tbh two different people gain two different lessons being raised this way. your experience is unique. others have went to the military and/or had tough dads and it made them completely better as a person. "bullying" is a natural part of human life. its always up to the person to be courageous and get through. Your personal perspective is apart of current societies views on it...plus your own. there are kids who had no father with no discipline and ended up worse than you likely. choose your battles with parents because the hardest lessons come with the greatest rewards
i think you're getting discipline and bullying confused, they're very different things. discipline is of course necessary, but going through life walking on eggshells because you don't know exactly what is going to set your dad off but you know it's coming for one reason or another because he's clearly in a bad mood is not having a "tough dad", and does not make anybody better as a person.
in order to hold this opinion, you either have to not actually know what it's like to experience parental bullying, or you have to be in complete denial.
Very much agree. It is a very common way to justify one's bullying, by calling it discipline. But the truth is, if there aren't any clear rules and it's up to one's mood, then it's bullying.
Exactly. The only lesson my dad taught me is to be around him as little as possible, and to be as invisible as possible when I did have to be in the same room with him. I never knew what would make him explode.
Absence of bullying doesn't mean absence of discipline.
In no situation bullying is a good thing. Bullying is devastating and an unhealthy way of teaching things.
You comment is basically saying "bullying didn't work on you because you were too weak". That's borderline victim shaming and completely insensitive.
Courage has nothing to do with coping with bullying, and you should not need courage for daily interactions with your parents who ought to be your support instead.
You need validation and constructive criticism to grow and bullying is kinda the opposite of this. This validation and constructive criticism will give you the chance to build up self confidence which, in turn, may also you to grow a "thick skin". No need for bullying, which usually takes away your self confidence.
> Absence of bullying doesn't mean absence of discipline.
If you're caught and punished immediately every single time you do X, you develop the internal discipline to avoid doing X almost instantly. A mild punishment is ample in this case - for many children saying "you know that isn't right" is sufficient.
If you're caught only 10% of the time you do X, whether the punishment is mild or severe, the lesson is "don't get caught". No severity of punishment is a deterrent to those who do not believe they will be caught.
Essentially, if kids aren't being called out for misbehavior reliably, it doesn't matter how severe the punishment is (because kids have poor judgement & don't think they'll be caught _this_ time). If they _are_ being called out for misbehavior reliably, they know they aren't going to get away with it - so the punishment only needs to be unpleasant enough to make a poor trade for whatever advantages the behavior has.
Further, parents occasionally mis-identify the situation and kids get falsely accused (when perhaps a sibling actually did it). A severe punishment undermines parental authority in a way that a "I'm disappointed that this happened" conversation does not.
I'd argue that this makes what's typically referred to as "parental bullying" the opposite of effective discipline training. Severe punishments handed out haphazardly teach you not to be identified as a culprit.
To make matters worse, it's a whole spectrum rather than some clear delineation between constructive discipline and psyche ruining abuse.
On the constructive end, you have feedback and learning that can improve someone. It reinforces healthy feelings encouraging positive and discouraging negative behavior, both for the individual and for their expectations of others.
On the destructive end, randomized punishment leads to neurosis. Without any proper correlation between actions and consequences, the recipient develops fear and agitation without any useful training on how to improve outcomes. As I recall, this is a textbook result even in lab rats. It doesn't require the complexity of the human psyche.
In between, you can still have things like PTSD or the "walking on egg shells" mentioned upthread. In this broad gray area, one might at best learn avoidance of abusers or toxic environments. Or one might infer that they are punished for their mere existence, which could channel into all sorts of detrimental coping strategies.
Another result can be generalized anxiety. One might learn that the world is just full of random threat, rather than taking the more personal view that the abuse is punishment focused on the self.
The "reasonable person" from law is not an average or typical person. It's an idealized person who doesn't change very much over time because the concept is rooted in common law. The average or typical person can change dramatically as social norms and movements go, but common law moves very slowly by accumulation of precedent.
I think that’s his point: the legal fiction goes back to Roman law and is specifically invariant when used for questions of constitutional equality or egalitarianism.
IMO, human nature has not changed, culture at large has not radically shifted, and the world is not coming to an end. This is just wide-tie/skinny-tie stuff.
But many people have said essentially the same thing, over the course of many years. I think there’s a moment for each of us when we realize that our worldview isn’t substantially similar to that of others anymore, especially younger people.
Personal experience is useful. All kinds of groups were mistreated, historically speaking. If we keep pulling up old grievances, society remains perpetually divided. How many lynchings did you witness yourself? Or hear from first-hand witnesses?
I think you have a point, and I have often felt the same way. However, it gets very murky when deciding where the line of "currently relevant" gets drawn versus what is just "historical". There are so many factors, including whether or not it feels that an injustice was ever addressed in a meaningful way by a population that continues to identify with and evangelize the perpetrators of that injustice.
How many firings for presumed inflammatory conduct have you witnessed or hear from first-hand witnesses? Personally, I've been fortunate not to have experienced any of these, but I do believe they exist and reading about them is useful for informing my worldview. It's helpful to understand how corporations and institutions are ingesting and digesting societal trends around evolving cultural awareness of injustice in order to protect their commercial interests.
Very serious injustices have occurred within the recent past. Take, for example the 1985 MOVE Bombing, in which Philadelphia police bombed a house in a predominantly black neighborhood during an armed standoff with the MOVE group. Whether or not you feel the bombing of an armed group was a justified use of force by police, the subsequent 61 homes that were allowed to burn down are harder to justify. This was followed by the ethically fraught decision by the Philadelphia Health Commissioner to cremate/dispose of any human remains without contacting family members, with the ultimate result that those remains were used in UPenn and Princeton "forensic anthropology" courses without any chance for their families to reclaim their remains.
More recently, I personally witnessed Philadelphia police corral Black Lives Matter protesters into an enclosed space on the side of the highway with no exits and fire tear gas into the crowd. On the news, I watched a number of similar confrontations take place in multiple cities in the nation.
When inequality continues, I have come to appreciate that the ability to feel that a grievance is historical is a privilege. A significant motivation for people to turn to history is to better understand the struggles through which they are currently living. For these people, understanding the historical context is not a way to bring up old grievances, it is a lens through which they can properly understand how systematic disparities in due process and access have produced today's injustices. It is an aid to better identify how currently extant systems create unfair conditions at a large scale.
Very odd that people who want thicker skin in our culture would find it so distasteful that I've simply shared some recent history and some first-hand personal experience without any particular name calling or inflammatory remarks. Can't a person share their thoughts anymore? Really didn't mean to offend anybody and somewhat surprised that I have seemed to.
Nobody is privileged in absolute terms. Everybody has their own troubles. Groups (racial, social, whatever) are a useful abstraction, not a reality. And if anyone has to compensate anybody for anything, that's what the justice system is for.
I agree that nobody is privileged in absolute terms, and do not feel that your statement conflicts with anything I have written. We seem to also agree that abstractions can be useful, but perhaps disagree on whether or not the "realness" of a concept must necessarily be related to the capacity for that concept have effects on society and on real people that may be beneficial or harmful.
The justice system is ideally intended to provide fair and impartial justice, but I think it's also fair and reasonable to point out when it falls short of that ideal. In fact, in a democratic society, I would argue that an informed and vocal public is a necessary component of keeping institutions accountable to the people.
> Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
Comcast has an all-women Open Source Program Office, which sounds like a way to include females in engineering. But they define women as "females and males who want to be seen as female" which doesn't help women actually get jobs.
The Scottish National Party has sex-quotas to achieve more-equal representation by men and women, but they let men who claim to be women take these seats.
Are either actually inclusive? Are they inclusive of women? If you have a daughter, do either of those measures better her life.
And yet both actions meet the 'Social' criteria of ESG scores, and serve to boost a company's rankings and thus lower its interest rate on sustainability linked loans.
Nothing about 'affirmative action' is inclusive. People just see it as positive 'because minority.' It can not lead to a positive outcome longer term (even now, where all-female teams are now seen as a positive but all-male teams are a negative, regardless of context).
What should happen is across the board equality of opportunity. While making sure the opportunity is truly fair, focus on stamping out prejudice and 'isms. You can't force immediate changes, but you can remove the barriers to equality to let the changes happen.
im not understanding..... how does "his" culture war "obsession" make him look foolish? we literally have people running around as females calling themselves men and vice versa. is that not the crux of foolery
this is akin to teaching 5 + 5 = 12 and being upset a governor is stepping in to fix the issue
People said the same thing about gay people. Hell, millions of Americans still feel the same way about gay people. But the rest of us are decent enough to offer kindness and acceptance, while ignorant people like you suffer verbal diarrhea.
Half of the insurance companies have pulled out of his state and he's spending tens of millions of hurricane relief funds to sue Disney and Budweiser while the Gulf of Mexico is 100 degrees.
Absolutely. The best parts of modern psychology are CBT and finding a better mind state. The drugs sometimes help shake up your mind enough to find that.
