I agree with B Psycho's note on The Last Man to Believe This Motorcycle Jacket Is Cool's WSJ bit on bullying: the inevitable outcome of every attempt at critical thought by anyone ever associated with Reason magazine is to determine that but for a few nosy schoolmasters and regulatchiks, everything is fine; eliminate a few administrative agencies, flatten the income tax, and ceteris paribus, it's all good, bro. The fact that more zero tolerance policies and hamhanded legislative brickbats lobbed aimlessly in the direction of bullying are worthless or undesirable or, to use a liberal coinage, counterproductive, does not necessarily imply the absence of a problem for the kids at the wrong end of the jungle gym.
There is one particular Gillespian sentence that could stand a little bullying itself:
None of this is to be celebrated, of course, but it hardly paints a picture of contemporary American childhood as an unrestrained Hobbesian nightmare.Of course, from an anarchist rather than libertarian perspective, that is to say, from a perspective interested in something other than crafting a state apparatus friendlier to the lifestyle preferences of a minor cadre of collegucated white dudes, American childhood is a Hobbesian nightmare--for whatever reason, poor old Hobbes got adjectized into the opposite of what he advocated; properly speaking, Hobbesian ought to refer, admiringly, to something very much like totalitarianism; and that is the experience of childhood in America, an endless skein of muy loco parentis dictators-manqués with interludes of self-policing straight out of the even nuttier adult world--children enacting the depravity of their governors upon and amidst themselves.
To look at childhood today and say that it is gentler, positively improved from the past because fewer kids worry about getting black eyes in the sandlot after school is to look at, oh, let's say race in America today and conclude that shit's just fine for black people because look, ma, no Jim Crow. Of course Jim Crow was replaced by an even more pernicious and pervasive drug-war/prison-complex--replaced deliberately, I might add; likewise, children today are ever more hemmed in by much subtler but altogether more ubiquitous schemes of coercive and compulsory normalization. The direct linkage to suicide and the know-nothing pathology of "epidemics" notwithstanding, the idea that children today have it great because you heard this story about helicopter moms living in the dorm with their college-aged daughters is plainly ignorant, and the mechanisms and institutions of childhood development all conspire to do what society does: to instill deference to authority, suspicion of dissent, intolerance of idiosyncrasy, and an attitude of uniform compliance to accepted norms with the instinct to segregate and deride anyone who deviates from them.
61 comments:
Yup.
Yup...but isn't this true of almost all societies and cultures over time...the enforcement of group norms-often violently. Do you think a 13 year old Aborigne boy would be able to say "no" to having his penis sliced open during a "manhood ritual"??
what is really so inhumane is the perniciousness of our norm...capitalist corporate striving???
You'd do better to not compare actual injustice with incarcerating violent blacks. Anarchy in Africa involves getting a tire placed around your neck which is then lit on fire. If the State has served one useful purpose it is that it has, albeit inefficiently, kept the low-IQ underclass somewhat in check. Late at night, if you are honest, you will give thanks to the Hobbesian apparatus for doing so.
Anon @ 11:02 forgot to include the Stage Direction for his character [caresses his gun lovingly, soothing his paranoia]
Put out the light, and then put out the light.
Back to the casual racism.
Welcome back guy.
Nice call Brian M. Gets at the true nature of American exceptionalism and globalism. It doesn't get better than this, but it can get so much worse.
good one, Gabe.
I'm not sure Arthur Fonzarelli is coming at it from a libertarian perspective either. Seems like he and his cohorts at reason are peddling some faux-radical strain of Polyannism instead.
@M'sieur@1120
You really think the ignorati here will have a clue? If so, "jo Mom" musta stepped out with the Prez of the local Optimists' Club.
(No offense meant, of course.)
Fuckin' hipsters.
Curious: are there any other homeschooling parents hanging out on this blog?
There might be less bullying in school if children weren't made to drink milk. Milk is the perfect food - for calves. For people, not so much.
Childhood today is gentler than the past. To mention just one example, we (of course meaning we enlightened whiterpeople) do not spank any more. Misbehaving children are placed in "time out". Spanking is the retrograde and reprehensible habit of lower class people, foreigners, minorities, our parents and ancestors, etc. You know -- everyone in the entire world and all of history, except us. How gauche these people are or were! How ignorant!
But is childhood, on net, positively improved? I don't think so. It is for some, not for others. Certainly it is safer.
that trip really turned you into a pussy.
Leonard...the sacred ancestors also didn't always bother with calling the po-lees either. They called the Lynch Mob. But we are reassured by the Anarchists witha Capital A that that's what the manly men do.
I am pining for the glorious days of tribal elder councils and multi-generational feuds myself!
curious: when are you and the s.o. getting a baby?
Nothing Gillespie or Reason or anyone is saying indicates that "everything's great." That's a super-extra-strawy straw man. They're saying it's not something that necessitates broad government intervention. They say this because they tend to believe that a) government's role is not to solve all problems and b) it may make things worse and/or have unintended consequences.
You are, of course, free to disagree with them on a), b), or both. But pretending that their position is "things are fine" is goofy. The position here is "things are much better, and this isn't something we should be flipping out over."
I gotta wonder if Briney o' the Sea calls in the Po-Po when his neighbor's dog shits on Briney's postage-stamp yard, and/or whether Briney thinks that every problem he experiences requires Po-Po or other State intervention/rescue.
I wonder this because he spent the time to craft a golf-ball sized cheese ball and put it on a gigantic tuna hook, which he then threw into the salty brine of Mare IOZ:
But we are reassured by the Anarchists witha Capital A that that's what the manly men do.
Oh, the humorless dandies and their fear of dirtying their frilly blousons!
Ah, Karl...you make my point. Such a manly man.
If you were really an independent gang enforcer, not beholden to the dire STATE (always CAPITALIZED) or police, you would certainly not have the time to be hanging out on every anarchist discussion board policing purity.
Don't you have some tribal women to protect? Or maybe some enforcement activity against your cult leader's heretic of the month? Go to it, Big A!
Karl, of course, does not own a postage stamp lawn (sadly, Karl, neither do I). KARL is a free man, a roving hunter and gatherer, living where he wishes, expropriating excess property from The Man when he wishes, thumbing his nose at the mere mortals who do not live in his pure state of Rousseauian noble savagery. We know this because Karl posts pithy and snide comments on discussion boards! What boldness!
Your Leviathan or lynch mob dichotomy is still wrong.
Gabe:
OK. But that is not what I am really claiming. I am just noting that informal justice is often quite injust (also). I AGREE with Ioz more here and often than not.
My mea culpa is that I am not robbing banks or funnelling weapons to freedom fighters like I'm sure Karl is busily doing.
Fight the Power, Karl!
Imma through Hobbesian gum in your Jew-fro now.
I am pining for the glorious days of tribal elder councils and multi-generational feuds myself!
Taking into consideration that geriatric ward known as the Senate, and dynastic names such as Paul and Udall, how are you sure you aren't already living in nirvana?
Msr. IOZ, what advice would you give to someone who occupies a respected position of authority within a society that is suspicious of dissent, intolerant of idiosyncrasy, and in general demands an attitude of uniform compliance to accepted norms with the instinct to segregate and deride anyone who deviates from them?
Would you advise them to lead their adherents toward tolerance, or instead, do you feel that the respected leader should stand aside and not get involved, rather like a $42K/yearly teacher on recess duty?
Just when you think the commentariat can't get any more literal, or stupid, or self-involved, here comes the panty-sniffer Arka to fill up yet another thread with her poorly constructed devil's advocacy, her question begging, her unduly triumphant attitude over what amounts, ultimately, to a sniffle-y nose and an observation so obvious and apparent to everyone else that it always (except when Arka has to run it into the ground) goes without saying.
I hate to say it, but I think I prefer neither A nor B.
Obama said racism was ninety percent fixed, of course, Obama said a lot of things some of them derogatory towards blacks like his comments about blacks needing to be better fathers which sounds a lot like some white guy stereotyping black people. It is certainly debatable that racism hidden is better than racism that is overt. When it is hidden it is more difficult to conceive of any solution if there is one or to even rail against it. And the same thing holds true with the indoctrination of children into consenting to slavery to normalcy whatever normalcy is, a human invention really. It seems to me that the whole parental authoritarian thing is actually a recent development, comparatively speaking, as is the state as the ultimate authority and solution to every human problem at least when you consider how long humans have been around. I think the whole idea of micromanaging a child like many parents do, or at least middle and upper class parents do is revolting and a mistake. Parents are often the most revolting of people like when they say things like “I’d do anything to protect my child.” Would that include murdering your neighbors to steal their food so your kid won’t starve? It is implied by such statements. I find myself disliking certain parents or at least the modern version of them. It’s like there is nothing more important in the world than the continuance of their own particular DNA. And why should that be? In fact if they are such assholes I wouldn’t mind seeing their DNA end with them.
Once again my brain is overworked by commentary on commentary on commentary on, yes still one more bit of commentary. That coupled with the use of the word "tolerance" in this context, and a whopping slew of lengthy parenthetical multi-negatives galore (I know that's redundant), I may just need to visit the lobotomy department of my local Kaiser's.
At least I can take heart that Eerily and I can poke dicks in delight at having got Herrn Monsieur's reference. (I say that with platonic love, EL;-)
@OP: Life is indeed wonderful and it also sucks. Whatareyagonnado? To Spain with the lot o' yins!
Welcome back Herr Monsieur. Methinks you were missed.
@Rob 3:04: Thank you, Rob, for providing such a terrible spectacle of deathlust. Most playgoers only believe the villain says that sort of thing at the climax, but in this fugue, your sick sort regularly offers up their greatest hopes and desires
May you one day feel better about the world that created you, and find again hope for all of our growing and improving in this world.
@1:11, this one would still enjoy knowing what IOZ thinks, but if you don't feel that the leader should help others learn tolerance, does that mean you stand against tolerance, or instead, that you feel, like so many piles of Charles Barkley, that leaders are not role models, and that members of that society should develop the tolerance on their own?
unfinished sentence...in a well-expressed, mathematical way that reads like the killer's list of victims.
"...I wouldn’t mind seeing their DNA end with them" is death's climax. You ask, not only unflinchingly but proudly, for the final solution of antilife. When all are dead, none will be missed.
And so he sought revenge 'pon the world.
@davidly@440am:
I have minted (not coined) a truly new word to replace that tired old "platonic".
It's "homonoietic", as opposed to "homoerotic", and connotes someone whose sexual preference is hetero but who has an essentially gay sensibility.
So, for example, M'sieur is both homonoietic and homoerotic, while I am homonoietic but not homoerotic.
Interestingly, morevoer, there are
homoerotic gays who are not homonoietic.
And of course, the picture is rounded out by all the poor straights out there doomed to live out their lives neither homonoietic nor homoerotic.
If you want a 25 word or less definition of "homonoietic" (other than "has or appreciates a gay sensibility"), just consider EM Forster's observation re Cavafy:
"He stood at a slight angle to the universe."
Due to their "outsider" status, gays have always done this, and it will be interesting to see if this changes as the mainstream becomes more accepting.
Speaking of EM Forster, here's an allusory question for you.
What is the context of:
"Es Missus Moore ... es Missus Moore".
rob payne,
yes, under the right circumstances, it would include "murdering" my neighbors for food--particularly if my neighbors were self-absorbed, self-involved, egotistical and pathologically anti-social assholes who wouldn't mind seeing my dna end with me.
PS - in my post above, this:
"It's "homonoietic", as opposed to "homoerotic", and connotes someone whose sexual preference is hetero but who has an essentially gay sensibility."
should have read:
It's "homonoietic", as opposed to "homoerotic", and connotes someone whose sexual preference may be either heteroerotic or homoerotic, but who has an essentially gay sensibility.
Otherwise, this:
So, for example, M'sieur is both homonoietic and homoerotic, while I am homonoietic but not homoerotic.
would make no sense.
Happy Jack:
Not sure at all. Not sure at all.
brian m/happy jack...
so we're at my conclusion: the world (as it is) is at the end of anarchy's rainbow. i.e., this iozian anarcholibertarianism is thoughtless trash.
Not sure what's going on here. Does someone have a solution to scarce resource allocation that doesn't involve murdering others?
puppy , you have frightened me in seeing in your comments on past posts that you have said that you would do anything for your own child .. .. of rob's comments here ..
so when anne gets frightened her flighty fingers calm down enough to allow her to type a semi-coherent sentence without almost any extraneous ellipses.
hey, anne....
BOO!
.. . my ellipses are different .. . ,
anne,
it is a fundamental aspect of human nature... much like interpreting ioz' main moral directive to be "don't be a jerk", but then watching ioz&al be jerks.
my comments are meant as honesty--but that doesn't entail prescriptive.
in other words, what is fortunate for you is that my interests (in protecting me and mine) are circumscribed by an understanding that others are, at heart, the same creature, human.
the result is what political theorists call "social compact"--those rules that undergird societal norms. this is the danger of anarchism. it's an entertaining role to play the contrarian and turn "conventional wisdom" on its head, to say that rules are what are fucking us up (and note that i say "rules", not "the rules" and not any rule in particular--because that's the progressive stance, from which these anarchists except themselves)... but anarchism as illustrated on these boards ignores the realities of this fundamental compromise... the fundamental compromise that keeps you safe from me (read: social creatures)... and that keeps me safe from you.
it doesn't necessarily help against the antisocial. but then, that's my critique of anarchism--it fosters antisocial behaviors and attitudes.
@How Eerie. Hey, it don't matter how we do the dick-bump, somebody's gonna find it homoerotic. Likely the more macho the better.
But you spit one portmanteau too many for me: So was that, like, a mysterious and rhetorical question, or whut?
@High Arka: Comeon, lighten up. You're a scribe. Can't you tell when somebody is channelling their outrage prosaically?
davidly about reminds me .. , i think that i said something of .. "mother (father) hides the murder" in wondering what kate meant by that .. . with one of puppy's own comments in the past .. . to you by mail .. .
davidly - you asked
"But you spit one portmanteau too many for me: So was that, like, a mysterious and rhetorical question, or whut?"
If you mean my question involving the Missus Moore quote, I was just testing the scope of your allusory recall ...
to the weeble is back query way above .. ,made in the last few days i guess , .. i home schooled myself .. . clearly .. ,
Well, at least you've stopped pretending to be French, anne.
Is a social compact anything like a social contract, or is my female intuition burning?
i was never pretending to be french .. . , just finding some pleasure in the scape and pace there .. .
anne, you do realize that nothing is ever utterly erased or purged on the interweb, right? Would you care to retract that lie?
puppylander: I am by no means an expert (ask Karl for that!)...I guess I agree with the idea that Anarchism should be a process of doubt and questioning.
I doubt there can ever be an end state of "anarchism" but that doesn't mean I want to be forced to Pledge the Allegian Under God and all the other semi-religious nationalist claptrap the American State demands, either.
brian,
well, there is no "end" of the rainbow (anarchy's rainbow is just a circle--like those lawn sprinkler raincircles--and a vicious one, at that).
what i had meant to suggest is, if you endorse anarchy, then you have to endorse (or accept) the consequences. at least, this proposition makes some sense to me (but i'm sure folks here will disagree--conveniently easy as it has been for them to disavow and except the roles they play in the blowing to bits of random afghanis).
what i posit is, if you think about the various thisandthats that ioz&al are so fond of critiquing, you'll find that they are, in fact, natural consequences of anarchy. e.g., the "state" is the *natural* result of anarchy. they *seem* oppositional, but they're actually complementary.
Dear davidly, it's possible; maybe Mr. Payne would defend it that way. The helpful part about understanding that one does not own one's mind is that one may say things and commit oneself to philosophies to which one did not originally intend to commit. The hypothetical dictator does not often wake up in the morning, for example, thinking, "Today, I will be evil."
When rhetoric begins to lead someone there, it is a good time to help that very someone realize what they are advocating and help steer them back to a love for life. Pointing to the horror at the end of that road can be a good way to bring footsteps to a shocked halt--or, conversely, to elicit an angry reaction that leaves that one all the more determined to stamp in that direction.
A failed quest, perhaps, but until we turn to violence to force others off that road, all we have is words and the hope of hope.
what i posit is, if you think about the various thisandthats that ioz&al are so fond of critiquing, you'll find that they are, in fact, natural consequences of anarchy. e.g., the "state" is the *natural* result of anarchy. they *seem* oppositional, but they're actually complementary.
Which thought, if I'm not mistaken, has been expressed by our host numerous times.
But never mind that, my real question is:
Why are y'all so mean and nasty these days? Something in the virtual water?
Oh my. Two responses and a Kate Bush reference from anne. I feel like the prettiest boy at the ball!
But I really feel like crap repeatedly encouraging distraction from the would be topic at hand.
Four semesters of teaching Deutschkinder English; a particular five-year-old had a wicked scary hunting knife he was playing with on recess. He was very much a testicular'd version of Veruca Salt: "My dad gave it to me and said I could play with it."
I'm sure his dad was a real friggin' sweetheart. You see, it wasn't that he let him free with a knife, but that he was teaching his brat to be a bossy asshole. Oh, yeah; and he had a knife.
@Eerily: I ain' hip.
@High Arka: Yeah, I reckon you were playin' nice. Sorry. No, waita minute...
anne: Of course most of 'em would. You know, like the first few several times. I mean, it's like one's flesh and blood, after all. Like a really super-personalized, tailored app from one of them fancy computer companies, but it says it loves you even though y'take it for granted and treat it kind of roughly sometimes.
Though, the one in Kate's version is pretty sweet and far as I can tell. And hiding the murder was just one of the many things she did for her darling baby.
christopher, has he? because in that case, i don't understand the push for anarcholibertarianism or whateverhewantstocallit.
who's pushing for or advocating anything? anarchy isn't a goal it's a pipedream.
recognizing the current social order is doomed, and pretending, as soft Westerners, that the prospect of a more level playing field in terms of violence and the ravages of a future(real, not manufactured) scarcity isn't terrifying, is less bravado than dark humor in admitting that, yeah: just desserts.
(sorry about the run-on.)
the state isn't something for us to work to destroy. it's something to understand and cope with. since i've been here, this has seemed like a place to bounce ideas about how to cope. it's never been a hotbed of revolutionary anrachism. and there used to be a sense of humor to the banter in the comment section.
of course i speak only for myself. maybe i totally misunderstand IOZ. ymmv. but the comments suck lately.
"what i had meant to suggest is, if you endorse anarchy, then you have to endorse (or accept) the consequences." - puppylander
"No nos dan miedo las ruinas, por que llevamos un mundo nuevo en nuestros corazones..." - from elsewhere in spacetime.
C.Nihil quit trying to chain anarchy to the armchair please. The anarchists/etc of North America are in a particularly suffocating spot, no doubt. Greece, Italy, Chile (e.g.) are a different story... though even in those places, obviously, a better world isn't being dished out on silver platters. It's a war and wars are tough.
Whether the difficulty of the task kindles or extinguishes the flame of your individual will, that's the question.
Anne is no longer French, when did this happen?
French? This is IOZ, I always figured Greek.
d., i'm trying to focus more on my love of commas , .. my pace is still in france ..not to worry .. .
and let's not forget all the psychotropic drugs, dude.
Justin
Davidly my name is Tom Kennedy and I'm responding to a comment of yours from NBC's probasketballtalk that reads:
"That’s it–I’m ‘onn’ fight alla y’alls’ dads!!"
Those dads would kick you hard in the face, breaking it. Then they would cut your stomach open with a chainsaw, exposing your intestines. Then they would cut your windpipe in two with a boxcutter. Hopefully you'll get what's coming to you. Incoherent retard! I really hope that they curb-stomp you. It'd be hilarious to see you begging for help, and then they stomp on the back of your head, leaving you to die in horrible, agonizing pain. Idiot Shut the heck up idiot, before all of them unleashes their ultimate fury as they would bash your face in and cut it to ribbons, and then slit your throat.
And you can continue our discussion with me at the link below:
https://www.facebook.com/MAKEITTEN
Post a Comment