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

This is a teenager

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 868 posts

Re: This is a teenager

#841

Post by llm_trw »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #837
llm_trw wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you keep hearing dog whistles everywhere you may be a dog. At any rate a quick google search give you all the answers you need: https://www.mercatus.org/research/data-visualizations/k-12-s...

> Every institution in the US has been taken over by careerists and credentialists who produce nothing of value and are a drain on the system Is the whistle you neglected to source.

I'm sorry I also don't have sources for the fact that water is wet and the sky is blue.

If you think that every major project from federal to local government being delivered over budget, behind schedule and with fewer capabilities than promised is a dog whistle I have a perfectly functional bridge in Baltimore to sell you.

Re: This is a teenager

#842

Post by polloslocos »

causal wrote: post #791
naasking wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MISTRA is a citation, it's a well-known name, just Google the study. Also: 1. TFA article talked only about correlations, because that's all they have. 2. Genetics influences all of TFA factors as well. 3. TFA discussed "adverse experiences", "parents involved" and "family risk scores". Guess what I said: parenting really only has a significant effect in cases of neglect and abuse. Sounds like we agree.

"Just Google it" - really? I have no doubt MISTRA exists, but demonstrating specifically where and how a study proves your point is something else entirely. The core assertion that parental involvement doesn't matter much as long as they're not abusive is pretty absurd regardless, but I'll leave the Googling of studies showing why as an exercise for you.

This recent Atlantic article does a decent job at summarizing the argument: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/parenting-...

And these two books have good, if somewhat redundant surveys of the research:

- No Two Alike: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1099821

- Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10266902

The tl;dr is that if you fall into the cohort that could likely adopt a child, your parenting decisions aren’t going to make much of an impact, beyond affecting your kid’s memories of their childhood and their relationship with you. And that doesn’t mean parents should become apathetic, but that it’s better to care about expressing warmth and kindness instead of stressing about achievement.

Re: This is a teenager

#844

Post by cchi_co »

benjovi wrote: post #808
RestlessMind wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can you possibly believe that the government, with its myriad checks and balances, is too susceptible to corruption to intervene in family life, but that parents, whose power over their children should be absolutely unchecked in your view, cannot be corrupt? Because generally parents care a lot about their children. That has been a universal experience. There are of course some rotten outliers, but those are th…

>generally parents care a lot about their children. That has been a universal experience. There are of course some rotten outliers, but those are the exceptions which prove the rule. I have personally seen parents care *so much* for their children that they don't see their abusive behavior. The "most caring" parents can turn out to be absolute monsters to their children, and think they're doing the right thing.

You mean overcaring and overprotecting someone? Or those who think that their behavior and the way they raise their children is always the right way?

Re: This is a teenager

#845

Post by cchi_co »

thegrimmest wrote: post #787
flir wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bearing in mind we're talking about bullying here, which interventions are going to trample your fundamental civil rights? Unless we're going with a reductio ad absurdum panopticon solution, I can't think of any way in which more robust interventions in bullying would be a bad thing.

People have the right to be and to raise bullies as long as their behaviour is nonviolent. As tasteless as it is, there is no law against socially excluding and humiliating people. Nor should there be.

[dead]

Re: This is a teenager

#846

Post by BehindBlueEyes »

dotnet00 wrote: post #469
tomp wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you attempt “conflict resolution” with primary school bullies? Sometimes the only resolution to violence is (threat of) superior violence. If you’re a child and a group of kids attacks you, that’s “adults resolving the situation”. Anything else is a failure of the schooling system.

It's telling that you seemingly only think of extreme cases when it comes to conflict resolution, and not all the mundane conflicts kids get into, eg arguing over who gets to play with a toy, arguing over who's whose friend etc, teasing that doesn't rise to the level of bullying, or kids interacting with/being watched by someone who is both meaningfully older than themselves and is also too young for the kid to ackno…

[flagged]

Re: This is a teenager

#847

Post by BehindBlueEyes »

RajT88 wrote: post #834
int_19h wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, they do not, they just become someone else's problem. (Or everyone's, if they end up in top management.)

Few bullies end up in management. This is relative to the pool of grade school bullies (which is a lot more than later in life). The worst ones I recall from my childhood are mechanics and laborers and a few are web devs.

Maybe they end up in management in game development :p

Re: This is a teenager

#848

Post by BehindBlueEyes »

hirsin wrote: post #431
tomp wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? In the adult world, you'd just call the police. In the child world, sometimes you tell the adults, but they don't do anything, and the abuse continues. That's at least my experience with bullying in primary school. "Conflict resolution" and such virtue-signalling buzzwords don't work against violent bullies .

This is fairly literally how people watch a homeless guy get choked to death in the New-York subway. "Someone will call the cops eventually". No, you can't be a bystander, even if it might be dangerous.

A friend of mine stepped in once and was prosecuted for injuring one of the attackers. Took 4 month of uncertainty before he ended up with a medal and an apology but he was this close to ending in prison for it instead.

Re: This is a teenager

#849

Post by BehindBlueEyes »

tavavex wrote: post #493
ransom1538 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada is about to become a 2nd world country. No industry, no ability to own a home, no healthcare [1], only one party, banking restrictions, etc etc,. 1. Healthcare is where you can see a doctor.

Almost all of these make absolutely no sense, they sound like propaganda zingers, not actual reflections of reality. The housing crisis is the only thing you can reliably hold against Canada, but it's far from the only first-world country to be facing that issue. Canada currently has five parties sitting in parliament. What banking restrictions? (I have no idea what even is described here). As for healthcare, there i…

Yes, been waiting for that GP for about 6 years now… treatment for emergencies is great but they won’t do preventive checkups… I’d rather not have to wait for a thing to become an emergency. Maybe banking restrictions refers to lacking a credit score when you land? No idea.

Re: This is a teenager

#850

Post by thegrimmest »

bccdee wrote: post #835
thegrimmest wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anti-authoritarians are also anti-liberal The words are overloaded, but liberal and authoritarian are on opposite ends of the same axis on the political compass. Classical liberalism stands on the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics. Today these ideas are also called "libertarian" but the core desire is expressed in the Latin root word. I want to be free - as in without a master, elected or otherwise…

> Would you kill one unwilling person to save a million? a billion? I would not. Yes, in an instant. I find your perspective completely self-defeating here. The cost of your way of thinking is a billion lives, minus one. What is the benefit? A sense of self-righteousness? What thing of value are you preserving here, that is worth more than a billion living people? > [China] is not able to generate important innovatio…

> What is the benefit? A sense of self-righteousness?

The benefit is adhering to a set of principles that guard against committing atrocities that have already cost countless millions of lives. Unprincipled people driven by utilitarian objectives have done by far the most harm in human history. The Holocaust, the Cultural Revolution, the Holodomor, the Great Purge, the Cambodian genocide, on and on the list goes.

There is no mechanism to constrain authority so concentrated. It always goes horribly wrong. Democracies elect genocidal dictators. The only solution that has been proven to work in the medium term is a regard for individual autonomy as sacrosanct and inviolable. I'm concerned at the erosion of this principle.

I would rather have a thousand robber barons and school shooters than one Cultural Revolution. If you're preparing kill an innocent person, no matter your motivation, you're always the bad guy. The ends do not justify the means.

> China is plenty innovative, as far as I can tell.

What ground-breaking innovations that changed the shape of the world originated in China? Usable smart phones? Social media? Ride hailing? Online shopping? Mass-market electric vehicles? Self-landing rockets? That's all just California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_cou... This isn't a coincidence.

> where Pinkertons brutalized union organizers and robber barons had the US Army drop munitions on striking coal miners

You're citing cases where the state failed to intervene to protect the physical safety it guarantees. Where it failed to uphold the very principles it espouses. These errors are far easier to correct than trying to convince some maniac that their utilitarian calculation is wrong. Also, the harm done by these failures is immeasurably less than the aforementioned genocides.

> I won't concede to let evil happen simply out of respect for someone else's belief that evil things are actually good.

You have to define evil though. Would you care to suggest a definition? It's not a synonym of suffering.

> what about the right to freedom from treatable illness?

What is the source of this right? Why is your right to be treated more important than a doctor's right to choose whom to treat? Does it just stem from some back-of-the-envelope calculation that we're all better off if we use a bit of force to compel others to pay for your care? Can't you use the same sort of math to demand a kidney transplant from an unwilling donor? Or to euthanize the mentally ill? Or those who disagree with you? Where does it stop?

> a consequence of the personal choice to smoke

> poverty is a significant cause of substance abuse issues

These are incompatible statements. People have agency, and the responsibility for an action lies wholly with the agent who took it. The difference between forcing someone to do something and convincing them is of kind (categorical), not of degree.

> People ultimately do not always have the power to live a healthy lifestyle

I agree, but I'm saying that your good luck to be born into a healthy body, with a capable mind, or into a stable family, belongs to you. It is no more within the purview of authority to redistribute than your kidney.

> "freedom-based rights" designed to specifically protect insurance companies and high-bracket taxpayers

They are designed to protect the capable and the fortunate, who exist in all tax brackets, from the shackles you would impose on them. In doing so we safeguard against the disastrous consequences of the concentration of power, and create an environment that fosters the innovation which has benefitted us all.

Post reply on HN