The subconscious reason why people might not care about youth liberation

[DANAT4T]

I agree with the argument and I would like to add two possible points for reflection.

Beyond specialized work, we are also dealing with jobs that are often sedentary. This might just be my impression, but the idea of having a child who in the future will work as a software developer, as opposed to working on a construction site, may lead one to think that physical exercise and the freedom of movement that comes with it are less necessary, and that it is therefore less necessary for the child to develop certain interests.

In the end, this is not very different from gender-related issues between males and females, where parents, at least in part, tend to encourage interests that are more consistent with the images they have of their children as adults. So it is not so much about being forced to study the subject (especially since real studying happens at university; before that it’s… I don’t know, I’m quite skeptical about the rest of the educational path, given that individuals more or less develop independently of their results. I’m not sure if I’m managing to explain what I mean).

On top of this, there is this kind of alarmism according to which children are made of glass, and any scratch will inevitably lead to cracks in adulthood. This is also a consequence of the habit of identifying childhood trauma as the cause of all individual problems, when in reality this is more of a method used to deal with problems (to rationalize them, to give oneself an explanation, and so on) rather than an actual fact.

That said, I still find it strange how individualism is criticized (and it is indeed “dominant,” or at least so in the Western imagination), when it is precisely because of my individualism that I want to consider young people as individuals. In other words, for me it is consistent with an individualistic view to grant freedom and rights to young people.

There is nothing to suggest that you support individualism. You seem to support the tax industrial complex. You probably support the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex. Do you support individual rights for yourself but group rights for others?

[Not Forever]

There is nothing to suggest that you support individualism. You seem to support the tax industrial complex. You probably support the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex. Do you support individual rights for yourself but group rights for others?

Do others not have individual rights? Do they only have group rights? Don’t I have group rights? How exactly does this work? Why, to you, are others not individuals with rights as individuals?

[DANAT4T]

There is nothing to suggest that you support individualism. You seem to support the tax industrial complex. You probably support the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex. Do you support individual rights for yourself but group rights for others?

Do others not have individual rights? Do they only have group rights? Don’t I have group rights? How exactly does this work? Why, to you, are others not individuals with rights as individuals?

I suppose you have to ask yourself those questions. I often wonder if 'Daddy' still loves me. I sometimes wonder if it is okay to be opportunist to people but complain when people do it to me.

[Not Forever]

I suppose you have to ask yourself those questions. I often wonder if 'Daddy' still loves me. I sometimes wonder if it is okay to be opportunist to people but complain when people do it to me.

It seems to me, more than anything else, that you’re projecting stereotypes onto me that I don’t belong to. Simplifying other people’s positions is natural, but putting ideas in their heads that aren’t theirs is less so. From “seem,” to “probably,” to jumping straight to stating things as facts. You’ve told yourself a story about me—fine—but instead of laying it out, you should at most ask me concrete questions to see whether I actually fit your narrative.

This is because simple accusations are a rather annoying way to have a conversation.

[DANAT4T]

I suppose you have to ask yourself those questions. I often wonder if 'Daddy' still loves me. I sometimes wonder if it is okay to be opportunist to people but complain when people do it to me.

It seems to me, more than anything else, that you’re projecting stereotypes onto me that I don’t belong to. Simplifying other people’s positions is natural, but putting ideas in their heads that aren’t theirs is less so. From “seem,” to “probably,” to jumping straight to stating things as facts. You’ve told yourself a story about me—fine—but instead of laying it out, you should at most ask me concrete questions to see whether I actually fit your narrative.

This is because simple accusations are a rather annoying way to have a conversation.

I have not made any accusations against you. Have I? You have volunteered this information yourself. I have not forced you to do anything. Maybe I should blame society.

[Not Forever]

I have not made any accusations against you. Have I? You have volunteered this information yourself. I have not forced you to do anything. Maybe I should blame society.

Well, then stop attributing statements to me that I never made. (And even more annoying, assuming that I’m American and that the whole world works like the United States.)

[DANAT4T]

I have not made any accusations against you. Have I? You have volunteered this information yourself. I have not forced you to do anything. Maybe I should blame society.

Well, then stop attributing statements to me that I never made. (And even more annoying, assuming that I’m American and that the whole world works like the United States.)

I never mentioned the United States. Are you some kind of joke? What are you on about.

[anarchist of love]

The issue that jumped out for me was the issue of "protection". I think this needs to be "teased out" more. So, i see that there are two forms of protection. One is restrictive and the other is enriching. The one prevailing in Society nowadays (at least in Europeon dominated domains) is oriented to "protection by restriction" strategies. This is the one that DOES NOT prepare kids for the real world, but instead keeps them as Super Pets in the prison garden of childhood (as educator John Holt spoke in his book "ESCAPE FROM CHILDHOOD").

My analysis of the phenomenon is that the domesticated groanups of this Lost era "need" kids to be their Super Pets because they get to Lord Over kids and as well, get to "enjoy" their Super Pets' "naive antics". The term "petty tyranny" comes to mind. Where everyone gets into a kind of meta-competition with each other, and meaningful communication as well as meaningful "love" are denied.

On the other hand, there is Protection via strategies of enrichment. Where kids are prepared for the real world along the lines of, say, how the Unschooling movement goes about things. So they gather in groups that share their adventures in meaningful learning about life and society with friendly adult mentors (that they pick), and in this way, keep intact the love of learning. And they seriously prepare themselves and each other for meaningful participation in society and their life as an adventure!

Which one is allowed to prevail is the key here. Does this help you at all?