Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 713 posts

Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school

#681

Post by president_zippy »

doubled112 wrote: post #349
kgwxd wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds fair on paper To who!? It doesn't sound fair at all. It sounds like an "authority" being embarrassed their precious system wasn't able to catch the perceived issue. "I can't see everything so, until I can (ominous foreshadowing camera angle), every suspect is guilty."

It isn't sold like this though, hence it working differently on paper and in practice. There is no tolerance for violence. The kid is involved in a violent situation, and the kid is punished for it. That is a fairly logical set of steps until you realize how vague "involved" is.

I don't know why you were downvoted to hell. You were not defending the school's disciplinary approach, you were just describing it.

Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school

#682

Post by president_zippy »

This doesn't solve the harder problem: properly identifying bullying.

Bullies don't usually bully other people in front of their authority figures. Most "anti-bullying" policies in the past 25 years have the unintended consequence of fostering a more clever species of bully called the "crybully". People who are skilled at being assholes and manipulating authority figures into treating them as the victims.

In criminal law, increasing the odds of getting caught is statistically far more effective in decreasing the incidence of violent crime than increasing the punishment.

Other than that, I'm not particularly interested in the moralizing from either side about corporal punishment. Some problem children need mentorship, some just need consequences; most of it depends on their home life. Kids from abusive homes need to be moved to a safer environment and treated with therapy. Kids who are neglected or enabled by their parents need to learn that the world doesn't revolve around them and other people don't have to put up with their crap.

Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school

#683

Post by cindyllm »

president_zippy wrote: post #682

This doesn't solve the harder problem: properly identifying bullying. Bullies don't usually bully other people in front of their authority figures. Most "anti-bullying" policies in the past 25 years have the unintended consequence of fostering a more clever species of bully called the "crybully". People who are skilled at being assholes and manipulating authority figures into treating them as the victims. In criminal…

[dead]

Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school

#684

Post by sagarm »

gambiting wrote: post #495
sagarm wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the mentality that turns public schools into zoos and drives families with means to private.

...the mentality that says schools should be given the resources to deal with it, instead of (like some other commenter suggested) sending kids to mental institutions?

The facts on the ground are that schools are not being given the resources to deal with it, leading to a death spiral of reduced enrollment and funding -- at least for SFUSD. I imagine the story is similar elsewhere.

Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school

#685

Post by gambiting »

dotancohen wrote: post #678
gambiting wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is exactly why I advocate for not keeping them in the same classroom as other kids.

Most bullying happens outside the classroom.

I mean, we can repeat facts at each other, or we can carry on with the conversation in some more specific direction if you wish?

Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school

#686

Post by gambiting »

sagarm wrote: post #684
gambiting wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...the mentality that says schools should be given the resources to deal with it, instead of (like some other commenter suggested) sending kids to mental institutions?

The facts on the ground are that schools are not being given the resources to deal with it, leading to a death spiral of reduced enrollment and funding -- at least for SFUSD. I imagine the story is similar elsewhere.

>>The facts on the ground are that schools are not being given the resources to deal with it

Which is why I'm advocating for the schools to be given the resources to deal with it.

Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school

#687

Post by array_key_first »

coldtea wrote: post #194
throwawayk7h wrote: post #188

I've never understood the illiberal desire to treat boys and girls so differently. I'm glad I live in a country where sexism is illegal at a fundamental level -- this kind of law would be quickly struck down.

Maybe it's based on millions of years of biological differences in their capacities and functions (starting from body strength and role in reproduction), plus differences in social roles, of which some of the latter might be arbitrary, but some are necessary adjustments every historical society understood.

Historical societies are... historical. We shouldn't be looking to them. They didn't have the technology we have today.

Yes boys are strong. You know what's stronger than a boy? Gun. Girl with gun is stronger. It's not fucking 400 AD and this isn't Rome and we don't have slaves. Things are different today.

Yes, there are biological differences, but they definitely matter the least now as opposed to ever. Think about jobs. Women can do basically every modern job a man can do, and definitely the high paying ones. Now think about ancient societies and why that wasn't the case.

Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school

#688

Post by array_key_first »

xdennis wrote: post #518
joefourier wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boys and girls being different does not mean one sex deserves corporal punishment and one does not. Girls are equally capable of cyberbullying (which is covered by this law), why should they only get detention while a 9 year old boy has to suffer physical violence? What does this teach girls - that they can get away with more? That they're more fragile than even a prepubescent boy? If the law punishes one demographic…

> Boys and girls being different does not mean one sex deserves corporal punishment and one does not. Girls are equally capable of cyberbullying (which is covered by this law), why should they only get detention while a 9 year old boy has to suffer physical violence? In many systems of law, the punishment should mirror the crime. You gouge out an eye -> the government gouges out one of your eyes. In every country, me…

Girls are not meaningfully more fragile than boys, especially before puberty. Before puberty they're practically indistinguishable. If it weren't for long hair and the color pink none of us would know.

That's just something people tell themselves. Yes, we socialize boys not to cry. That doesn't mean boys are "stronger", it means that they have a pathological fear of being perceived as weak which will cause them sexual and relationship problems until the day they die.

Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school

#689

Post by array_key_first »

mantas wrote: post #261
blks wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you impose gender ideology, gender roles on them from age 0, yeah you will get vastly different outcomes for boys and girls.

You may want to do some research on this thing called „hormones“ and how they differ in both genders.

Well prepubescent children have very similar hormone make up. That's why young boys have no muscles and have the same sort of body as girls. The only reason we can tell them apart at all really is because of long hair and the color pink.

Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school

#690

Post by array_key_first »

graemep wrote: post #458
almostjazz wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where exactly is the physical strength of males necessary in modern society? The only circumstance in which there are men strong enough to so something that women can't do is at the most elite level of athletics. Any role relevant to society that would require that level of strength, we have machines for, because the majority of men and women are not elite powerlifters, and because they probably need way more strengt…

> Where exactly is the physical strength of males necessary in modern society? Bricklayers? Much manual labour. Some women can do it, some men cannot, but far more men can do it than women. > People with different skin colours have different resiliences to sun exposure, but just because the sun is a big part of our life doesn't mean we NEED to shape society around those biological differences. We have very simple fix…

> We have very simple fixes for that - such as clothing and protective sun creams. The same does not apply to physical differences between men and women.

Brother do you hear yourself. Your key example, the thing holding your entire argument together was brick layers. Fucking... brick layers.

And you think we don't have anything to eskew gender differences? Brother, look around you. 99.9999% of jobs can be done by men and women thanks to modern technology. Including fucking war!

Because you know what's stronger than men? Guns. And you know who can hold guns? Women. So, there you go, that's why the US army accepts women.

Post reply on HN