[Kman]

Is something I read on the side of a small trailer while walking home from the supermarket nearby, it was a trailer parked at a large public school in my area. I guess this is part of their brilliant plan for making young kids believe in themselves after they have ripped them away from their families for most of the day and put them into a prisonesque place full of strangers.



Let us just ignore the fact that both point 4,5 are 100% false. And people wonder why I want to homeschool any kids I have, who would want them exposed to these loons for 6-8 hours per day?

[Daktoria]

The message really isn't entirely without merit, but it doesn't really help. It's a cop out for insisting on social distance.

Point 8 is the most revealing. Analytically speaking, it doesn't make sense. It's actually quite depressing. Laughing when you "don't get it" is very exhausting and still keeps you out of the loop.

Synthetically speaking, though, it makes perfect sense. If you want to fit in, you have to behave the way others do, and you have to condition your mind to fit with the emotions of others. You also have to hide in the crowd of laughter to avoid being outcast.

Every other point in the message suffers from the same analytic-synthetic dichotomy of interpretations, but this seemed to be the best example. If social outcasts don't learn to understand AND appreciate synthetic thought, it won't make a difference.

Social elites who interpret everything in synthetic (power) relations, however, aren't likely to explain this. Heck, they don't WANT to explain this because it would jeopardize their status.

[Rancid]

Part of this stems from the false ideal that if you raise kids in a world that is ideal (for example, we're all equals in abilities which is bullshit of course), that somehow you will end up with the perfect ideal society. What's wrong with the mode of thinking is that by raising kids like this, is that we think that by mimicking what is ideal behavior, we will somehow achieve it. This can work against that goal because it causes us to loose focus on the fundamental issues in our culture and values that might actually helps us create said ideal world. This is a mode of thinking the leftist tend to fall into more than rightists.

If my child comes home with some stupid ass poster like that, I'll set him straight. We aren't fucking equal, some of use are smarter than others.

[Lightman]

What's funny is that Kman himself is the perfect example of the problem of the "you are a special snowflake" mentality.

[Daktoria]

Part of this stems from the false ideal that if you raise kids in a world that is ideal (for example, we're all equals in abilities which is bullshit of course), that somehow you will end up with the perfect ideal society. What's wrong with the mode of thinking is that by raising kids like this, is that we think that by mimicking what is ideal behavior, we will somehow achieve it. This can work against that goal because it causes us to loose focus on the fundamental issues in our culture and values that might actually helps us create said ideal world. This is a mode of thinking the leftist tend to fall into more than rightists.

If my child comes home with some stupid ass poster like that, I'll set him straight. We aren't fucking equal, some of use are smarter than others.

Rancid, I don't think you understood the poster's point.

The poster is intended for children who are suffering. If your child is getting picked on, the poster is intended to help explain how to stop being picked on. You shouldn't "set" your child straight.

The poster is intended SYNTHETICALLY, NOT ANALYTICALLY. It helps children by telling them to be neither cowardly nor arrogant.

Point 3 - you are worth as much as other people. You aren't worth less (cowardly) OR more (arrogantly) than others.

Point 4 - you are as clever as other people. You aren't less (cowardly) OR more (arrogantly) clever.

The poster is trying to help children build thickskins. That way, they can be treated with respect and know how to stand up for, but not expose, themselves.

[Rancid]

If that is the case, this poster does a TERRIBLE job of communicating that. So this poster is still garbage.

[Daktoria]

If that is the case, this poster does a TERRIBLE job of communicating that. So this poster is still garbage.

Definitely. The poster was definitely designed by people who take synthetic thinking for granted.

This is what makes public education such a crummy practice though. Faculty are excused from personally relating with students, and they end up creating professional distance such that it's unnecessary to actually understand how children think.

[Rainbow Crow]

[Pants-of-dog]

I am a beautiful and unique piece of decaying organic matter.

[septimine]

I think the self-esteem movement has things exactly backward. The first thing to do is achieve something. Then you feel good about being able to do something and try new stuff, and you find out what you can actually do. The self esteem movement doesn't do that, but rather puts a kid in a challenge free environment and prevents him from achieving, and thus getting true self esteem. Telling someone that they are awesome is counter productive because the unspoken message of telling kids this while preventing them from trying difficult things is that it's all words.

It's interesting that "self esteem" is only needed in the modern world, and that we've gotten by for 10,000 years without it.

[Eauz]

after they have ripped them away from their families for most of the day and put them into a prisonesque place full of strangers.

Who is forcing these people to send their kids to these places? Since the parents want to improve their life by working rather than raising their own children, they have accepted to send their kids to these places. Maybe you should blame the economy for developing a large consumer based society with low wages and high turnover of staff. But, regardless of this, no one is ripping these children away from the parents. The parents have freely given them over to daycare and public/private schools. If you want to home school your children, at least here in Canada and U.S., you can do that too. But, parents have seen that in order for their children to be accepted into future educational institutions, they have realised that the public/private school system is the best thing for their child's future. Learning about how God created dinosaurs that lived with humans is just not going to get you into Harvard or Stanford.

[Daktoria]

Who is forcing these people to send their kids to these places?

Teh gummint.

Since the parents want to improve their life by working rather than raising their own children, they have accepted to send their kids to these places. Maybe you should blame the economy for developing a large consumer based society with low wages and high turnover of staff. But, regardless of this, no one is ripping these children away from the parents.

...or we could blame the parents for having kids before they're ready.

The parents have freely given them over to daycare and public/private schools. If you want to home school your children, at least here in Canada and U.S., you can do that too. But, parents have seen that in order for their children to be accepted into future educational institutions, they have realised that the public/private school system is the best thing for their child's future. Learning about how God created dinosaurs that lived with humans is just not going to get you into Harvard or Stanford.

Wait, come again? You want to blame consumer culture, and then do exactly what it takes to keep it going?

[Eauz]

...or we could blame the parents for having kids before they're ready.

Well, there is a short time frame for women to have their first child before the chances of the child having a mental disease increase quite a bit. If you haven't had a child before 34-36, then you probably shouldn't because this is the time when mental illness and general health conditions increases in the child. So, for most women, they have between 18-30 (12 years) to find a stable, rewarding career as well as a husband/boyfriend to get pregnant. Yes, there is always adoption, but for most women, they actually want their own child, at least the first time. Add to this the fact that many of us grew up with one parent who worked and the other who stayed home to raise us, the idea of having a 10 year window to achieve financial stability and have a healthy relationship is tough, especially in these economic times.

Wait, come again? You want to blame consumer culture, and then do exactly what it takes to keep it going?

I'm suggesting that if they have a problem with children going to school or daycare instead of staying at home with their parents, then they should look at the economic conditions that exist not try and blame scapegoats. No one is saying that kids MUST go to school/daycare, but in the end, many parents send their children to public/private schools in order to have a higher chance of success and gaining more in the future. I'm not attempting to blame consumerism, but the fact remains that if people want to go on Summer trips, drive cars, have a house, raise children and send them to school, the chances in this economy of having one parent stay at home while the other is working is fairly slim. Of course, this does happen, but the majority of people I know don't even own a car or a house but still both work and send their children to educational institutions rather than have one parent stay home. If you want something to blame, the concept of consumerism along with the continuous increase in the cost of goods and services has pushed parents to send their kids to school.

[Daktoria]

Well, there is a short time frame for women to have their first child before the chances of the child having a mental disease increase quite a bit. If you haven't had a child before 34-36, then you probably shouldn't because this is the time when mental illness and general health conditions increases in the child. So, for most women, they have between 18-30 (12 years) to find a stable, rewarding career as well as a husband/boyfriend to get pregnant. Yes, there is always adoption, but for most women, they actually want their own child, at least the first time. Add to this the fact that many of us grew up with one parent who worked and the other who stayed home to raise us, the idea of having a 10 year window to achieve financial stability and have a healthy relationship is tough, especially in these economic times.

Not only in Denmark, but across the developed world, does the top out age for mothering not seem to be a problem.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/49/41919586.pdf (Lots of graphs, easy read)

I'm suggesting that if they have a problem with children going to school or daycare instead of staying at home with their parents, then they should look at the economic conditions that exist not try and blame scapegoats. No one is saying that kids MUST go to school/daycare, but in the end, many parents send their children to public/private schools in order to have a higher chance of success and gaining more in the future. I'm not attempting to blame consumerism, but the fact remains that if people want to go on Summer trips, drive cars, have a house, raise children and send them to school, the chances in this economy of having one parent stay at home while the other is working is fairly slim. Of course, this does happen, but the majority of people I know don't even own a car or a house but still both work and send their children to educational institutions rather than have one parent stay home. If you want something to blame, the concept of consumerism along with the continuous increase in the cost of goods and services has pushed parents to send their kids to school.

Yes, the government says kids have to go to school, and even if it didn't, it should. No child asks to be born into society. Ergo, all children are entitled to social assimilation which includes understanding intersubjective customs, values, and the rule of law. Without assimilation, it couldn't be proven that society even exists. If parents want to keep children at home, they should have to pass an extensive philosophical exam, proving they're committed to teaching their children social values so they don't become alienated.

If anything, public education as we know it today is insufficient.

Anyway, the real problem seems to be the very obsession with economy you have right now. Instead of focusing on the cycle between consumption and production, people are only concerned with hypercompeting in the labor market without actually formulating a community. If we just focus on the means of production, morale becomes severely drained, and never replenished.

In turn, yes, consumerism is a problem. The compulsive acquisition of products to make up for this draining is further dissociating people from one another, but a large part of this is a refusal to be familiar with math.

Marx hated math. He hated it very explicitly in his depiction of abstract versus concrete labor, and this hatred does not help. People need to be able to judge time for themselves instead of simply estimating everything and hoping employers, banks, and suppliers can come together in a roundabout way for them. His labor theory of value substitute does not overcome this because it completely ignores how "use value" is an instantaneous experience.

To overcome consumerism, people need to: 1) be confident with doing math for themselves, and 2) be confident with doing math with others. That way, instead of feeling anxious to simply buy whatever's on the shelf and what's advertised to them, they actually customize their purchases into relatable commodities. This customization will involve socializing, and it will also boost social confidence because people will not just own and control the means of production, but understand and appreciate it too. Math is key to learning how people use time.

[Godstud]

We are all unique!

[Daktoria]

We are all unique!

Nah bro. Just you. We're all normal.

[Godstud]

[youtube]LQqq3e03EBQ[/youtube]

[Daktoria]

[youtube]U0kJHQpvgB8[/youtube]

[Godstud]

Monty Python has ALL the answers!

[ped2000]

Dime store psychology sells books. It's a very lucrative market.