- 01 Jun 2018 18:31
#14920025
A story I'm apparently still bitter about was there was this kid in high school who would tear up my homework or my drawings. I told the school librarian and some teachers but they refused to do anything. Since the only way to stop the kid appeared to be to punch him, I gave him a slug and then I got in trouble for that. To this day I refuse to trust authority
I also made the mistake of joining a quasi-political discussion group on Facebook. I'm a little more cautious there than here obviously. Still, the shit that young people would write was confusing me. One kid seemed to believe that the point of a protest is to force people to do what you want, not to draw attention to an issue or whatever. If you look at the ways young people protest these days (and I'm only in my 30's, I just don't feel young I guess) this seems to be a widespread belief, from blocking roads and grocery stores to physically shutting down venues and calling it a protest.
So how did they come to such a conclusion? I suspect it's because my experience was not unique. What young people are taught these days is this: if you're a little shit and stay under the radar, you can harass someone until they give into you. If you get onto the radar, you're fucked, regardless of who is right or wrong. This is why they think that things like protests are acts of force, instead of acts of discussion; they're essentially reacting to the signals they got when they were growing up.
I somehow got the idea that a protest was meant to draw attention to an issue, not to try and force someone to do anything, or similarly that a debate was about uncovering the truth of a matter, not just a shallow attempt to hurt someone's feelings but these do not appear to be ideas that a majority of young people would recognize today, or at least not a majority of those who are the most politically active.
I also made the mistake of joining a quasi-political discussion group on Facebook. I'm a little more cautious there than here obviously. Still, the shit that young people would write was confusing me. One kid seemed to believe that the point of a protest is to force people to do what you want, not to draw attention to an issue or whatever. If you look at the ways young people protest these days (and I'm only in my 30's, I just don't feel young I guess) this seems to be a widespread belief, from blocking roads and grocery stores to physically shutting down venues and calling it a protest.
So how did they come to such a conclusion? I suspect it's because my experience was not unique. What young people are taught these days is this: if you're a little shit and stay under the radar, you can harass someone until they give into you. If you get onto the radar, you're fucked, regardless of who is right or wrong. This is why they think that things like protests are acts of force, instead of acts of discussion; they're essentially reacting to the signals they got when they were growing up.
I somehow got the idea that a protest was meant to draw attention to an issue, not to try and force someone to do anything, or similarly that a debate was about uncovering the truth of a matter, not just a shallow attempt to hurt someone's feelings but these do not appear to be ideas that a majority of young people would recognize today, or at least not a majority of those who are the most politically active.
Orb Team Re-Assemble!