Jump to content

Coddling of the American Mind


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2735 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Pamela Galli wrote:

What I am talking about goes way beyond expecting/ demanding cultural sensitivity. It's not even really about that. It is about extreme intolerance for hearing or seeing anything that is in any way unpleasant, and the desire to punish those who present it.  IOW, about the repression of ideas and diversity. 

This was widely circulated, very alarming:

 

 

i accept that the more narrow point was what you were addressing

and yes of course is always some people who are willing to take offence at pretty much anything. And a gate, and the tractor, and the whole farm even sometimes

is something we say to each other in my peer group. Like someone goes: I am so outrage !!! And we go: You wants a farm with that ?? (:

+

is a surface component of bigger wider issues this tho, when we consider whats happening on our campuses and in companies and other organisations and groupings, and in societal-wide structures like law and that. And the subsequent changes that result as people ordinarily are now enabled to have more direct personal access to knowledge and information. Far more so than previous generations had

issues with deep wide underlying multiple causations, once we get into it. And as such arguments made for and against, can range from the serious to the frivolous to the vexatious

i just think that is important when we thinking about all this kinda stuff to look at the causations from as many perspectives as we can

+

what the professor has to ask of themself is: Is my own behaviour a causation, and if so then what should I do about it myself for myself

and when not then as a learned professor I am easily able to dismiss such allegations with rational argument and sound thought. Easily showing them to be vexatious and unfounded

and not just dismiss the need to make that argument, just bc I (professior) feel that I should not have to

you are a professor, professor. If you cant actual make that argument, for any reason at all, then you need think about your continued role as a intellectual leader on the campus, a rational thinking thought leader responsible for nurturing the education of the students in your classroom

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gut feeling (which I trust only in certain circumstances, cuz it's nuts) is approximately as you describe. The "PC has gone too far" argument in my own circle of friends comes entirely from folks older than me, who are having difficulty accepting change. We're afraid of the unknown, so their fear is rising along with the depth of their ignorance. Mom's doing better than many of her friends, but she's always been pretty open-minded, a requirement if you wanted to share space with Dad, or me.

Within the young circles of friends I see (which are not at all representative of American youth, as I live in a rural/suburban area) there's not a lot of political correctness, though they're less bothered by differences between people than the elders are. They're crude and gracious, flippant and thoughtful, self absorbed and caring, smart and unbelievably stupid. You get the idea, they're still kittens... and fun to watch.

I look back on what I've accomplished so far and I don't think I could do it again at my current age. Not because of lack of stamina, I can still keep up with the kittens, but because they see opportunity everywhere and I don't. Some people call their outlook foolish and mine wise. I'm not ready to agree.

Years ago, I listened to a talk by a medical researcher who said that "the first person to reach the age of 200 is alive today". He spoke about that as if it was an unambiguously positive development. I see potential tragedy. As you've observed, you don't need as much wisdom to make it to old age these days. As a result, the wisdom density of humanity might be in decline. Can you imagine the insufferableness of 200 year old stupidity? In 144 154! years, I'll be your worst nightmare.

And the rise of the Internet has allowed stupidity to escape the physical confines of neighborhoods filled with intolerance for it. Now it can roam wild, congregating with like mindlessness in ever more energetic bursts of outrage fueled by the most powerful positive feedback loops we've ever seen. The problem of course is that we're, each in our own way... stupid.

And nothing seems more magnetic on the Internet than stupidity.

Except maybe cats.

Stupid cats.

;-).

ETA: Fixed a damned math error Par discovered. Must you people read what I write?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an example, i display the Confederate Battle flag. To me its a symbol of heritage and pride. I also consider it a protest against the monster our federal govenment has grown into.

If someone chooses to see it as a symbol of white supremacy and racism, thats really not my problem.

As my hero Happy Bunny might say, I know how you feel i just don't care.

:) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The coddling started with student of the week in schools when no appreciable achievement by the student had been made. It started when everyone got a participation trophy just for showing up, cheapening the meaning of getting a trophy/award for an achievement, whether it be in spelling or running the fastest.

This feeling of entitlement, is something we see in SL all the time...X costs "too much" so they rant about that merchant or X merchant doesn't have a MM board or a freebie in their shop or X merchant doesn't have a gift out at their booth at an event. X merchant didn't get back with me within 10 minutes of me contacting them with a problem. X merchant wouldn't give me a refund because the item didn't do what I wanted it to do or work the way I thought it should. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The first sentence in Scott Peck's book The Road Less Traveled is: life is difficult. And that it is.

 The super sensitive ones do not understand or accept this fact. They live in a state of perpetual shock that life is so very difficult -- or rather that it is difficult at all, in even the tiniest degree; they just do not expect this. 

 They simply cannot bear the pain of hearing or seeing anything that displeases or disturbs them.  They believe they are entirely within their rights to demand that anyone inflicting unpleasantness on them should be punished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Pamela Galli wrote:

 The first sentence in Scott Peck's book The Road Less Traveled is: life is difficult. And that it is.

 The super sensitive ones do not understand or accept this fact. They live in a state of perpetual shock that life is so very difficult -- or rather that it is difficult at all, in even the tiniest degree; they just do not expect this. 

 They simply cannot bear the pain of hearing or seeing anything that displeases or disturbs them.  They believe they are entirely within their rights to demand that anyone inflicting unpleasantness on them should be punished.

They've never learned to cope with losing. F's might hurt their fragile little egos, not winning might hurt their fragile little egos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Years ago, I listened to a talk by a medical researcher who said that "the first person to reach the age of 200 is alive today".

Then he was certifiably nuts. That would make the first person to reach the age of 200 thousands of years old now, and no such person exists in the world today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

 The first sentence in Scott Peck's book The Road Less Traveled is: life is difficult. And that it is.

 The super sensitive ones do not understand or accept this fact. They live in a state of perpetual shock that life is so very difficult -- or rather that it is difficult at all, in even the tiniest degree; they just do not expect this. 

 They simply cannot bear the pain of hearing or seeing anything that displeases or disturbs them.  They believe they are entirely within their rights to demand that anyone inflicting unpleasantness on them should be punished.

I'd be more convinced by the idea that youth are hypersensitive compared to their stoic elders if some of the stoics who are posting in this thread didn't have a history of well-publicised hissy fits their ownselves, including some that were arguably libelous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

As an example, i display the Confederate Battle flag. To me its a symbol of heritage and pride. I also consider it a protest against the monster our federal govenment has grown into.

If someone chooses to see it as a symbol of white supremacy and racism, thats really not my problem.

As my hero Happy Bunny might say, I know how you feel i just don't care.

:)

 

the last of the Southron gentlemen, who's battle flag you are now wrapping yourself in, would disagree with you

he saw no pride in it at all, and went to his grave with his own honour intact, and respected to his dying day by the enemy which opposed him in the fields under the guns

as you say tho, what do you care

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Years ago, I listened to a talk by a medical researcher who said that "the first person to reach the age of 200 is alive today".

Then he was certifiably nuts. That would make the first person to reach the age of 200 thousands of years old now, and no such person exists in the world today.

No, he meant that someone alive today would benefit from medical advance and live to be 200 years old. That was probably much easier to figure out in the context of the entire talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

As an example, i display the Confederate Battle flag. To me its a symbol of heritage and pride. I also consider it a protest against the monster our federal govenment has grown into.

If someone chooses to see it as a symbol of white supremacy and racism, thats really not my problem.

As my hero Happy Bunny might say, I know how you feel i just don't care.

:)

 

My personal experience with people sporting that flag on their vehicles and clothing in Wisconsin (a Union state with an opposing heritage) is that they display levels of racism, bigotry and ignorance (and for men, testosterone levels) that rise above the background level. My boarder played a few music gigs at small clubs and taverns in the northern part of the state a couple years ago. He was astonished by the racism there. He also saw confederate flags, swastikas and KKK imagery. It was the first time he'd seen such things "for real".

If you showed up on movie night in my yard wearing a confederate flag jacket, I'd probably ask you about it. Not "Where'd you get that, it's nice?", but "What does your wearing that signify?" I am not as gracious as I am curious. Although you just don't care how people choose to see you, that doesn't make it not a problem for you. It could mean you're unaware of opportunities lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:

 The first sentence in Scott Peck's book The Road Less Traveled is: life is difficult. And that it is.

 The super sensitive ones do not understand or accept this fact. They live in a state of perpetual shock that life is so very difficult -- or rather that it is difficult at all, in even the tiniest degree; they just do not expect this. 

 They simply cannot bear the pain of hearing or seeing anything that displeases or disturbs them.  They believe they are entirely within their rights to demand that anyone inflicting unpleasantness on them should be punished.

I'd be more convinced by the idea that youth are hypersensitive compared to their stoic elders if
most
 of the stoics who are posting in this thread didn't have a history of well-publicised hissy fits their ownselves, including some that were arguably libelous.

FIFY

and then

QFT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Bobbie Faulds wrote:

The coddling started with student of the week in schools when no appreciable achievement by the student had been made. It started when everyone got a participation trophy just for showing up, cheapening the meaning of getting a trophy/award for an achievement, whether it be in spelling or running the fastest.

is really interesting this. Maybe is a US kinda way of thinkiing bc I dont get it

we do this a lot with children, give them rewards just for being children

children like getting rewards and treats. and we give them lots for just having a go. Doesnt matter what the outcome of them having a go is. That they had a go is whats important. Better than not having a go

winning is good for sure, and everybody including the kids will always take the win when they can. Not having a go tho is not good at all

+

is the same approach we take with sports. Rugby and netball are the ones we do best at internationally

in netball with the juniors, is all about turning up and playing. Same with junior rugby. Just turn up and go hard for the whole game

and every boy and every girl in every team gets a prize in most teams. Whatever the score was

and if their team is running up a big score, then they are expected to do that by us, and by themselves, right until the end of the game. No mercy. At all. Put a 100 on them, kids. 200 if you can

is this second part that balances the first part. And that attitude flows all the way up to the national teams. Go hard right up the actual end. Dont go soft on the opposition, at all, ever

+

is a article about this by Kris Shannon in our weekend paper. Comparing how we see this compared to how would be seen in the US

apparently what the All Blacks did in the 1st Test against Australia this year would be seen as unsporting in the US

the hooter had gone for fulltime. The All Blacks were up by 40 points. They had the ball and it was still in play. So they played to put more points on the board, instead of kicking the ball out upon which the ref would have whistled game over

and we go: Why wouldnt they do that ? the game is not over until the whistle goes. As the purpose of the game, is to put points on the board, right up until the end. For sure, the All Blacks had already won the game, but they still went for more points tho

that they had actually already won the game had nothing to do with anything at all, far as the players, and we watching, were concerned

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for the record America was founded as a slave country, The stars and stripes was a flag of slavery for many years.

 

And, if we are talking about offensive symbols, lets ask the American Indians how they feel about the flag their genocide was conducted under.

 

My flag today, your flag tomorrow.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

and who might that be? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Robert E Lee, who said that if had known what the north had planned for the south, he'd have never surrendered and would instead have fought to the last man

Source of quote please?

And is your battle flag square or rectangular? General Lee's was square. Excepting those keeping alive the memory of the notoriouslty inept Confederate Army of Tennessee or the Confederate Navy (scuba gear, anyone?), the rectangular "Confederate Battle Flag" came about because when the battle flag started becoming a "symbol of Southern pride"well after the war the (mostly Yankee) flag makers the Southerners contracted to would have charged extra to make a non-standard (square) flag.

https://flagspot.net/flags/us-csab.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

If i showed up wearing it i would in fact explain what it means to me, and it means nothing about perpetuating slavery or treating blacks as inferior. When u erase history, you erase everyones history, black and white.

 

:)


Nobody proposed erasing history. I simply don't advise celebrating the wrong side of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flag of the army of Northern Virginia was square, but many units used rectangular ones.

Speaking of the "inept" Confederate Navy, the Confederate Cruiser Shenandoah circumnavigated the globe under the Confederate flag. It was off the coast of California when it found out the war was over. The crew immediately stowed its guns and sailed to Britain without making landfall, where it entered port. The crew raised its flag at dawn one last time, then lowered it, surrendering to the Royal Navy

An inquiry was held and the Admiralty determined that the ship and crew had acted properly according to the rules of war, and released the entire crew.

The Confederacy was never recognized during its existance, but the legality of its actions after the fact were never questioned or proven to be wrong.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


BilliJo Aldrin wrote:

The flag of the army of Northern Virginia was square, but many units used rectangular ones.

Speaking of the "inept" Confederate Navy, the Confederate Cruiser Shenandoah circumnavigated the globe under the Confederate flag. It was off the coast of California when it found out the war was over. The crew immediately stowed its guns and sailed to Britain without making landfall, where it entered port. The crew raised its flag at dawn one last time, then lowered it, surrendering to the Royal Navy

An inquiry was held and the Admiralty determined that the ship and crew had acted properly according to the rules of war, and released the entire crew.

The Confederacy was never recognized during its existance, but the legality of its actions after the fact were never questioned or proven to be wrong.

 

 

Not under the "rectangular Confederate battle flag" though - that was a navy jack and only flown in port. In fact, here's the actual flag the Shenandoah flew (a Second National - I imagine they couldn't get a Third National under the prevailing conditions.)

http://www.csa-dixie.com/liverpool_dixie/shenflag.htm

ETA Oh, and interestingly enough there was one region the Shenandoah never visited on her circumnavigation of the globe - the Confederate States of America. She was a British ship some Confederates bought in England in 1864 and never actually went to her "home country."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2735 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...