Somehow Stuka Fox implied "german" to me so I wanted to go on a rant about how this stuff also has religion as source because of my experience as a non-german (aka white n**r ) in different parts of germany. But I dont have time.

Basically religion (or ideology) gives you this false feeling of confidence that if you do something immoral for the religious or ideological greater good you can repent and repeat. And fear of "different" people is something that can only be overcome by social skills, education and experience which is mostly addressed above.

Why choose "Stuka Fox" if there is all that (or some :-) humanism behind that facade?

No comments? Seriously? How do you explain this away? Is the self proclaimed master negotiator really just an uneducated macho malicious wannabe dictator?

He is not clinically stupid and seems to have a limited set of social skills but he appears to be totally oblivious. He has the words (also a limited set), but he does not know things.

Which sane first world person could possibly consider the man in this video to be a viable community leader?

The only rational explanation I can come up with is that god has a sense of humour. Something is not right.

Quoting Sniper007:

" A child is put at a tremendous disadvantage when they are taught that they can not learn anything except through formal schooling."

-- I completely and 100% agree with this, except . . .

" This is the inevitable life lesson all children are taught in schools (public or private)."

-- Reeeeealllly? Can I get some kind of cite on this? FWIW, I attended public schools -- good and bad -- and never came away with this lesson at all. Nor do I know anyone else who has. In fact, I'd say my view is the polar opposite of your own: as a self-made man, the most valuable lessons I've learned have come from experience (better known as The School of Hard Knocks).

"But for those who do wish to so delegate the sacred honor of teaching one's own child to a third party government agent(...)"

-- So you can't do both? You can't have trained educators teaching your child important fundamentals like math, science, languages and arts while you teach them social skills and whatever form of ethics and mores you want to instill them? To do the first is the cede the second?

Here's a little anecdote on my experience with home schooling:

My sister, now 30, was home-schooled by my parents. Her entire work history, up until now, has been a disaster. Lost jobs, conflicts with managers and co-workers, absenteeism -- everything shy of stealing from her employer. Why? Because she expected the world to revolve around her once she had her GED. She thought she was smarter than everyone else because she never had the social experience of encountering different levels of competence. Because home schooling catered to her needs and wants, she figured employers should do the same. Because she never had to learn classroom structure, she never learned to play nice with authority and know her place and work within it.

This is an anecdote and therefor does not equal data. But I think had my parents decided to send my sister to a public school, she'd be a lot farther ahead in her work-life than she is now and she would have had an easier road getting there.

Your mileage may vary, and hopefully will.

@Gratefulmom

People who disagree with science generally don't come out so well in the end--see anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, etc. I'd change my mind about these kindergartens if there were solid science behind them.

And if you look into it, you'll see there is very little good science to support this style of kindergarten (i.e. the sample sizes are small, no case studies or longitudinal studies, studies rely heavily on self-reporting of either parents and children, etc.) whereas there is a lot of well done research that shows the lifelong benefits of "traditional" pre-schooling (i.e. longitudinal studies that show demonstrable effects even after controlling for external factors).

I would love to see a well thought out longitudinal study that compares how the outdoor kindergarteners fair against those from traditional classrooms but unfortunately the only research I could find compared the outdoor kids to kids who had never been to kindergarten at all.

And of course comparing kids who went to any sort of kindergarten to kids who haven't is going to favor the kindergarten kids if you're looking at things like social skills, ability to take direction from adults, etc. (which is exactly what the studies done on the outdoor kindergartens do).

So it's not about disagreeing with you so much as it is not finding any evidence that this style of pre-school is better than going to a traditional preschool that includes a healthy amount of outdoor playtime (at least 1 to 2 hours a day if not more).

He is stating some pretty obvious shit at the end...yeah, dipshit, we hate movies because people are relying too much on CG and not story. That is the point. It has only become worse--and this I blame more on capitalism and money-making quotas. Not on CG itself. But it is a byproduct. Just like Facebook and cellphones have blunted real life social skills, we get films where we hate them because they have to use crap CG.

There is something very simple but effective in work here. Letting kids be kids, let them get dirty and adults just hanging out with them teaches more valuable lessons of life than any hovering tiger-mom style. Asian countries have surpassed Scandinavian in math skills but at horrible cost. It's just stupid to put kids in to super-learning mode if they grow up unhappy, with social skill problems, unable to fit or feel accomplished.. I like our way of doing things, thank you very much. Eat dirt, climb where you shouldn't and fall down, scrape knees, explore without fear, get hurt, discover, all of that is important part of growing up.

That's what I meant by the fake sentiment. It's pretending to be so deep and mature but as you say, it's just someone who's attracted to a pretty girl. And, despite pretending otherwise, this jackass is definitely judging the others on their shallow choice.

Even if you take it as bad casting or the clumsy metaphor I mentioned, he's absolutely not unique at all. Any relationship beyond one with the girl in the porno video you're watching involves more than just appearances and involves personality compatibility. Guys don't talk about this at the pub because it's weird; shallowness is, to some extent, expected. It's not a heart-to-heart discussion.

Perhaps why that's weird would be a good subject for his next poetry. As it is, this is just "hey I'm not judging you cretins for being pathetically shallow, I'm just saying I'm so much better than you because I uniquely see beyond physical attributes and lack the social skills to realise that I'm not unique and I'm taking a pub conversation way too seriously and you guys are never inviting me out again are you?".

Bah. I'm actually annoyed now. Why has anyone upvoted this? I'm not judging you guys for being pathetically shallow, I'm just saying I'm so much better than you because I almost uniquely see beyond the smulch.

I entered this scene through rejection and honesty
Nerds weren't mean, they were weird and that worked for me
After 10 years of teasing when social skills failed me
Dungeons & Dragons cured all that ailed me

We read books, we played games, we made art, we watched Lost
We said things like "D20", "shipping" and "Mana cost"
It felt good to be myself, not being mocked
Still self-conscious, though, we whispered things about jocks

But one day, you grow up, come into your own
Now geek's not rejection - it's a label I own
Then ignorant haters come to prove me wrong
Tell me I'm not nerdy enough to belong

I've got nothing to prove
I've got nothing to prove
I've got nothing to prove

Fake Geek Girl test - that's a funny one, go ahead
How many comic books are there I haven't read?
I know it feels good to have a contest you win
It would feel even better if I wanted in

So women aren't geeks, so is that your conclusion?
That this is some secret club based on exclusion?
12-year-old dorks would say you're being selfish
And then they'd go write in their journals in Elvish

I've got nothing to prove
I've got nothing to prove
I've got nothing to prove

I've got cred but honestly, I shouldn't need it
This world needs all kinds of folks to complete it
You've got gamers, and artists and comic subscribers
Cosplayers, crafters and fan-fiction writers

You can stop - never say "fake geek" again
Our club needs no bouncers - all who want in get in
But go ahead, if you want, to own that role fully
I ain't got nothing to prove to a bully!

I've got nothing to prove
I've got nothing to prove
I've got nothing to prove

Haters are gonna hate

Disgusting videos made by disgusting people. These mens rights losers only appeared AFTER feminism came to exist. The reason being all these losers feel they've lost something simply because woman have caught up a little. Half of these guys are losers that don't know how to talk to woman. They call themselves the beta males and hate alpha males that have social skills and the woman that like these men. Call these loser out they shout mangina, faggot, or pussy. Fucking hilarious. Apparently if you don't hate woman, you're a 'pussy' because a pussy is bad thing to these guys. I love pussy. These guys ADORE cock.

They claim you 'can't stick up for yourself' even if you are breathing down their throats. These guys have a lunatic like men vs woman misogyny that is jaw dropping. If you're a woman and get them angry with reality, they threaten to rape, beat, and kill you. If you're a man, they claim you're a woman or that you have no balls and are controlled by woman. These animals contribute to why the world is a horrible place. Humanity is garbage because of people like this.

Music and arts are probably more important than math or history when it comes to developing critical and creative thinking skills. Healthy sex is as important as eating and sleeping and are all very important to memory function, logic, problem-solving, etc. You seem to think sex is so different from other human activities but it isn't. Categorizing things into social and non-social doesn't apply here since a major function of schools is to teach kids social skills so that they can be productive members of society.

99% of success in life depends on social skills. Right now the best and the brightest are not accomplishing anything because they are too shy or messed up by their history to use their abilities to the fullest.

Oh and condoms are a tool used in forging the mind. Sex is one of the most powerful forces that drives our beings so of course tools and knowledge regarding this major part of our lives is important.

Your version of schooling has never been and hopefully never will be. Please check out some of the research that is out there. There has been much talk the last few years about the serious problems caused by removing music and art programs from schools for example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sex isn't something that is happening in school

Translation: I NEVER HAD SEX IN SCHOOL! ...or since

Blah, way to be a jerk and not stay on topic.
I shall be a little more clear with what I am saying as I think my message got lost in peoples spin on doing the hibbidy dibidy all the live long day.
Books, teachers, science labs, paper, pens, are part of the education process provided by the state. Having sex in the middle of the class is not. While sex education is a must, having sex in school is not on the curiculum as far as the state should be involved in. IE, condoms are not a pen, a book or any other tool used in forging the mind.
Like some have pointed out (tackfully unlike the nice person above), sex is part of the natural social evolution of a person. Right, but that isn't the focus of the classroom. Schools are for classes and expanding your mind, that is what the state is supposed to be providing. I have problem no problem with my taxes going to books and pens and things that are developing the young minds of tomorrow. But I have a problem with my tax dollars sponcering another childs sex life and/or other social, non-education things (recreational sex is not educational sex . I would be just as against schools providing some sort of free music program on the government dime on the logic that music is needed for a well devolped social mind.
I also don't preach ignorance or being unprepaired, I am just against paying for it on the government ticket. Schools shouldn't be in the business of providing anything but education. If someone can show me how a condom is an education device, besides maybe just learning how to put one on, then I will be convinced, otherwise, it is the school system trying to be more than it is roled to be. This isn't a night club, this is a school. Sex may happen on campus, that is not what I was saying at all, what I am saying is that is the subject of social interaction and not the domain of the school to provide materials for out of our tax budget. Once again, if someone can show how a condom is like a pen (hahaha don't go there), then I'll be more adpt to listen, but so far it seems like "ehh why not" kinda arguments? Perhaps I misunderstood yall as much as yall did me
And if they are just giving them away, then it should be avalible for all citizens everywhere, not just kids...and I would be against funding my fellow americans sex needs in the same way I am against this
Thanks everyone for your respectful comments...minus one

edit: And did no one else think that the video was totally biased? The lady arguing for the side of schools not providing for that thing had some very unconvincing speaking methodology

I don't know what your background is (?), but my colleagues and I have no trouble understanding what "aversive punishment" means. No incoherence, no confusion. It's one part of behaviourist principles that are taught in undergraduate psychology. It is often referred to as positive punishment.

Would you care to cite the relevant evidence that shows the effects are vanishingly small? Because punishment, from everything I have learned, is an excellent means of behaviour control -- it just has many drawbacks, which is why reinforcement is the preferred alternative. The problem is that there are severe cases where nothing else works. What then do you do?

Reductions in social skills, communication skills, and cognitive ability are all possible outcomes. However, every one of those will depend on the punisher used, its properties, the behaviour in question, and a large variety of other factors. Your brush paints thickly.

I'm not sure what to make of your last paragraph. It reeks of ad-hom.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

"Aversive punishment" is not a coherent term in the realm of emotional/behavioral psychology. What's more, the practice to which this term seems to refer has vanishingly small effect on "self-injurious" behavior (which is actually called self-stimulating behavior). What effects it may have are significantly offset by the reduction in social and communications skills, and a decrease in cognitive ability. These reasons are why, when aversive conditioning is used in the developmental setting, it is as a last resort and the aversive stimulus is sparing and lenient. In this case, the video and other evidence around the boy's condition and behavior are sparse, and any judgment whether this was the correct course of action based on the information we have is laughable. Great measures require great evidence in their justification.
In any event, cooling people off their outrage at authority who inflict barbaric emotional and physical pain in an effort to encourage compliance for its own sake with quasi-psychology based claims is sophomoric at best. There may be some intellectual satisfaction with the idea that some minds are so beyond reason that they only respond to pain of this kind, but that idea only smacks true when the thinker lacks the creativity necessary to actually manage these kinds of malfunctions. Seems Nurse Ratched would pass muster with at least some of our Sifters.

>> ^berticus:
The sad, cold truth of things is that there are some severely autistic children who engage in the most horrific self-injurious behaviour, and aversive punishment is the ONLY treatment (in conjunction with a broader treatment plan, naturally) that works. And yes, it DOES work.
I'm not talking about kids with minor problems. I mean the ones who will do things like smash their own face into the ground over and over until they lose so much blood they pass out. The ones who will, left to themselves, die.
Positive punishment is horrible. But, it's either that, or let these kids maim or kill themselves (or possibly others) through their behaviour.
(I make no comment regarding this specific incident, I just want you to know the issue is far more complicated than this mind-bite would have you believe.)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

But there's no "fix" for the problem if you believe the whole institution itself is wrong. Just because we've had a system of lockers and sports and proms and bells and *thousands* of kids crammed into a single building - doesn't mean this is something that needs tweaking. It needs teraring down and reinventing. >> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^dag:
Massive institutional schooling systems. It's like prison. That's where bullying breeds. modern schools are just awful, awful places. Keep your kids home or put them in an alternative school if you can afford it.

I can't help but feel like this is hiding from the problem rather than addressing it. Also, the potential cost in social skills seems like it could be severe.

>> ^dag:

Massive institutional schooling systems. It's like prison. That's where bullying breeds. modern schools are just awful, awful places. Keep your kids home or put them in an alternative school if you can afford it.


I can't help but feel like this is hiding from the problem rather than addressing it. Also, the potential cost in social skills seems like it could be severe.

what you said at the end, that i think is the real issue. youve got a documentary crew filming bullying on a bus and yet the officials (whoever that lady was, principal i presume) are in complete denial instead of looking into it further and taking appropriate disciplinary action.



by and large children are products of whoever raises em, whoever their adult influence is. you could take virtually any "bully" look at his parents and find the root cause (most of the time anyway). i know a lot of the boys who bullied me in jr high and high school i later came to find out almost all of them had no father figure. do you really think anti bullying rules or something is gonna stop that? the problem is deeper than that, much deeper. do you think bullying stops after high school? do you think it doesnt take place at work, at college, at a park, at the movies, at anywhere?

i think overall the point im getting at is it really doesnt matter what we do or dont do, we cannot prevent bullying. it will happen, it always has and it always will, and thats not a "swept under the rug" answer to the issue, its the reality. so how can we resolve it? by changing not only our mindset as adults, but positively influencing the mindsets of our children as well.

as a side note, as far as the 24-7 thing is concerned, i was bullied at school and at home almost a full decade before the internet and looooong before myspace and facebook. i had an older sister who was such a tomboy growing up she was practically another older brother. but i mainly got picked on by my older brother who was just a year apart from me. i got shit from him and his friends at school, i got it from him and his friends when we'd play in and around our neighborhood and i got it from him at home. in a way, thats infinitely more invasive and inescapable than e-bullying. i lived with him, and for a number of years i had to share a room with him. so ya, to me, it isnt different at all. and while my testimony may be a special case, its far from being unique and youd be naive to think so.

if teen crime rates are declining and bullying is pretty much a constant, that certainly doesnt suggest bullying is becoming worse or even that its a "huge problem". all that suggests is what ive been saying; bullying isnt anything new, and it will always be with us.

maybe im not articulating myself in a compassionate way. im certainly not advocating turning a blind eye to bullies or bullying. i squash it pretty quick when it happens in class, and whenever appropriate i try to talk to the bully one on one in hopes that i may discern what the issue really is. is he picking on that kid cuz he's just a shitty kid? or is he lashing out over emotional/mental issues he's unprepared to cope with? or is he compensating for severe self esteem issues? those are the things we should be addressing to "prevent" bullying, not creating this bizarre subculture war where its us vs them.
>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^smooman:
>> ^berticus:
what? no comment yet from someone saying how bullying "toughens you up and prepares you for the real world"? COME ON!

ok i'll start. im all for moderate measures to be taken to monitor and disrupt bullying (man, that almost became full alliteration). that being said, the bullying scandal and the myriad documentaries and specials and exposes on the subject are just redundant. as someone who works in the school system bullying really isnt any different than when i was in school, or when my parents went to school, or their parents, etc. bullying isnt anything new. calling it an epidemic is laughable and just plain absurd.
does my heart go out to individuals who have been bullied? absolutely. i myself was constantly bullied growing up (both at school and at home). now berticus, what you said is true even if you were being facetious. being bullied forced me to quickly develop social skills needed to diffuse confrontations among other things. it sharpened my wit, even as an adult. the point isnt that we need bullies to make men out of our children. the point is bullies arent anything new, and they will always be with us. react accordingly

I downvoted your comment and I just wanted to explain why.
First off, while you may technically be correct in that the amount of bullying has not changed over time, technological advances (i.e. the Internet) allow that bullying to continue 24-7 so that there is no refuge from it, even after you get out of school. In other words, while the rate of bullying may not be changing the severity and impact is--it is more invasive, harder to escape, and therefore is NOT the same as when you were a kid.
But even disregarding that, I think the term "epidemic" is appropriate when you look at the fact that over the past 50 years crime among teens has consistently been decreasing in the U.S. (according to FBI statistics a drop of over 44%) and yet the rate of bullying appears to remain the same. To me, that says there is a huge problem that is not being addressed by either our society or our school system. And taking the attitude that "bullies aren't anything new, and they will always be with us" does not seem to me to be the way to go about solving that problem. Rather, it virtually guarantees that in the next 50 years we will see bullying to continue at the same rate as bullies find ways to circumvent the "moderate measures [...] to monitor and disrupt bullying" that you advocate.
Documentaries like this are critically important because they expose just how deep the problems are--you have school officials claiming the bus is perfectly safe while the documentary filmmakers are capturing multiple acts of violence and bullying on the bus. We need more documentaries like this and much more research into how bullying manifests and how to prevent it because we're clearly doing a piss-poor job of it right now.

>> ^smooman:

>> ^berticus:
what? no comment yet from someone saying how bullying "toughens you up and prepares you for the real world"? COME ON!

ok i'll start. im all for moderate measures to be taken to monitor and disrupt bullying (man, that almost became full alliteration). that being said, the bullying scandal and the myriad documentaries and specials and exposes on the subject are just redundant. as someone who works in the school system bullying really isnt any different than when i was in school, or when my parents went to school, or their parents, etc. bullying isnt anything new. calling it an epidemic is laughable and just plain absurd.
does my heart go out to individuals who have been bullied? absolutely. i myself was constantly bullied growing up (both at school and at home). now berticus, what you said is true even if you were being facetious. being bullied forced me to quickly develop social skills needed to diffuse confrontations among other things. it sharpened my wit, even as an adult. the point isnt that we need bullies to make men out of our children. the point is bullies arent anything new, and they will always be with us. react accordingly


I downvoted your comment and I just wanted to explain why.

First off, while you may technically be correct in that the amount of bullying has not changed over time, technological advances (i.e. the Internet) allow that bullying to continue 24-7 so that there is no refuge from it, even after you get out of school. In other words, while the rate of bullying may not be changing the severity and impact is--it is more invasive, harder to escape, and therefore is NOT the same as when you were a kid.

But even disregarding that, I think the term "epidemic" is appropriate when you look at the fact that over the past 50 years crime among teens has consistently been decreasing in the U.S. (according to FBI statistics a drop of over 44%) and yet the rate of bullying appears to remain the same. To me, that says there is a huge problem that is not being addressed by either our society or our school system. And taking the attitude that "bullies aren't anything new, and they will always be with us" does not seem to me to be the way to go about solving that problem. Rather, it virtually guarantees that in the next 50 years we will see bullying to continue at the same rate as bullies find ways to circumvent the "moderate measures [...] to monitor and disrupt bullying" that you advocate.

Documentaries like this are critically important because they expose just how deep the problems are--you have school officials claiming the bus is perfectly safe while the documentary filmmakers are capturing multiple acts of violence and bullying on the bus. We need more documentaries like this and much more research into how bullying manifests and how to prevent it because we're clearly doing a piss-poor job of it right now.