The wussifying of America

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The fact that bullies can operate is precisely because they rely on the fact that most kids will be too scared to tell an adult.

This is also why we have crime.

A change in mentality (by enforcing strong viloent reactions to violent provocation from an early age and by lifting the fear of prosecution in defense of self or others at a later age) is the start in a change.

In a violent situation where a person is taking advantage of another person, it is precisely the advantage that needs to be overturned. To do that without opposing violent reactions is non-effective. In a situation of impending death, to do nothing only assists the person with the advantage.

If criminals, bullies, suicidal hijackers, or madmen on shooting rampages were to attempt their crimes on those who were not too scared to react violently and were, moreover, "conditioned" to react violently, instances of large casualites from a single violent crime incident would be drastically reduced.

How do we "condition" people to react violently when faced with violence? We start by teaching them the "proper" way to react to violence when they're younger, and we become a less lawsuit-happy culture as adults. We teach respect for authority and proper behavior but we also teach the "proper" ways to deal with things we find unacceptable. Tattle on someone? Of course, if that will gain the desired results. But if the only way to get someone to stop picking on you is to kick them in the shin, or hit them over the head with a board, then that's what it takes. Compare and contrast that with an extremely higher level of violence such as a shooting rampage. Will "telling someone" stop you from getting shot? It may, if you're in the next room or you can phone 9-1-1 before the shooter gets to you. But, taking swift, decisive action against the shooter may be the better option. With proper "conditioning" we can achieve a society where that is possible. If that's possible, mass casualty incidents will be drastically fewer.

There's so much wrong with the above its hard to know where to begin. Encourage kids to use violence from an early age... I can't even express what a horribly short-sighted, naive and simply stupid idea that is. I can see it now... If a girl young girl came crying to you complaining that her brother had hit her, you'd tell her to go and hit him back... Jeez...

Justify it how you like - by directly (and indirectly) making reference to the shootings at VA Tech you have (and indeed are continuing) to make pedestrian value judgements about the people killed. Based on what... exactly? A half-baked idea that a generally more violent society is a safer and more desirable one to live in.

More than that you're basing this house of cards on a set of extremely spurious assumptions about our society and how people behave under extreme conditions. As I said, I really really doubt that someone who is looking down the barrel of a gun is really going to consider legal ramifications of "fighting back". In itself, that's just a very dumb. But I guess you know better

[slim 1,525]

It's not "to be violent" that needs to be taught from an early age, it's "when to be violent" that needs to be taught from an early age. That wouldn't make society a more dangerous or violent place, it would make it a safer one because those who violently prey on others wouldn't be able to function as effectively.

To continually relate my views to the incident at VA Tech is to correlate the existence of "our" conditioned response to violence and the very existence of it.

Your point is folks looking down the barrel of a gun are too scared for their lives to do anything, not because they're scared they're going to get in trouble or get sued, but because they think they might die. You are correct. And once again, if we could change our "mentality" towards violent reactions, we wouldn't be so scared to react.

A simple mentality change is all that's required.

[Fandango 1,439]

edit nm

Edited April 27, 2007 by LisaD

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not "to be violent" that needs to be taught from an early age, it's "when to be violent" that needs to be taught from an early age. That wouldn't make society a more dangerous or violent place, it would make it a safer one because those who violently prey on others wouldn't be able to function as effectively.

To continually relate my views to the incident at VA Tech is to correlate the existence of "our" conditioned response to violence and the very existence of it.

Your point is folks looking down the barrel of a gun are too scared for their lives to do anything, not because they're scared they're going to get in trouble or get sued, but because they think they might die. You are correct. And once again, if we could change our "mentality" towards violent reactions, we wouldn't be so scared to react.

A simple mentality change is all that's required.

Good luck contextualising violence for kids at an early age. I don't have kids myself but something tells me you'll be breaking up fights to kingdom come...

"if we could change our mentality towards violent reactions" is a really big "if", and is about as achievable as changing our group mentality to abhor violence in its entirety.

Again the trouble I have with your referencing this argument to VA Tech is the implicit suggestion that there was no need for 32 people to die, because someone should could have charged the guy and beaten him to death with a shoe... or something...

And you're changing your argument here - because up to this point you've been basing it on two questionable assumptions that a: "people are soft" and that b: they "won't defend themselves in a violent situation for fear of being subject to legal action". However you look at it, I'm not sure how that reasoning can be applied to last week's shooting, or indeed any situation like it - without the (again implicit) suggestion that the people did not do enough to save their own lives. That's where the "ivory tower" / "armchair quarterback" references are coming from. And I haven't seen anything in your argument that changes that interpretation.

Edited April 27, 2007 by erekose

[ivona 0]

Slim, how old are you and do you have any kids of your own?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but I think it might just explain a lot...

[slim 1,525]

Ah. Now I see where these suggestions are coming from.

What I mean by saying 32 people shouldn't get shot by one single guy is not that these "victims" were soft or took the wrong actions, but that by changing our mentality, as a whole, will create an environment where events such as this will not take place to the extent that they did last week.

In order for that to occur, we must change our mentality to where it is unacceptable to be a victim. Period. Sure, someone jumps into a classroom, guns blazing, there are going to be some victims. But, there shouldn't be 32. That is why I relate this thread to the events last week. (And also to hijackings, etc.)

I'm not going to say "I would've" or "if I was there..." etc. And I haven't said that throughout this thread. (Except to say that I too would probably have the initial reaction of $#!tting myself.) The people involved in those events reacted in a way consistent with societal norms. It is society's reaction to these events that is the tell-tale sign we need to move in another direction in regards to violent incidents. To do that requires a mentality change in society as a whole. That's done over time through child rearing and acceptable actions in the legal system and personal interactions.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ah. Now I see where these suggestions are coming from.

What I mean by saying 32 people shouldn't get shot by one single guy is not that these "victims" were soft or took the wrong actions, but that by changing our mentality, as a whole, will create an environment where events such as this will not take place to the extent that they did last week.

In order for that to occur, we must change our mentality to where it is unacceptable to be a victim. Period. Sure, someone jumps into a classroom, guns blazing, there are going to be some victims. But, there shouldn't be 32. That is why I relate this thread to the events last week. (And also to hijackings, etc.)

I'm not going to say "I would've" or "if I was there..." etc. And I haven't said that throughout this thread. (Except to say that I too would probably have the initial reaction of $#!tting myself.) The people involved in those events reacted in a way consistent with societal norms. It is society's reaction to these events that is the tell-tale sign we need to move in another direction in regards to violent incidents. To do that requires a mentality change in society as a whole. That's done over time through child rearing and acceptable actions in the legal system and personal interactions.

But that’s completely contradictory. You’re extending your assumptions about “soft people” to those killed – and again implying that if those people were somehow “conditioned” differently they might have survived. The obvious question that springs to mind here is what exactly you know about the backgrounds, upbringing and reactions of those who died? You’re making assumptions…. Based on another set of assumptions.

[slim 1,525]

And, I'm assuming that if they would've been conditioned to "fight" instead of "flee" when faced with imminent violent death, that perhaps more of them would've survived. All of my arguments on here are based on the assumption that if the conditioned response of Americans were to change, more Americans (and since others have added "civilized" societies, we'll go ahead and add them here too) would survive.

For the record... I'm 28 with no kids. Surprised? (I didn't think so.)

[homesick_american 1]

And, I'm assuming that if they would've been conditioned to "fight" instead of "flee" when faced with imminent violent death, that perhaps more of them would've survived. All of my arguments on here are based on the assumption that if the conditioned response of Americans were to change, more Americans (and since others have added "civilized" societies, we'll go ahead and add them here too) would survive.

For the record... I'm 28 with no kids. Surprised? (I didn't think so.)

I'm not surprised at all. The sort of naivete that leads to blaming the victim seems to be more common amongst the young!

Tell me...what if you had a young child, and god forbid he/she was sexually assaulted...would you blame him/her for becoming a victim because he/she didn't fight back?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And, I'm assuming that if they would've been conditioned to "fight" instead of "flee" when faced with imminent violent death, that perhaps more of them would've survived. All of my arguments on here are based on the assumption that if the conditioned response of Americans were to change, more Americans (and since others have added "civilized" societies, we'll go ahead and add them here too) would survive.

For the record... I'm 28 with no kids. Surprised? (I didn't think so.)

But... your idea about "conditioned responses" is an assumption also, seeing as you have no way of knowing how the people directly involved in those events reacted on an individual basis.

Edited April 27, 2007 by erekose

[ivona 0]

For the record... I'm 28 with no kids. Surprised? (I didn't think so.)

No, not at all. It explains your naive attitude very well.

I think your attitude would be different if you had a kid of your own, or even better- more of them so you can test this theory of yours up close and personal.

I guess, in your house "Mom, she took my crayon", "Daaaaad he hid my teddy" wouldn't be heard- I guess things like these would be settled with the violent response that you would try and train into your kids...

I hope for your sake they don't figure out that it's very easy to bang someones head against the sharp edge of the table or something even more horrifying.....

Good luck! (and I AM sincere in wishing that)

[slim 1,525]

And, I'm assuming that if they would've been conditioned to "fight" instead of "flee" when faced with imminent violent death, that perhaps more of them would've survived. All of my arguments on here are based on the assumption that if the conditioned response of Americans were to change, more Americans (and since others have added "civilized" societies, we'll go ahead and add them here too) would survive.

For the record... I'm 28 with no kids. Surprised? (I didn't think so.)

I'm not surprised at all. The sort of naivete that leads to blaming the victim seems to be more common amongst the young!

Tell me...what if you had a young child, and god forbid he/she was sexually assaulted...would you blame him/her for becoming a victim because he/she didn't fight back?

No, because they're a young child. But, if my wife or teenage daughter (or son for that matter) were to be sexually assaulted, then I would hope that they would at least fight to the point of being rendered unconscious before they were sexually assaulted.

That's the "mentality" that we need to transition to. A would-be rapist or molester, or whatever, would be less apt to commit a crime knowing they're going to get their butt-kicked in the process. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. It's the fight back mentality that we as Americans lack that can be changed by changing our minds about what is and what is not acceptable violence.

For the record... I'm 28 with no kids. Surprised? (I didn't think so.)

No, not at all. It explains your naive attitude very well.

I think your attitude would be different if you had a kid of your own, or even better- more of them so you can test this theory of yours up close and personal.

I guess, in your house "Mom, she took my crayon", "Daaaaad he hid my teddy" wouldn't be heard- I guess things like these would be settled with the violent response that you would try and train into your kids...

I hope for your sake they don't figure out that it's very easy to bang someones head against the sharp edge of the table or something even more horrifying.....

Good luck! (and I AM sincere in wishing that)

You must've missed the points in my posts. "Necessary violence." Not, using violence as the answer to everything annoying. Violent actions have very real consequences, and those also need to be taught. There are situations that "require" violent actions. (See above.) Children taking toys or hiding something is not a situation for "necessary" violent action. Children walking home from school alone and getting jumped by four older children is. See the difference?

We're not teaching our kids to fight back anymore. Even in the four-on-one scenario. What are we teaching them? Run away, run to a safe place and tell an adult. It's too late to run when they're on the ground getting kicked.

Since I don't have kids, I can't instruct them what to do in any scenario. But, the kids that I know, I'm telling already, "if you're jumped by four big kids, try to talk your way out of it. Give them what they want. Hide from them. RUN FAST!!! FAST AS YOU CAN!!!! But.... if they jump out and start hitting you and kicking or whatever, and you can't get away, fight back! Fight hard, fight dirty, and don't give up! Don't ever give up! You can hit or kick them to the point where you can run away to safety. You can do it. Don't ever let them get you. GET THEM!!!!"

I'm sure as parents, some of you out there are telling your kids something like that. But it seems more and more are forgetting the "fight back" part. (And for you "good parents" out there.... if you're going to say fight back, you must say "when" to fight back as just an important lesson.)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's the fight back mentality that we as Americans lack that can be changed by changing our minds about what is and what is not acceptable violence.

How do you qualify that statement - What exactly are you basing this on?

We're not teaching our kids to fight back anymore. Even in the four-on-one scenario. What are we teaching them? Run away, run to a safe place and tell an adult. It's too late to run when they're on the ground getting kicked.

Again how do you know this to make such a sweeping generalisation?

I'm sure as parents, some of you out there are telling your kids something like that. But it seems more and more are forgetting the "fight back" part.

Again - how do you know this. More to the point how exactly do you 'teach' a child to fight back? You have no kids, so presenting (at best) theoretical ideas about how to raise a child does seem a little naive.

I really wish you could get off this idea and recognise how offensive this sort of b/s is in the light of what happened last week.

[Peikko 1,575]

Basically, you are saying that all children should go to self defence classes? In a four on one situation, even if you do try to defend yourself agressively, without some kind of advantage you're going to get the same result, the one gets beat up real bad. Luckily, I don't ecounter this kind of random violence in my day to day life. If I did, I think I would move somewhere more civilized.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps someone who has or works with (young) kids can confirm this - but I thought that kids generally see things in black and white terms, because they haven't developed the skills to contextualise the world in the complex ways that an adult does.