every day).

Chuck Norris was before my time and contrary to popular theory I don’t watch 24. No Sir, for me it is the Bruce Willis model of Justice. That self-destructive individualism! That insidious fantasy of "the hero." God knows the world doesn’t need any heroes promoting individualism.

Yippy Kay-Ay.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 12:14 PM

That begs the question. Do you actively get to chose all the people you associate with? Did you chose all of your co-workers (or did your employer do that?) Did you chose every parishoner in your church? Will your kids get to chose the folks they go to college with, do you choose every person you ever share a bus, or an airplane or the waiting room at the doctors?

We chose our friends and our mates and that's about it, you don't even get to chose your family.

Being able to deal with people that you wouldn't have chosen to associate with is part of living in a comunity. Having the social tools to deal with that and the mental fortitude to deal with some people's petty politicing is part of life. Think of it like a virus. You can protect your kids by sticking them in a bubble and keeping them away from anything that might harm them, but all you really do is stop them from developing any natural defences to the kinds of crap that's out there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 1:42 PM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
The world is a disgusting stained toilet, and there are no moral authority figures left anymore to set examples of social appropriateness.
Wrong on both counts.
If the world is so bad, please explain why I still see smiles on children's faces so often, or the warm feeling I get when I think of my Wife, or why soup kitchens still serve the less fortunate, or why Serenity is getting another Special Edition....
And no moral authorities...clearly you forget James T. Kirk, sir.

Half-full Chrisisall

That's a very interesting and upbeat view of things. It really begs the question of what is really the world? Is it the lives we individually lead, along with our own personal work, family, and social groups; or is the world something horrible that we have to "dial in" every day somewhere to find out about things that otherwise we wouldn't even know or care about? We only care because we tune in to know. Why know? Why not just watch Firefly and be happy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 4:36 PM

Hmm, looks like an interesting discussion relating to actual issues sprouted somewhere in there.. amazing, that.

OK, I got about an hour before I gotta go back in, radiator flush in progress and I hope our rookie greasemonkey can find that oil leak without burning himself...
*crosses fingers*

Ok, first - we're all well aware that children in this world are endlessly bombarded by various media, and much of the stuff they are bombarded with is quite inappropriate, that's one even I wouldn't argue with ya, cause it's a fact, and short of entirely isolating a child, which some folk try to do with mixed results, few of them if any good...

It falls to the parents to be a counterbalance.

Problem is, with a mortgage to pay, car payments, care insurance, home insurance, health insurance, utility and phone bills, all that humongous debt from the education that prettymuch means the difference between a house and a rental, and trying like hell to give the kid a leg up by trying to stuff money in a trust account for college faster than inflation sucks the value out of it...

There's just no ability for most couples to spare the time to do the job right when they are too busy just trying to keep one step ahead of the bill collectors, I know all too well, ok ?

You see, I never really knew my mother - we never had enough time together, her as a single parent, me with school and her with work, to ever really get to know each other as people, although she accepted me and my anti-authority nature because she could trust me to protect our household and interests against anyone, no matter how official sounding they were.

But to really do the job, to be the counterbalance against television and other media and it's influence, a parent has to be THERE, and these days that is next to impossible, busting ass for 60-80 hours a week on that (*snicker*) 40 hour salary, and if you don't like it, you can go work for the company that wants 90 hours, or the one that only wants 70, but all at strange hours that leave you no time to go to the store or pay bills unless the places are open at 2am.

Yes, some fault still lays squarely on the parents, but it's hard as hell for me to really lay blame when we've put our society in a place that makes it really hard for them to do their job with any kind of efficiency.

Like I said, it's complicated.

We expect them to do the job, but the nature of our current society deprives them of the time and resources to actually get it done - a fine double bind that comes out to be, and childcare/daycare don't count, it's GOT to be done by those closest to the child, or it just doesn't work.

Go back and listen to the old song "Cats in the Cradle" to understand the dynamic there, and just how plain sad that is.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 4:37 PM

Other stuff...

Bear with me here, this might be long and I am in a hurry so my translation of thought process to text is prolly gonna suffer a bit.

TWG

Quote:
Frem, I don't think it's us against them. I think it's the media against us. Sure kids have always had a little adult resentment, but it peaks during wars and hard times. Which means we need to be doubly vigilant.

That's actually a part of the point I wanted to carry there, not just vigilant, but closer and more honest - right now we live in a world full of fear and stress, and folks need to talk WITH these kids, not just to them.

Ask what they feel, if they can articulate it, and see what can be done about easing those fears and stresses, actually communicate instead of talking AT them.

Few folks actually listen, really LISTEN to them, and this is a problem we really need to overcome, because a lot of problem behavior has a root cause that WE might not see as rational or important, but to the child in question it is very much so, and to deliver that kind of understanding, to bring the torch to THEM to light, guide the way, goes pretty far in solving these kind of issues before they get to that kind of problem.

Not sure if that is gonna come across like I mean it to, but I tried.

SIGNYM

Quote:
the insidious fantasy of "the hero" and the attendant single-minded and self-destructive individualism which undermines our one REAL chance of overthrowing our oppressors (as opposed to the fantasies that are shoved into our eyeballs every day). I've also posted ... as you know... about the need to treat our young with respect. The fact that we allow corporations to sell to our basest drives... sex, violence, and chemically-enhanced fun... in 30-second clips, and to portray life in the most idiotic way possible, all to sell us stuff that we don't need... is just one example that our culture treats NOBODY with respect, adults OR children. I brought up media violence simply as an EXAMPLE of the factors at work that are outside of Frem's framework. And yours too, apparently.

Oh it's within the framework, I just couldn't get to it right away, and yanno you just saved me a whole different post about the outright STUPIDITY of the hero-myth and how destructive it is.

And respect is the key, and it's lack in our culture is a root cause of a lotta things that just shouldn't be - but it's hard to teach children to respect each other when we ourselves do not and they have so few examples of such conduct to model on, and most of those are mocked and scorned by the greater bulk of society in general.

Quote:
One of the things I find interesting about Frem is at the same time that he says that people are capable of "better" he also seems to be saying that HATE is our true nature. Seems contradictory, doesn't it?

No more than Orcs are the true nature of Elves.

The more you suppress a persons basic humanity, empathy, personality, the things that make them a person, the more warped the form in which it finally expresses itself, and it WILL express itself, in much the same fashion as a tree root expresses itself to a sidewalk, but tough luck for the sidewalk, right ?

I'd like to see us make some adjustment before we come to a really destructive level of such a thing, if one can take my meaning of that.. hard to explain just how this effects us in a short bit, but it's the root of so much social trauma, like a steam engine with the blowoff stack wired shut, you know it's gonna happen just not when - maybe some kind of release valve is needed in the process somewhere, possibly.

Quote:
So I w/draw my statement. I mostly agree with Frem.

Oh, I see you got what I was trying to say, well, the detailed explaination above is still useful, our impact on them needs to be adjusted and we really need to start modelling better behaviors given that they ARE gonna emulate us, and the idea of a release valve... love to have more time to explore that thought....

Quote:
Let me ask you this, Sarge- How many shows on TV (aside from family sitcoms) end with a conflict being resolved by negotiation?

Quick sidenote here: one of the reasons The Outlaw Josey Wales is my all time favorite western is that fact, that Wales actually negotiates, and well, with the comanche instead of shooting it out with them, it was very influential on me as a youth.

SARGE

Quote:
Kids never even consider that they might be taken seriously.

That's a big part of things too, I've seen a lot of kids push the envelope pretty hard, almost scary hard, to try to get an adult TO take them seriously about something - sadly, that is one of the hooks predators use to "groom" their prey, because many kids, especially older ones are so desperate to be taken seriously by ANYONE that they'll become like saran wrap to anyone who does.

That kind of fanatic loyalty can all too easily be exploited by an adult, or even an older child, and is a danger all of it's own - if YOU ain't listening to your kid, SOMEONE, somewhere, probably is...

And depending on who that someone is, could be cause for concern.

CAVALIER

Quote:
Since when were children more humane than adults? They have less power than adults to do anyone much damage – it does not follow that they have any less will to do so.

Because they have less REASON to, for one, but seriously the nature of children has been tested in quite a few studies I don't have handy here in the dispatch office, and they're just not mentally or emotionally capable of the level of wickedness we adults are, they learn it from us, sure, but they sure hell ain't born with it.

SARGE

Quote:
Apparently, learning "prison yard ethics" is part of growing up. I think it's insane.

That's the thing - the only accurate comparison to the social dynamics of the modern public school system is the penal system, which by virtue of the Standford Prison Experiment, is well known to be about as mentally unhealthy an environment as possible, for all involved at any level of it.

Too much structure can be as bad as too little, because the focus becomes preserving the structure instead of the purpose it was built to perform.

SIGNYM

Quote:
It seems to me that the laws governing interactions between adults should also apply to interactions between adults and children, and that means: No, you don't get to verbally abuse someone (in CA that would be assault) and you don't get to hit them (in CA that would be "battery"). Part of teaching good behavior is what is called 'modeling'... a fancy way of saying Practice what you preach!

*sings the hallejua chorus off key and a capella*

Believe me, were we to ever DO that, it would remove not only one of my primary reasons for bitchin, but much of any REASON left to do so!

Quote:
I think it's kinda funny that the instigator(s) of this incident clearly had a greater degree of control over at least 9 of the students (the typical special ed class is anywhere from 10 to 20 students) so maybe the teacher could learn from the student!

Too bloody true - that's why I mentioned that while the school might class some kids as having issues or learning disabilities, some debateble part of the time, that's less a real mental disability than an inherent dislike of the school, it's systems, authority figures or the like, which sure, you could make a case for that kind of antisocial nature as in itself a mental disability, but the key is when it MATTERS to those people, they can indeed work cooperatively, and get some pretty complex stuff done, it's just that schoolwork ain't of the things that really matters to them so much.

FLETCH2

Quote:
That begs the question. Do you actively get to chose all the people you associate with? Did you chose all of your co-workers (or did your employer do that?) Did you chose every parishoner in your church? Will your kids get to chose the folks they go to college with, do you choose every person you ever share a bus, or an airplane or the waiting room at the doctors?

Actually there's a great deal of choice, being in the same room with someone does not in any way require association or interaction, you realize.

I mean, I am with people all day, but other than counting and accepting their money, there's no actual interaction required, and one of the cabs has a panel with the fare listed digitally back there and a turnstile to discourage it.

And if someone becomes THAT much of a nuisance, I simple pull into the first safe area, put the brake on and inform them to exit the vehicle as I am denying them service, as is my right, and they are not liable for the meter charge at this point in time.

Human beings are social creatures, children even more so, but the idea of being able to refuse to interact has to be offered externally, for the most part, and is never offered as an option, but I think it should be offered as a POTENTIAL option to prevent or resolve conflict, and I mean seriously offered, not in a halfass backhanded way once an ongoing incident has already reached a point where a full resolution is required by both parties.
==========

And outta time again, the mechanic is at the door bouncing like a kid who needs to pee, so I figure he either got biting ants in his jumpsuit or he's flushed the system and found (and I hope patched) the oil leak besides...

Sorry for the poor translation from stream-of-thought, best I can do at the present, hope i dun leave you goin WTF and scratchin your heads there.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes, but HOW do you prepare a population to kick ass and take names? Among other things, you show it again and again and again and again.

Let me ask you this, Sarge- How many shows on TV (aside from family sitcoms) end with a conflict being resolved by negotiation?

I missed this earlier. Maybe you were editing. Anyway, I'm not saying TV doesn't influence the situation. It's one of the tools used to perpetuate the status quo, among other things. I'm just saying that TV isn't some kind of root cause. It's the way it is because our culture loves violence.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 7:21 PM

Quote:
Think of it like a virus. You can protect your kids by sticking them in a bubble and keeping them away from anything that might harm them, but all you really do is stop them from developing any natural defences to the kinds of crap that's out there.

If you think of it as a virus, would you take your kids to a hot zone of a "monkeypox" (smallpox) outbreak? Would you make them drink sewer water? Would you make them eat rotten, moldy food? There is such a thing as too much exposure.

It is the job of parents to love and protect their children. A well-fed, well nourished body is the best natural defense to the kinds of pathogenic crap that is out there. A well-nurtured mind and soul is the best natural defense to the mental and emotional crap that is out there. Protect your kids as much as you can, and they will STILL get enough exposure to learn natural defenses. The secure "bubble" you are talking about doesn't exist unless you go to extraordinary lengths.

My kids can learn to deal with monkeypox outbreaks and living in a cage when they absolutely have to--not before.

--------------------------
...and we'll never be under the heel of nobody ever again.
--Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 7:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Think of it like a virus. You can protect your kids by sticking them in a bubble and keeping them away from anything that might harm them, but all you really do is stop them from developing any natural defences to the kinds of crap that's out there.
If you think of it as a virus, would you take your kids to a hot zone of a "monkeypox" (smallpox) outbreak? Would you make them drink sewer water? Would you make them eat rotten, moldy food? There is such a thing as too much exposure.

Wow, total lack of proportion there! Is the rest of the world THAT bad for you? Because if it is your problems are far far worse than I imagined. I'm not "monkeypox" most people aren't.... hell most kids aren't, if you REALLY think the world is that rotten then I don't see how we can have a rational discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 8:46 PM

On Signy's question of why here. The answer to my mind is simple, in America you don't have to accept that "no" means NO. Tell someone no and he sues you or he goes over your head or he prattles on bulletin boards about you being "the man" or worse an "authoritarian." Nobody is allowed to stop you from doing just exactly what you want to so, feel you should be able to do or just have a yen for.

Personal freedom is a great thing but the freedom to swing arms is supposed to end at the other guy's nose, in America it's the other guy's bloody nose that's at fault for daring to impede your arms.

The most important lesson of growing up is knowing how to play nice with others. It's important because there will be times you will need other people and there will be times when being able to deal with other people will become important. The idea that you can pull your life over and order out of it all the people that are inconvenient to you is at best delusional.

Like the man said the definition of stress is resisting the impulse to choke the life out of those that annoy you.

And that's the crux of it, consideration for other people just never really enters into the calculation --- unless you are making money from it somehow. And people are just too busy doing what they want and getting what they want to pay any attention to what it does to those around them.

Frem made a joke about herding cats. The idea is that cats are so independent, so bloody minded that you can't get them to do anything you want. I'm sure several people here like to see themselves that way. Problem is it's a romantic fallacy -- I herd cats every day. When I fill the food bowls in the morning I can assure you that every feline is present and accounted for.

There is a theory that we socialise cats by keeping them in a permanent kitten state. Unfortunately you can do the same with people. When my parents had me their kitten days were over, life became about putting food on the table, my school, my doctors appointments, my extra curricular activities. There were no fancy holidays, no new clothes for them (they got clothes twice a year once at Christmas and once in the summer.) They didn't have these things because I needed new clothes every few months they had to buy books, toys. My arrival meant they had to give up being kids and step up and be adults.

That's not the way it seems to be today. A big screen TV is a toy for adults, so is the luxury SUV, so is the Jucuzi on the back deck. All the things people try to sell you, all the things you don't really need to have, those are toys for adults, things that folks a few generations ago would have understood to be frivolous and probably wouldn't have bothered with. Yet today we buy them because we have been kept in a child state, a mental state where want==need==the compulsion to acquire, irrespective of cost.

Somebody at some point realised that it's REALLY easy to sell to kids because kids have no impulse control, the want== need== compulsion to acquire is almost instantaneous with little filtering. When an unruley child wants something he believes he is entitled to have it, it never crosses his mind that he may not actually need it. Some other smart so-and-so realised that the longer you can keep your consumer in child state, the longer you can get them to buy stuff they don't actually need. Our society has pushed that age further and further forward keeping people in child state until the end of their lives. Yet that's only half the story because when you are a kid someone else picks up the bill for your impluse control issues. The other thing our society does is make it really easy for the child people to keep buying things.

I was at Frys buying a cable last week and there was a guy loading a plasma TV on the back of his truck. It was huge, probably 60 inches and two thoughts sprung to mind. First did he really need one that size.. I mean REALLY? Second, was this on his credit card, paid for by equity in his house? What' was the state of his retirement fund or the college fund for the rug rats that were "helping" him load up? My parents bought big items like TV sets with cash, if there was no cash and the TV broke we did without (and we didn't have a TV for over a year one time for that reason.)

Anyway that's my theory. Adult children with an entitlement mentality and poor impulse control do tend to lose it when the world finally says no. Such people probably lack the ability to say no to their kids or to teach much by way of restraint.

Anyway, out of time. Feel free to hate me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 1:50 AM

That's not a bad capsule concept of one facet of the problem there Fletch, actually, but it's just one facet.

The more I look at this, both in an overview and in detail, it seems the problem just keeps coming back to a single thing.

TIME.

Parents in the US, compared to the rest of the world, get THE shortest shrift on the planet when it comes to non-work time, and I do believe this is the essential root cause not only of the problem set you just described, but many others as well, they're simply NOT THERE, they can't be there, and by that lack, over three generations that I count back as it bein a problem, we're seeing a stacking effect of those neglected folk not really being any good at parenting when they ARE there due to never having had any kind of example to work from.

Sure, the case has been made for our society here in the states being as a rule more exploitive and violent, but without a parent present in the home in sufficient time to offer counterbalance and a solid grounding in moral and ethical behavior, they're gonna model on other examples, as held up to them by various forms of media.

And I think that lack of presence is also a very large factor in the subconscious hostility a lot of our young people today are trying to cope with, and often failing, maybe hate is too strong a word for it, but a lot of them really feel left behind, facing a big, scary, hostile world no one has really prepared them for, and that fear and uncertainty makes them angry.

And that's in a decent family, mind you, cause if you add the stressor of knowing they're going to be flung out the door with a sigh of relief at the age of eighteen, unprepared, unsupported, pretty much unwanted, you're talking about quite a lot of pent-up rage involved there.

So I am calling this one on the Time/Parenting factor, and you know, I do wonder if the kids involved in this incident, what percentage of them are from homes where the parent is almost never present in an effective form, cause coming home, eating dinner and going to bed, they might be present, but they are by no means effective.

Just my take on the whole matter and it's root causes.

CLARITY EDIT: And I think *that*, is the key difference, since we're exploring why it's not the problem in other places that it is here in the states.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Is the rest of the world THAT bad for you? Because if it is your problems are far far worse than I imagined. I'm not "monkeypox" most people aren't.... hell most kids aren't, if you REALLY think the world is that rotten then I don't see how we can have a rational discussion.

I didn't say YOU were monkeypox or that PEOPLE are monkeypox. I said being living in a cage is monkeypox.

I am referring to your post right before the virus post:

Quote:
Unfortunately in the adult world being locked up for 8 hours a day with people you may not like is called a typical work day. In fact it's called a typical day for folks that live in most urban environments. I don't know that you do your kids any favours by shielding them from that.

I'm talking about being locked up for 8 hours a day with people you don't like. People are ok. It's the "locked up" part that is not healthy for people or for kids. And yes, I will shield my kids from being locked up for as long as I can. I will give them the freedom they deserve so if they have to be "locked up," they've at least had a foundation of independence and dignity in their childhood.

--------------------------
There are only two places in the world where time takes precedence over the job to be done. School and prison.
--William Glasser

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 2:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
So I am calling this one on the Time/Parenting factor, and you know, I do wonder if the kids involved in this incident, what percentage of them are from homes where the parent is almost never present in an effective form, cause coming home, eating dinner and going to bed, they might be present, but they are by no means effective.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the parent's time, though that is the most valuable to the kid. It is time with ANY caring adult who wants to listen to the child and mentor him in limits, discipline, character, and habits. I say mentor, because we are all focused on teaching and not so much on mentoring. Mentoring is the first thing lost in schools, the first thing lost when parents don't have time, the first thing lost when kids are warehoused in day cares and schools. Kids are left to be mentored by other kids, and we all know how that turns out.

I know a lot of people who work as much as American parents do in other countries. The difference is the kids continue to have meaningful interaction with other family and mentoring by grandparents, aunts, uncles, older cousins, etc. People who are deeply committed to the child offer support and guidance in parental absence, and that mitigates the loss.

If I were to fine-tune your point, I would say competent MENTORING is what is missing. Kids are growing up without mentoring on how to make good choices from emotionally healthy adults.

--------------------------
What students lack in school is an intellectual relationship or conversation with the teacher.
--William Glasser

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 2:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Personal freedom is a great thing but the freedom to swing arms is supposed to end at the other guy's nose, in America it's the other guy's bloody nose that's at fault for daring to impede your arms...

Anyway that's my theory. Adult children with an entitlement mentality and poor impulse control do tend to lose it when the world finally says no. Such people probably lack the ability to say no to their kids or to teach much by way of restraint.

America has a unique situation because they are trying to mix 2 different models that can't be mixed. America is founded on a deeply ingrained tradition of personal freedom, whereas most other countries have histories rooted in monarchies and feudalism. At its inception, that foundation of personal freedom came with self-responsibility and self-reliance. There was no social entitlement whatsoever. Now, the individual freedom/individual responsibility model is contaminated and perverted by the increasing socialism of our society.

Other cultures navigate that socialism better because they are used to subjugation of one's self-interests for someone else's. The entitlement from society in socialism is therefore accompanied by a concurrent responsibility to society. The model here is social entitlement/social responsibility.

What Americans have is individual freedom/social entitlement, which means there is not a speck of responsibility anywhere. Ideologically confused, they want their cake and to eat it too.

I reckon a lot of our conflicts on this board are people who want to swing it one way or the other, because this fence straddling is destroying us.

--------------------------
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.
--Charles A. Beard

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 4:49 AM

Fletch,

I want to thank sincerely for your post. I don't think I've read anything in recent memory that has shed more light on this issue. That said, I don't agree with you. I hope you don't take it as patronizing, but your post has really drilled down to the core world-view differences between people like me (Frem, CTS et. al.) - and those who see it from the other side (you, rue, Signym, etc.. .)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
On Signy's question of why here. The answer to my mind is simple, in America you don't have to accept that "no" means NO. Tell someone no and he sues you or he goes over your head or he prattles on bulletin boards about you being "the man" or worse an "authoritarian." Nobody is allowed to stop you from doing just exactly what you want to so, feel you should be able to do or just have a yen for.

Personal freedom is a great thing but the freedom to swing arms is supposed to end at the other guy's nose, in America it's the other guy's bloody nose that's at fault for daring to impede your arms.

It's really stunning to me (though, perhaps obvious if I'd really been paying attention), just how differently we see this. You guys really do see libertarians as libertines. I've found that conflation to be all too common, but wildly off the mark. It seems to be your perception that we want the government out of the way so we can do our own thing unhindered, running roughshod over anyone in our way and living life completely free of restraint.

Libertarians don't yearn for freedom so they can bully others and always get their way. In fact, its my revulsion for that attitude that pushed me toward libertarian thinking in the first place. What drives me to push back against growing government power is the observation that state government has become the principal tool of those who want to do the bullying.

Libertarians just want the right to be left alone. Which isn't to say they want to be alone. The ones I know are relatively trusting, gregarious people who crave social interaction and voluntary communal cooperation. They're not the anti-social miscreants of popular myth. We see this right, the freedom from coercion, as the foundation of peaceful cooperation amongst humans.

I keep thinking of the opening scene in The Train Job. While Mal wasn't exactly innocent in the exchange (he was, after all, "in an Alliance friendly bar on U-day..."), it wasn't he that escalated the situation to violence. It was the Alliance fan who insisted that Mal show his loyalty by drinking to the Alliance. Once he'd said his piece, Mal opted for the preferred libertarian approach to conflict - "let's just ignore each other until we go away."

But that wasn't good enough for the Alliance. That guy had a notion in his head of what Mal 'ought' to do and he was willing to use violence to force him to do it. From my point of view, this attitude is the heart and soul of the statist mentality.

So, you've proposed that it's our lust for freedom that's driving the growing problem with violence in the US. I think it's something different. What I see at the core of so many of these violent acts is an overdeveloped sense of justice.

The kids perpetuating these school shootings aren't fighting for freedom. They're exacting revenge. If they were shooting their way out of the school, making their escape as it were, I might buy the idea that desire for freedom is the culprit. But they're not. In general, they're coming back into the schools, filled with "righteous indignation" to settle the score.

For libertarians, the concept "live and let live" is highly revered. And a big part of that equation is acceptance and forgiveness. These aren't the hallmarks of state government.

The revenge violence epidemic has grown right alongside the growth of government intervention in our lives, and I don't think it's mere coincidence. It's not clear to me which came first, but in my opinion, this hyper-justice mentality drives both.

.... you had several other interesting observations I'd like to address, but work is calling. You know, unbridled greed for cash and all that.

More later...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 5:37 AM

Well, as for the shootings and other retaliatory events, as it's not always tied to gunplay, just more likely to make the news that way...

It's a REAL simple dynamic.

Society - This is your life, your place in the world, and your future, you don't like it, tough shit.

Shooter - And THIS is MY answer, and I hope you choke on it!

That's why most of em kill themselves, they're opting out of what we're "offering" to them, and exacting payback on anyone and everyone they feel is part of it along the way.

What folks don't realize, just don't get, is that if it gets to the point where a kid is LOOKING for the means - it's already gone much further than it ever should have in the first place.

That's why focusing on the weapons and preventing access to them is a like takin nyquil for tuberculosis, by the time the kid is looking for the means, they've already fully decided the matter, and if we wanna truly prevent such incidents, that would require intervention of some form before that point.

But to that takes resources no politician wants to "waste" on people who, having no vote, are of no effective use to them.

Besides, the blowup from such neglect happens long after they're out of office anyway, on a cushy retirement, so what do they care ?

That's one reason I try to work with these kids, show em they have OPTIONS, that this bizarre and unnatural social structure doesn't really exist outside of the educational system, and maybe if you're not so attached to creature comforts, you can find something a bit more satisfying to DO than be a Corporate Serf-Drone.

All the while wondering WTF their guidance counsellor is doing if they're coming to ME for this advice, or if they even have one, I ain't so sure our high school does, and while it's been suggested, I don't have the official stamp of asskiss approval (degree) relative to the topic, so it's rather unlikely they'd offer me the job.

Especially since city council doesn't care for me.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 7:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"America has a unique situation because they are trying to mix 2 different models that can't be mixed. America is founded on a deeply ingrained tradition of personal freedom, whereas most other countries have histories rooted in monarchies and feudalism. At its inception, that foundation of personal freedom came with self-responsibility and self-reliance. There was no social entitlement whatsoever. Now, the individual freedom/individual responsibility model is contaminated and perverted by the increasing socialism of our society."

And then there are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. All with no titles, hereditary lands or authority, born of the English democratic tradition and absent the serious social problems the US seems to engender. Why is that ?

Another flaw in your argument can be seen in why the European countries - born in Feudalism - have better democracies than the US. And by that I mean less surveillance, more guaranteed personal freedoms such as the right to privacy, and a less powerful ruling (ie rich) class running the show.

On a separate line of inquiry, why does the US have the highest murder rate of all western developed countries ? Perhaps the juvenile violence issue is merely a reflection of general adult society and not a school-related problem.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 8:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
this bizarre and unnatural social structure doesn't really exist outside of the educational system

I find our whole society bizarre and unnatural. To offer a "better world" outside of school is a false hope!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 9:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think Fletch has got a point about "extended childhood". There are a number of relevant bumper sticker: "I may be getting old but I refuse to grow up" and "He who dies with the most toys wins". And hey, I want to be a child! I want dump my responsibilities and fulfill my need for self-actualization! I want to play, or at least work at something that I sorta like once in a while!

But overall, I'm not sure that "extended childhood" per se is the source of our problem. (Maybe that's just the hopeful child in me talking.

) There are lots of countries with happier adults who have more fun and they are FAR less violent. So adulthood doesn't have to be a drab joyless treadmill in order to create a sane society.

Likewise, childhood (extended or otherwise) doesn't have to be an endless, selfish grab for toys. In my neighborhood, all the kids of various ages played together. We spent a lot of time talking about what was "fair", so little kids got several giant steps head-start in races, and "tag-backs" were unfair in tag, and peeking in hide-and-seek was NO FAIR! and of course you HAD to yell "HOME FREE HOME" really loud so IT would know not to look for you, and you HAD to run at least around the tree in "pies" to give the fox a prayer of catching you (but likewise, fox had to stand off at least three giant steps from "safe" to give you a chance to run).

It's not about being a "child"... children over the age of seven are capable of understanding what's fair and what isn't!!!.. it's that we view selfishness... aka GREED.... as the preferred economic and social driving force. Sadly, we no longer even ask about "fair". We don't ask our leaders to be fair, nor our corporations. Is it any wonder that we don't expect our teachers, parents, or school systems to be fair either? And therefore we should not be surprised at the f*cking results!

BTW, I think "Why here?" was Rue's question not mine. Just bein' fairisall.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 9:08 AM

CAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

On a separate line of inquiry, why does the US have the highest murder rate of all western developed countries ?

What is its conviction rate, compared to those other countries?

How likely is a person who commits a crime, to be caught and punished for it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 9:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The US murder rate is anywhere between 200% and 750% the rate of other western developed nations. I think the onus is on you to show the conviction rates of ALL other countries are a small fraction of the US. (Which on the face of it doesn't seem likely.) But it does make you wonder - at least it does me - why ALL other countries routinely have such substantially lower murder rates compared to the US. Maybe if we could answer why US adults are so murderous compared to adults in other countries we could answer why US children are so murderous as well.

5-6
US 5.9

4-5
(none)

3-4
(none)

2-3
Switzerland 2.94
Finland 2.74
Scotland 2.56
N Ireland 2.48
Sweden 2.39
UK 2.03

1-2
Canada 1.85
France 1.64
New Zealand 1.29
Australia 1.28
Spain 1.25
Italy 1.23
Iceland 1.03

0-1
Germany 0.98
Netherlands 0.97
Ireland 0.91
Luxembourg 0.90
Denmark 0.79
Norway 0.78

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 9:45 AM

I didn't think that murder rates were in any way connected to conviction rates? If someone is killed that's part of the statistics even if you don't find a perp.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 10:07 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And then there are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. All with no titles, hereditary lands or authority, born of the English democratic tradition and absent the serious social problems the US seems to engender. Why is that ?

The US kicked the Brits out when the other commonwealth countries you listed made a much more gradual transition.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 11:51 AM

Quote:
Perhaps the juvenile violence issue is merely a reflection of general adult society and not a school-related problem.

I do believe this may well be the case.

You'll note I've mentioned negotiation and very specifically de-escalation in several other topics, not just as a tactic for a police officer to retain control of a situation, but between ordinary citizens too.

Thing is, we have no resources or even any kind of attempt at teaching this sort of thing anywhere in our educational system, and it's a vital thing to know, imop.

Our perception of "negotiation" seems to be more have-bigger-club-take-your-stuff even now, not just on a personal scale, but even a national one.

We could do a lot worse than adding some element of this into our educational curriculums.

====

Also - Re: Cat Herding.

Actually that's not wholly an accurate perception there - as you know I have six cats, right ?

Kallista, oh mighty godfather and general gang boss, considers the other cats table manners to be quite revolting, and will NOT eat in company with them, regardless of what is offered.

She will quite literally wait, until the others have piggishly satisfied their immediate desire by chugging down as much as they want, and go flop on the couch in a torpid stupor, and then presume to nibble, quite ladylike, till she is satisfied - at which point she usually goes to harrass the other five damn fools who've eaten themselves sluggish.
(This usually involves an airborne DEATH FROM ABOVE!! attack from the highest point on the back of our sectional couch.)

Cat's are WAY smarter than people think they are, and capable of a really wide range of truly interesting behaviors if you watch long enough.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 11:54 AM

Oh, yeah, also...

Anger Management = Complete Bogusness.

Instead of trying to shut down anger itself, why not solve the root problem that is MAKING someone angry ?

I mean, if someone is verbally abusing you or creating a hostile environment, does it not stand that they got a RIGHT to BE angry ?

Just a thought, on that particular brand of wholly ineffective conflict resolution.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 12:16 PM

TANKOBITE

Maybe its something with third graders; I remember way back when, when I was in elementary school; the third graders were playing "Simon Says"-got the order to run over the teachers...and almost the entire 3rd grade put two teachers in the hospital with minor fractures, some scrapes, and possibly a broken finger or two...

8 boys* confessed and lost recess for the rest of the year while the rest went off Scot free.

Did they really mean to hurt the teachers? Probably not, but it happened because we were idiots. Maybe its just something with third graders. Though for planning...in kindergarden I can remember trying to tunnel out of the recess area...how's that for a plan?

*Swear there were more then that doing it, including girls.

-----------------------------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I mean, if someone is verbally abusing you or creating a hostile environment, does it not stand that they got a RIGHT to BE angry ?

Just a thought, on that particular brand of wholly ineffective conflict resolution.

-F

Sometimes the people "angry" with you have problems you simply can do nothing about. Sometimes people manufacture anger or outrage as a deliberate attempt at manipulation. They have no incentive to want to calm the situation down because they actually want it to play out that way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 4:08 PM

Well aware of that, but I have all too often seen the whole anger management gig used to blunt someones rightful anger at an injustice.

Like getting stuck with cleaning up a younger siblings mess, cause you're present and the sibling has made themselves scarce to avoid having to do so themself.

To tell the kid stuck cleaning it up that they need to practice anger management when they're pissed about it, is a downright ridiculous concept.

That'd be like telling ripped off stockholders in a company that stole from them that they should practice anger management - instead of filing suit.

Better, I think, to rectify the problem, the source of the anger, than to wire shut the blowoff valve, cause the end result of that is never good.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 6:52 PM

I think that's because you see any kind of backing down as a sign of weakness, while most of us see it as a sign of strength. I'm not just saying that, I had a viscous temper when I was younger and had temper incidents that put two kids in hospital before I was ten. Did they provoke it? You betya but my granddads old missive "never start a fight but make sure you end it" can work a little too well.

I would have probably ended up in jail had I not leaned how to control it and know when to walk away. Sometimes controlling your temper and your more destructive instincts is the only way to go.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Fletch,

It's really stunning to me (though, perhaps obvious if I'd really been paying attention), just how differently we see this. You guys really do see libertarians as libertines. I've found that conflation to be all too common, but wildly off the mark. It seems to be your perception that we want the government out of the way so we can do our own thing unhindered, running roughshod over anyone in our way and living life completely free of restraint.

Actually no this isn't a cheap pop at libertarians... well maybe a little but only as a more extreme expression of the observed phenomenon.

Here's my thinking as a European. Where I come from there really isn't the room to do much arm swinging of any kind. Like it or not physical geography means that you end up living in close proximity to an awful lot of human style beings. In this context rules become extremely important as does the higher level concepts of fairness and the law.

Put simply you don't get much chance to "put the irritating people by the side of the road and drive on" they are there, and they will always be there even if none of them are deliberately "in your face." Needless to say as a society we can have fantastic flashes of violence but by and large we mediate our relationships at various levels big and small and try to keep the righteous fury under control. In short as organisms we have been challenged by an environment and adapted to it. We socialise at the drop of a hat, almost any kind of club almost any kind of interest large or small has people that do it together as a group, dealing with people, dealing with Aholes is something we have managed to get down.

One of the nice things about America is that you do have space. If you don't like a place you can just pick up sticks and move on, there will always be places you can move on too. There is no real need to deal too much with your neighbors if you don't want to and like Frem says, you have the luxury of not dealing with people you don't want to. My contention is that because you have that option you take it and thus never have to face the angry neighbor or develop the skills for dealing with the ahole. Consequently when challenged you do react violently because

1) you have not really developed the tools needed to not get really insanely angry with this ahole.

2) You haven't developed social structures to try and mitigate the ahole effect

and

3) You've been convinced that your personal liberty ethic not only ALLOWS you to deal with it as you see fit but even expects you to deal with it solo.

That's the point. In societies where most of the onus is placed on the group mechanisms have been developed to try and mediate disputes between individual members. Members of groups have a clear understanding of rights and responsibilities that makes it a little more likely that someone understands when the swinging arm is getting too close. Bloody noses that do happen are mediated and resolved by groupings larger than just the two individuals.

In societies where the onus is on the individual it may not be so obvious when you are invading too close to the other guy's nose. Disputes are more likely to become personal because there is no larger grouping that is likely to mediate. Individuals that feel wronged are more likely to take matters into their own hands because they think they can or believe it's expected.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 3, 2008 8:11 PM

LIGHTBRINGER

I think Fletch has hit this nail on the head. I was already formulating a response on this issue, and his thinking dovetails, if it doesn't precisely agree, with my own. My take is that two of the defining principles of Americanism are individualism and self-determination. These, in their raw form, are also known as pathological asociality. On the other hand, my perception of say Europeans, for example, and I'm thinking particularly of the British here (calm down, Continentals, I know they're not really European), are generally more amenable to your basic socially driven mind-control than Americans are. I imagine this is the same phenomenon Fletch describes, from a different angle. To get an Englishman to do something, you just tell him it's the proper thing and for the common good, and he usually says "Oh, right then, why didn't you say so?" and goes on about it. To get an American to do something, you often have to use reverse psychology and insinuate that he really shouldn't do it, at which point he'll get all bristly about his God-given rights to steer his own course and go ploughing off to take care of them, whether he really knows why or not. That is, I think Americans are inherently more reactionary, and of course that's why after we've been over-run by commies or fascists or aliens or pygmies, there will still be hard-core bands of militia waging guerrilla warfare from the hills and forests (or so we like to think). I don't think that's bad, necessarily; but Fletch has a point also in that we do have trouble with conflict resolution. This is the sort of society where a person can literally be murdered before the eyes of bystanders, and nobody wants to intervene because A) people need to work out their differences as self-determined individuals, and B) because the bystanders' individualism is also a certain alienation, and they really don't know how to intervene. I don't get into fights, because there are few things so important that I'm willing to start a fight over them; on the other hand, the things important enough to fight over are usually also important enough to kill over, and without the slightest remorse or hesitation. That's a point beyond conflict resolution, though.
I also was interested by Frem's (I hope you don't mind the familiarity) idea that anger perhaps shouldn't be managed when it is in fact just anger (not merely, but righteous, that is). I tend to concur on this; there is such a thing as having a hair-trigger, (especially when you're already on the water tower and the trigger is on the rifle you happened to bring with you) but the suppression of righteous anger is the first step towards slavery. A people who cannot recognize and accept outrage are a dying people.

This may be all a dream, but at least mine was consistently erotic. -LB

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 4, 2008 3:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
righteous fury

Americans are not only big believers in individuality, they're also big believers in righteous fury. We're a vengeful lot of self-aggrandizing pricks, truth be known. (This is the Chuck Norris- Bruce Willis- Keifer Sutherland view of justice.) It just galls me every time a victim's family says (of a death penalty) "At least we got some closure". "Closure" my ass. It's vengeance.

And the funny thing is, the whole individual hero crap actually defangs most of us from doing anything effectve, because instead of getting together and each doing a little something about something we're so busy looking for a hero (explains our Presidential voting habits) that NOTHING ever gets done!

If I could get rid of two paradigms in the USA it would prolly be 1) that sense of righteousness that excuses our egregious acts of violence and 2) the concept that individualism is the ONLY way to deal with society. OUTRAGE in one thing. Outrage is the shocked recognition that something is terribly wrong. It's what FOLLOWS outrage that bothers me, because most people literally can't think of anything to do except grab a gun... which most people aren't about to do anyway.

I know that galls the rugged individuals among us, but yanno, you can STILL be individuals in a different society if you cant' adapt. I'm sure there would be room for you too.

ETA: WHich goes back to Frem's title: It's not the deeds, it's the hate. We're a hate-filled culture. We hate ourselves for being at the bottom of the pile. We hate everyone else for having to fight with them for the scraps. And the anwser to that is more hate!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 4, 2008 7:28 AM

CAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I didn't think that murder rates were in any way connected to conviction rates? If someone is killed that's part of the statistics even if you don't find a perp.

There is the obvious connection - people are reluctant to do things likely to get them into trouble. To take the extreme example, if the conviction rate dropped to zero, the murder rate would very likely go up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 4, 2008 7:41 AM