This generation of kids...

[jamespowers]

Isn't that what twelve years of primary and secondary education are supposed to accomplish?

I don't think too much choice is the problem at all. Kids should be allowed and encouraged to make their own choices -- but they should also be made to understand that every choice they'll ever make in their life comes with consequences. And a little instruction in humility wouldn't hurt either.

I'm all for the idea of two years' compulsory national service, no exemptions. I don't mean the military, necessarily -- there's a lot of good that could be accomplished by bringing back the CCC. Kids should be required to spend some time working side by side with people of very different classes and backgrounds than themselves. With as much talk as there is about "diversity" today, I think it's safe to say there are millions of middle-and-upper-middle-class kids today who've never actually had a conversation with a working class person. A society that's that insular is a long long way from being able to congratulate itself on how "diverse" it is.

:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap

 

[Foofoogal]

I understand Lizzies post above but I disagree some. I actually think the young people mix among other classes more now then in any time ever before. Possibly not all places but the ones I am privy to.
My father served in the CCC and it was the turning point of his life. Some for the good but most for the bad in the long run IMHO.
I know this sounds odd but it is true. I lived with the results.

 

[Fletch]

Not that I've been in the military, but growing up playing sports through the college level, this was a fact of life. If one of your team mates messed up and got in trouble around campus the whole team was corrected. If one member didn't show up or showed up late to an early morning practice we would spend the rest of the practice running, and when the player in error was located he was made to do the whole practice by himself at 4am, while we were made to sit in the stands and supervise. Might have been harsh but it instilled a real team mentality and we no longer accepted anything less than 100% from anyone else and ourselves. And yes, discipline may have been forced upon me growing up, but it was forced because how many children want to learn, be taught, or really be directed in the right ways to live? However, it was not forced in such an overt way by my parents as it was by a sports coach. The way they did it was much more subversive and worked in a way that made me believe it was my choice to live straight and make good choices.

You're obviously very tolerant of both approaches - I can tell by the way you speak of "correction" and "error" and "fact of life" that you're not the kind to ask questions like, say, how things could be different in teams.

Now I don't mean to rag on you. I know you are young yet, and life is all about the doing and not about the meaning. But people who are like that tend to make life unnecessarily difficult for people who aren't like that.

I say this especially because we're both males. For much of our history, submitting to rigid group discipline has been crucial to being accepted as a man. I never believed in that, and it has cost me, but that's the price I pay.

 

[jamespowers]

I say this especially because we're both males. For much of our history, submitting to rigid group discipline has been crucial to being accepted as a man. I never believed in that, and it has cost me, but that's the price I pay.

And you knew that going in likely because of dozens of previous incidences.

 

[Fletch]

Not necessarily. I was raised funny: I was intellectually precocious and an only child, so I learned I could usually -usually - get by on smarts and fitting in in superficial ways, plus a basically good moral and ethical grounding from my family.

Interestingly enough, it was the ethics that got me in as much trouble as anything else. When they get in the way of group acceptance, a "real" man often has to put acceptance first. That's not what they teach you when they say a man is to be self-reliant. You learn from life that that really means material self-reliance: to provide for yourself is a higher duty than to think for yourself.

 

[jamespowers]

Not necessarily. I was raised funny: I was intellectually precocious and an only child, so I learned I could usually -usually - get by on smarts and fitting in in superficial ways, plus a basically good moral and ethical grounding from my family.

Interestingly enough, it was the ethics that got me in as much trouble as anything else. When they get in the way of group acceptance, a "real" man often has to put acceptance first. That's not what they teach you when they say a man is to be self-reliant. You learn from life that that really means material self-reliance: to provide for yourself is a higher duty than to think for yourself.

Ah, as an only child, I understand the background as well. However, I took a certain amount of pragmatism from my grandmother who was a head forelady at Gerbers back in the day (40s-early 70s). Everything in life is politics. As soon as I learned that, everything else was much easier.

 

[Fletch]

Going on, if I may, to address Undertow and Pompidou...

Regarding the discussion between Fletch, Lizzie and others...I'm very much on the fence with both of you and I enjoy reading through your responses. On one hand, I side with Fletch in that I very much dislike the establishment. I've always worked just on the outside, the fringes, never right, but never wrong enough to get caught. I don't appreciate others input unless I solicit their advice, and I don't like marching to someone else's beat unless I feel it's necessary. I often fear that the Establishment, be it conservative, liberal, nationalist, etc. will one day find my actions too exorbitant and WHACK, off with my head.

On the other hand, I side with Lizzie that there is a great need for discipline - and not in the strictest mean sense, but in a loving sense. Truly, there's nothing more disheartening and frightening than trying to walk the Chaos Path. When there is rule, order and law, one can always fall back on one's proper upbringing to establish a lifetime of salient interactions. Those who are taught well are more able to interact well. Those who work well are more able to provide for themselves and others. Those who are tempered in the fires of adolescene and youth stand strong in the face of adversity. Yet, those who rely too heavily on someone else, or something else, to perform their duties (life, love, etc) will eventually crumble under pressure.

You know, I agree with you there, too. I just don't see much call out in the world for loving discipline. It is too humbling to people who want to feel they're humble enough, and that others are the problem. It doesn't address fears. It doesn't let us have our cake and eat it the way we can with "tough love" (which is not love, but toughness in the name of love).

So as you've said Fletch, there needs to be a book put out, or an essay, that answers the WHY without a resounding, "Because, that's how it is." Even though the "That's how it is" is usually true, the youth today don't take well to that kind of presentation.

It will be a hard book to write and a harder one to read. We probably need it more than we want it.

I don't know, I like to think there is a silent majority of folks out there whose hearts and heads are in regular contact and who use both, as appropriate, in living and doing and teaching etc. But we don't hear a lot from such people, or even on their behalf. I hope they're out there and maybe just too busy (or even a little afraid) to speak up. I can't imagine they don't feel threatened.

Discipline is important, but it needs to be a different sort of discipline. The common perception of discipline often runs opposed to any concept of individuality. I think what we need to instill in people is some sort of self discipline, where people do what they think is best, and not necessarily what they're told.

"Instilling" is a problem concept. It's one way, it's easily forced, and it takes the other person as a blank vessel to be filled up - not entirely a person.

Now a child or young adult, you might say, isn't a person yet. I would say, "not fully a person yet." What they don't need is an example of how not to be a person. Loving means being always conscious of someone's humanity.

In my case, if I believe I'm right, and rest assured, I pretty much always do, I won't change without a really convincing argument. [...] I suppose I'm one of the "You're not the boss of me" movement's staunchest supporters, at least as far as rejecting false bosses is concerned.

False bosses? Are we even taught (most of us anyway) to tell false bosses from legitimate ones? Paul's epistle to the Romans teaches that all authority is holy - no exceptions. How many people live by such teaching without even knowing it, or knowing how it might shape their own lives and those they touch?

 

[LizzieMaine]

That's not what they teach you when they say a man is to be self-reliant. You learn from life that that really means material self-reliance: to provide for yourself is a higher duty than to think for yourself.

I don't know as that's just a "man" thing though, at least it never was in my world. My mother's experiences taught that me that it's even more important for a *woman* to be self-reliant, and that *especially* means being able to provide for ones' self.

Food and shelter are the most basic needs of any human being, regardless of gender. If you can't provide those for yourself, all the philosophy in the world won't keep you dry or fed.

 

[jamespowers]

Food and shelter are the most basic needs of any human being, regardless of gender. If you can't provide those for yourself, all the philosophy in the world won't keep you dry or fed.

:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap
And that is why we need a healthier dose of pragmatism over being right all the time or thinking you are. In the end you are still out on the street without a roof over your head.
"Keeping it real" might end up keeping you down. :eusa_doh:

 

[LizzieMaine]

False bosses? Are we even taught (most of us anyway) to tell false bosses from legitimate ones? Paul's epistle to the Romans teaches that all authority is holy - no exceptions. How many people live by such teaching without even knowing it, or knowing how it might shape their own lives and those they touch?

Well, to be fair, what my six years of Sunday School taught me was that Paul was talking about the Roman government here, not all authority in general. He was advising his followers to stay out of trouble, obey the laws, pay their taxes, and not go around getting involved in mass insurrections that might end up getting them killed for no good reason when they had more important work to do.

This is the same guy who got his head chopped off at the bidding of Nero for being a danger to the Empire. Obviously he was a pragmatist more than a promoter of mindless obedience.

 

[Widebrim]

Well, to be fair, what my six years of Sunday School taught me was that Paul was talking about the Roman government here, not all authority in general. He was advising his followers to stay out of trouble, obey the laws, pay their taxes, and not go around getting involved in mass insurrections that might end up getting them killed for no good reason when they had more important work to do.

This is the same guy who got his head chopped off at the bidding of Nero for being a danger to the Empire. Obviously he was a pragmatist more than a promoter of mindless obedience.

fftopic:I believe that most commentators agree that it applies to all who are in authority, and that they were placed in those positions of authority by God (c.f. Pharaoh in the book of Exodus). Yet you're right about Paul; he was not an advocate of mindless obedience. Scripture does say that people are to disobey the government when it attempts to force the latter to go against God's precepts. What's interesting about Paul is that when he was once unjustly arrested by local authorities in Philippi, and about to be beaten, he asked his captors if it was lawful to beat a Roman citizen (which he was). Upon discovering that Paul was a Roman, said authorities got scared and told Paul that he was free to go. Yet instead of leaving quietly, Paul insisted that he and his companions be escorted out of the city by the Philippian officials, likely in an effort to establish his innocence for the sake of the Philippian church.

 

[Fletch]

Thanks for the theological clarifications. Not really my area of expertise.

 

[Undertow]

Fletch, Lizzie, Others: what topics would be covered in a book/essay about the WHY of discipline, as opposed to the "Because we say so"?

e.g. Why to dress relatively well? Why to address authority figures by proper titles? Why to avoid the pitfalls of hedonism? etc

 

[jamespowers]

Fletch, Lizzie, Others: what topics would be covered in a book/essay about the WHY of discipline, as opposed to the "Because we say so"?

e.g. Why to dress relatively well? Why to address authority figures by proper titles? Why to avoid the pitfalls of hedonism? etc

Dressing well is respecting others as you do yourself. In many european countries it os an affront to arrived dressed like a bum when invited for dinner. It is a sign of respect to arrive dressed well as if you were going to meet the king.
Respect is shown to older people by addressing them formally. Adress them by their title and they will feel respected rather than put upon by some upstart thinking they can call them by their first name like they went to high school together.

 

[Tomasso]

This generation of kids...

It's the steroids......

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, for my chapter I'd just point out that we live in a *society.* No one, unless they live in a cave on top of a mountain somewhere, drinking rainwater and eating leaves and grubs, is truly a 100 percent Free And Independent Individual with no obligation to that society. And if we do live in a society, that society has to have rules and order and authority in order to function properly. Anarchy is a revenge fantasy for adolescents who never got over being potty-trained, not a functional blueprint for a viable civilization -- never has been, never will be.

In every human Utopia that's ever been attempted, The Man has eventually manifested himself and taken over. He runs the most advanced civilization and he runs the most primitive tribe. There's no way to ever get rid of him -- because he's part of who we are as a species. That's why the only reasonable thing to do is to learn to live with The Man. He was there before we got here, and he'll be here long after we're gone, and it does none of us any good to pretend otherwise. Oh, sure, every century or so some society has a revolution and proclaims a New Order -- but that always turns out to be nothing more than The Man in a different uniform. Every generation of kids thinks they're being radical and rebellious and are going to be the ones to throw The Man over -- but before they know what hit them, The Man is selling them their music and their clothes and their coffee and their revenge fantasies -- and laughing at them behind their backs. And they get a few years older, and suddenly, The Man makes them an offer they can't refuse -- and eventually they *become* The Man, while their own kids mumble and grouse about what fascist pigs they are.

In short, there are rules and laws and order because we've proven ourselves completely incapable of interacting productively with each other without them, and because there's an instinctive strain in humanity that demands that order. Even the Lounge itself is an example of this -- people can fuss and wail about the Mean Old Bartenders all they want, but if we weren't here, this place would be just another online toilet full of Viagra spam and HAHAHA U SUK postings.

That may be too close to "Because that's the way it is" to satisfy the earnest probers amongst us, but sorry -- that really *is* the way it is, and pretending it isn't is just a really pointless way to spend your time. You can spend your whole life trying to fight it, like Sisyphus rolling his rock up the hill, but keep in mind Sisyphus didn't end up very happy.

 

[Pompidou]

Sometimes the fight isn't about total victory. They say if you give someone an inch, they'll take a mile, but often times, people won't give you an inch. If you demand a mile, you've got room to negotiate. Totally overthrowing the system is counterproductive, but forcing the system to make needed concessions is representative government at its finest. The best example that comes to mind right now is lowering the voting age to 18 because the youth were angry that they could be sent to wars against their will by leaders they had no say in electing. It's good to constantly challenge the leadership, because it keeps them in check. There's nothing worse than a society of people fully content with their leadership. There's always room for change.

 

[Foofoogal]

Lizzie, that sums it all up. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[Fletch]

Aaaaand Pompidou adds much-needed real-world give-and-take.

Yes Liz, The Man's always going to be with us. (Sometimes he's even a woman.) Where he gets too big for his breeches is (as Pomp said) when he and society are too content with his leadership, or when he crosses over from being a leader into either a user or a bully. And that can happen with any Man - from heads of state to assistant ice cream stand managers.

Some of us are taught to be meek with those above us, and teach our dear ones the same. Some are taught, or teach themselves, to flip 'em the bird at every turn. What I would teach is that basically society runs on our doing what we're supposed to, but that society and systems and bosses are never perfect. So it's our responsibility - and our right - to always look out for our well-being and those of others. Because that helps society run, too.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Some of us are taught to be meek with those above us, and teach our dear ones the same. Some are taught, or teach themselves, to flip 'em the bird at every turn. What I would teach is that basically society runs on our doing what we're supposed to, but that society and systems and bosses are never perfect. So it's our responsibility - and our right - to always look out for our well-being and those of others. Because that helps society run, too.

That's a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic point of view, and I don't believe anyone in this thread has ever argued otherwise. But that sort of approach is a far cry from a knee-jerk screeching of "You're Not The Boss Of Me" at the slightest suggestion that the needs of the Almighty Individual are not always supreme. The difference between an adult and a child is that an adult is supposed to understand the difference. Unfortunately for today's culture, that's increasingly no longer the case. Read the comments section of any news site and try to convince yourself otherwise.