|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 12, 2018 9:13:05 GMT
I blame Henry Ford.
This is not a light the blue touchpaper and retire post, this is an open for further discussion...
Henry Ford is the man who maybe didnt invent the mass production model, but certainly made it famous, and he therefore has made a huge dent in history as the man who invented the consumer society, in that the mass production of a complicated piece of equipment made it affordable, to more and more people.
So how is he responsible?.
Look at how Guns were made before and after the invention of the moving production line for cars.
Before they were prohibitively expensive to own more than you absolutely needed, now?. 50 dollars can but you a working one if you know where to ask?.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 12, 2018 14:38:15 GMT
it should be logically apparent that our media exaggerates the bullying and clique problem. but you are right that we still have a bullying culture, and it is exaggerated by our total dysfunction over childrearing discipline and dependence on the magic babysitting box.
but look at what the most vocal portion of our population looks at as the qualities of a successful and respectable person - namely the ability to enrich themselves at other people's expense, and their ability to belittle their rivals.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Mar 12, 2018 22:12:08 GMT
The bully culture has been here for a long time. A couple perfect examples in film are Animal House (1978) and Revenge of the Nerds (1984) Neither are recent and are about college students, but it illustrates the point. You can take it back even further. Rebel Without A Cause (1955), West Side Story (1961). For better or worse the bully culture is several generations old. So this had been around, but what is different today? In general, I would say that kids these days are not as good with dealing with this kid of stuff. Whether it's the snowflake mentality, helicopter parenting, poor mental health, poor social skills due to too much TV and video games, etc. Several issues at play here. Next thing to look at is the rate of gun ownership in the US has remain about constant vs. the population since the 50's. However the guns tend to be more concentrated in fewer individuals today. NPR's Planet Money* had a examination of this several weeks ago. In the 50's there guns in about 60% of households, today it is about 30% of households. However, the guns per capita has remained basically constant, if dropping a bit. That means that those who do own guns, own more guns than in the past. Another interesting thing is the target for gun sales. in the 50's if you look at a gun ad in a magazine, they almost always target sports usage. (Hunting, target shooting, clay pigeons, etc.) That changed in the early 70. You had a major increase in crime in the US and gun makers began to focus on self protection more. This is when they started marketing the military style firearms. That crime rate has dropped, but advertising has remained the same. Very fear based. In my view, this feeds into somepeople's obsession with guns. One thing that I'll throw out going off of OziRiS, comment on the Cowboy culture. Between the 30's and early 70's, Cowboys were popular thing in the media. Westerns were the go-to drama on TV. So kids in that era grew up with the cowboy culture being fed into them from radio and TV. Now they are adults having kids and grandkids. I wonder how that factors in to things. The cowboy culture from the parents mixed with inadequate people skills, results in kids going to that when they can't handle a situation. * www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/23/588371710/guns-and-the-nope-slump |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 12, 2018 22:49:40 GMT
One thing that I'll throw out going off of OziRiS, comment on the Cowboy culture. Between the 30's and early 70's, Cowboys were popular thing in the media. Westerns were the go-to drama on TV. So kids in that era grew up with the cowboy culture being fed into them from radio and TV. Now they are adults having kids and grandkids. I wonder how that factors in to things. The cowboy culture from the parents mixed with inadequate people skills, results in kids going to that when they can't handle a situation. If the "cowboy culture" on TV and in the movies had an effect, it would have been back in the 30's to 70's, not 50 years later. Compare the cowboy culture to what we have on TV and in Movies today and it doesn't take a genius to see a connection. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 12, 2018 22:50:13 GMT
it should be logically apparent that our media exaggerates the bullying and clique problem. but you are right that we still have a bullying culture, and it is exaggerated by our total dysfunction over childrearing discipline and dependence on the magic babysitting box. but look at what the most vocal portion of our population looks at as the qualities of a successful and respectable person - namely the ability to enrich themselves at other people's expense, and their ability to belittle their rivals. I realize of course that the stereotypical bullying culture we're shown by the media - especially entertainment media - can't possibly be true everywhere for everyone all the time, but as we all know, fiction more often reflects reality than the other way around and all stereotypes start somewhere. I also have a feeling that the media having portrayed that social dynamic for decades (as vwengineer pointed out above) has created a loop where it feeds back into how people believe the social structure should be and always has been, perhaps even reinforcing the belief that it can't be changed. But it's not just in the schools. Look at American gang culture. Many places in the world have gang problems, including my own country, but it seems to me that the American way of being in a gang often involves much more frequent use of lethal force than it does in other comparable nations. Again, one of the contributing factors could very well be easier access to guns, but gangs in other parts of the world have guns too. They just don't seem to use them quite as often for some reason. In places like France, the UK, Germany, Sweden and here in Denmark - all Western nations that the US compares itself to and vice verca - we have gang problems just like you and we do have the occasional shooting, but they're nowhere near as frequent as they are in the US. Here's an example: In 2017, Sweden saw the highest number of shootings ever recorded in a single year for the entire history of the country (excluding wartime), most of which were gang related. The total tally was 306 shootings with 41 of them being fatal and 135 leading to injury (source: www.thelocal.se/20171222/in-figures-2017s-shootings-in-sweden.) Note that these numbers are high for any European nation, so the Swedes have a real problem on their hands. By comparison, Chicago had 2,785 shootings and 650 homicides (unclear from the source whether all of them were gun related) and that was a drop from 2016 where the numbers were 3,550 shootings and 771 homicides (source: www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chicago-sees-drop-homicides-shootings-2017-killings-remain-above-600-n833901) Sweden has a population of roughly 10 million people, whereas Chicago has "only" roughly 2.7 million. So, Chicago has a quarter the population of Sweden, but 9 times as many shootings (in a year that was way worse than average for Sweden and slightly better than average for Chicago, no less), which serves to make my point perfectly. There's no doubt that it's harder for criminals in Sweden to get their hands on firearms, but they obviously can if they're motivated enough, or there would be no shootings at all. Even so, it seems the average American gang member is much more likely to resort to use of lethal force than the average Swedish gang member is and that - at least to me - speaks to a fundamental cultural difference. Ironically, the penalties for buying, selling, possessing and/or discharging an illegal firearm are much steeper in the US than in Sweden. I'm not attatching any meaning to that, just pointing out that it's weird people are more willing to shoot in the country where the consequences of doing so are worse... |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 12, 2018 22:59:05 GMT
I don't know what the driving force of gangs are in Sweden, but in Chicago (unfortunitly my home town) the driving force is drugs and drug dealing. That's the reason for the unprecedented violence. These people aren't just defending their gangs "reputation", they are defending their drug territories. And if you don't think the drug culture is violent, look no further than the drug lords in Mexico and South America. That's where our drug dealers get their drugs and that's where they get the violent drug culture.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 12, 2018 23:04:48 GMT
I don't know what the driving force of gangs are in Sweden, but in Chicago (unfortunitly my home town) the driving force is drugs and drug dealing. That's the reason for the unprecedented violence. These people aren't just defending their gangs "reputation", they are defending their drug territories. And if you don't think the drug culture is violent, look no further than the drug lords in Mexico and South America. That's where our drug dealers get their drugs and that's where they get the drug culture. And it's the exact same thing driving the gangs in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany, France, the UK, you name it. It's always about money and drugs are the main source of income. No difference there. However, you may be onto something by mentioning South America. European drug and gang culture is surely influenced by American media, but most of the actual trade is out of Eastern Europe and Asia, not South America. My impression is that organized crime in that part of the world is a little more discrete in their dealings than the South Americans are, so that could be a contributing factor. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 12, 2018 23:30:00 GMT
I blame Henry Ford. This is not a light the blue touchpaper and retire post, this is an open for further discussion... Henry Ford is the man who maybe didnt invent the mass production model, but certainly made it famous, and he therefore has made a huge dent in history as the man who invented the consumer society, in that the mass production of a complicated piece of equipment made it affordable, to more and more people. So how is he responsible?. Look at how Guns were made before and after the invention of the moving production line for cars. Before they were prohibitively expensive to own more than you absolutely needed, now?. 50 dollars can but you a working one if you know where to ask?. Actually guns were amongst the first items to be made on a production line basis before Henry Ford was involved. An example of this was the Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield, that used automation through steam power to run its assembly lines, guns were made using standardised parts that meant in the various places the British Army was stationed across the Empire spare parts could be send out from London and it was known they would work. The systems they used were created in America first. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 13, 2018 4:28:30 GMT
it should be logically apparent that our media exaggerates the bullying and clique problem. but you are right that we still have a bullying culture, and it is exaggerated by our total dysfunction over childrearing discipline and dependence on the magic babysitting box. but look at what the most vocal portion of our population looks at as the qualities of a successful and respectable person - namely the ability to enrich themselves at other people's expense, and their ability to belittle their rivals. I realize of course that the stereotypical bullying culture we're shown by the media - especially entertainment media - can't possibly be true everywhere for everyone all the time, but as we all know, fiction more often reflects reality than the other way around and all stereotypes start somewhere. I also have a feeling that the media having portrayed that social dynamic for decades (as vwengineer pointed out above) has created a loop where it feeds back into how people believe the social structure should be and always has been, perhaps even reinforcing the belief that it can't be changed. But it's not just in the schools. Look at American gang culture. Many places in the world have gang problems, including my own country, but it seems to me that the American way of being in a gang often involves much more frequent use of lethal force than it does in other comparable nations. Again, one of the contributing factors could very well be easier access to guns, but gangs in other parts of the world have guns too. They just don't seem to use them quite as often for some reason. In places like France, the UK, Germany, Sweden and here in Denmark - all Western nations that the US compares itself to and vice verca - we have gang problems just like you and we do have the occasional shooting, but they're nowhere near as frequent as they are in the US. Here's an example: In 2017, Sweden saw the highest number of shootings ever recorded in a single year for the entire history of the country (excluding wartime), most of which were gang related. The total tally was 306 shootings with 41 of them being fatal and 135 leading to injury (source: www.thelocal.se/20171222/in-figures-2017s-shootings-in-sweden.) Note that these numbers are high for any European nation, so the Swedes have a real problem on their hands. By comparison, Chicago had 2,785 shootings and 650 homicides (unclear from the source whether all of them were gun related) and that was a drop from 2016 where the numbers were 3,550 shootings and 771 homicides (source: www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chicago-sees-drop-homicides-shootings-2017-killings-remain-above-600-n833901) Sweden has a population of roughly 10 million people, whereas Chicago has "only" roughly 2.7 million. So, Chicago has a quarter the population of Sweden, but 9 times as many shootings (in a year that was way worse than average for Sweden and slightly better than average for Chicago, no less), which serves to make my point perfectly. There's no doubt that it's harder for criminals in Sweden to get their hands on firearms, but they obviously can if they're motivated enough, or there would be no shootings at all. Even so, it seems the average American gang member is much more likely to resort to use of lethal force than the average Swedish gang member is and that - at least to me - speaks to a fundamental cultural difference. Ironically, the penalties for buying, selling, possessing and/or discharging an illegal firearm are much steeper in the US than in Sweden. I'm not attatching any meaning to that, just pointing out that it's weird people are more willing to shoot in the country where the consequences of doing so are worse... relative population density also needs to be accounted for. Chicago has almost 6000 people per square kilometer stockholm is around 3600 per square KM. probably not enough to account for the higher rate of shootings, although higher population densities tend to lead to more antisocial behaviors. there is a point made, I think from WV engineer, that children today are not taught conflict resolution, and most often the behavior modeling they see is on TV. so I think it is not so much that seeing violence on TV encourages them to become violent, as it is that NOT seeing NONVIOLENT conflict management modeled fails to teach them any other means of conflict management. and finally, it IS true that in the unenlightened age, bullies WOULD ultimately run afoul of someone who wouldn't take their behavior and gave them a painful lesson in respect. It is an unpopular philosophy, today, but sometimes a painful lesson is necessary for a child to learn there are limits to what they are allowed to do. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 13, 2018 7:36:36 GMT
Other people telling you how to bring up your own kids... and you let them, and more and more its the liberal "They are trying to express themselves" that gets the win on that, and its so wrong.
Kids need borders, hard and fast borders, do NOT go outside that border, "Or Else", and they need that final punishment.
That final punishment has to be something that they will resent.
Loss of Internet?. is that enough?.
I do not condone violence as the final answer, but I do not condone the withdrawal of a quick smack when the kids gets REALLY out of hand, because what else is left?.
They have tried everything else, and yet, this generation of kids that are kids at this point in time are the absolute worst in human history where the banning of smacking is in place.
That may just be coincidence?.
I dont believe in coincidences.
I also do not believe in the style of helicopter parenting as a get out of jail free card.
Kid does something wrong and "How DARE you blame my kid".
Noteworthy case at a local school near here, kid gets smacked upside the head with a dinner plate in the dining hall.
All on CCTV, that is very good at identifying the kid who threw the plate.
The Victim got a bruise, and is ok, this is more about the attacker, they did have a small cut, but nothing overly serious...
The kid identified has parent summoned, who REFUSED to allow their kid to be blamed for the attack, "It wasnt my kid"
The kid is banished from the premises because that parent became abusive towards staff.
The parent is now legally challenging the right for the school to exclude their kid.
How did that escalate so fast?.
What was needed was the parent to see the video and agree that this is not good, the kid to apologise for its behaviour, make restitution, get "detention for a week", and that would have been that?.
Instead it came to a slanging tirade from the parent which resulted in the parent being removed and the kid excluded because if you cant get the parents support what hope do you have with the kid?. [who also refused to be identified even though it was obvious it WAS them...]
When kids se this happening, they know they are on the brink of Anarchy, and they hold the key, and of course they will use that key, because no one likes to be in trouble.
Back in my day, that kid would have got the cane, and never again thrown anything more than a football. Personal injury that draws blood is definitely not allowed on school premises, unless its on the rugby field. Even then, "There are limits".
Back to my own kid, in trouble for retaliation against a bully, the school could never deal with the fact when called in to admonish my kid for retaliating against a bully that deserved some catchup time because of their behaviour that WASNT being dealt with by the school, I questioned why my kid was in trouble for hitting back, and shook his hand.
They had a no retaliation rule, I had a self defence rule, the two sides never agreed, but they did get to understand self defence was not punishable in my books, especially if its instant and works.
It resulted in that kid having the police summoned on them for further acts of personal harm at the school, and two older brothers "Having a word" in that kids ear whilst still wearing the black eye gained from the younger kid defending themself, locally as the twit lives round the corner from here, and now they leave each other alone.
It did cause a face to face with Parents, at the school, in which I promised that any further action would be passed to police, but I could not promise in any way that my kid would not resort to self defence, because its in his nature, and more or less indicated that I supported self defence.
I aint sure which worked more, but I am sure the black eye sent the right message. There IS a final line that cant be crossed, and this is what happens when you do?.
For me, Bullies need dealing with, swiftly, zero tolerance, and in all cases, dealt with, in a way they wont forget easily.
How that works, try any method you want, but the punishment must be final.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 13, 2018 14:55:37 GMT
linkAt the end of last month / start of this month, it became trendy for big-box retailers to somehow restrict firearm sales. AAFES, the company that runs retailers on US Army and Air Force bases, rather foolishly joined the effort by banning "high-capacity" magazines. It took less than two weeks for protests and complaints from the military service members who form their core clientele to get them to reverse course.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 13, 2018 15:02:30 GMT
linkAt the end of last month / start of this month, it became trendy for big-box retailers to somehow restrict firearm sales. AAFES, the company that runs retailers on US Army and Air Force bases, rather foolishly joined the effort by banning "high-capacity" magazines. It took less than two weeks for protests and complaints from the military service members who form their core clientele to get them to reverse course. are you saying the military can no longer afford to issue equipment to the troops but they must buy their own? where is all the money going? |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 13, 2018 15:19:29 GMT
linkAt the end of last month / start of this month, it became trendy for big-box retailers to somehow restrict firearm sales. AAFES, the company that runs retailers on US Army and Air Force bases, rather foolishly joined the effort by banning "high-capacity" magazines. It took less than two weeks for protests and complaints from the military service members who form their core clientele to get them to reverse course. are you saying the military can no longer afford to issue equipment to the troops but they must buy their own? where is all the money going? The military does indeed issue equipment, but a lot of service members take it upon themselves to buy additional kit for their own use... even if it's simply a case of "I don't want to have to wait for supply to issue me something new if something happens to what I do have, so I'm buying my own redundancies." As the article noted, in this case a number of people buying the high-capacity magazines were active-duty service members who wanted an extra magazine or two for when they deployed and military reservists who wanted to do weapons practice on their own time. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 13, 2018 15:33:36 GMT
are you saying the military can no longer afford to issue equipment to the troops but they must buy their own? where is all the money going? The military does indeed issue equipment, but a lot of service members take it upon themselves to buy additional kit for their own use... even if it's simply a case of "I don't want to have to wait for supply to issue me something new if something happens to what I do have, so I'm buying my own redundancies." As the article noted, in this case a number of people buying the high-capacity magazines were active-duty service members who wanted an extra magazine or two for when they deployed and military reservists who wanted to do weapons practice on their own time. so, basically, they are in the military but they want to do their own thing. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 13, 2018 15:54:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 14, 2018 0:50:54 GMT
are you saying the military can no longer afford to issue equipment to the troops but they must buy their own? where is all the money going? The military does indeed issue equipment, but a lot of service members take it upon themselves to buy additional kit for their own use... even if it's simply a case of "I don't want to have to wait for supply to issue me something new if something happens to what I do have, so I'm buying my own redundancies." As the article noted, in this case a number of people buying the high-capacity magazines were active-duty service members who wanted an extra magazine or two for when they deployed and military reservists who wanted to do weapons practice on their own time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understood it from some of my US colleagues when I was in Iraq, if they lose something "without good reason" they have to replace it themselves. Besides - and much to your point - it doesn't take more than one firefight where you run out sooner than you'd like because you were only issued X number of mags before you're more than willing to buy a couple extra with your own money. I've done the same thing for that very reason. At the time, the Danish Army issued combat vests with pouch room for 12 mags, but for some reason only gave each soldier 8 and would not budge on that number. I bought the last 6 myself after running out way too fast during a training exercise a few weeks before I was to be deployed, because there was no way I was going to be caught in that situation once the bullets were real! Also, some kit you can buy on the private market is simply better than what you're issued. If a $40 backpack will make your next hike through the forest or desert even the slightest bit less uncomfortable, that's $40 well spent, if you ask me. Which is why I have a $40 backpack lying around  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 15, 2018 2:47:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 16, 2018 1:01:15 GMT
If you look for idiots, you can find them in any profession. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 16, 2018 1:09:18 GMT
If you look for idiots, you can find them in any profession. You don't even have to look for them. They'll find you. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 16, 2018 2:23:12 GMT
If you look for idiots, you can find them in any profession. not the first time, won't be the last. |
|
