tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post7365032451732767495..comments2024-03-28T09:56:06.298-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: Antiquated Norms vs. No Norms at AllGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-31474471075342508982017-12-01T14:48:34.271-05:002017-12-01T14:48:34.271-05:00Funny, it's one of the few things that might d...Funny, it's one of the few things that might drive me to try a game out. But I'm clearly not the target audience.<br />Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-71040875092348488742017-12-01T14:39:40.639-05:002017-12-01T14:39:40.639-05:00Good points. Still, maybe a "discipline"...Good points. Still, maybe a "discipline" score that gave them advantages in the game for following instructions and penalties for not. Also, it could be incorporated into game play in enemy reactions. Being known for treating enemy prisoners mercifully might result in more surrenders, while being known as merciless or cruel might result in a greater enemy determination to kill the player. You could even throw in the occasional bad leader who gave an illegal order and reward the players for not following it.<br /><br />Of course, I still think this wouldn't be very appealing to most gamers. The ideas are interesting, though.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-61760231336052469542017-12-01T14:09:24.831-05:002017-12-01T14:09:24.831-05:00I'd like to think it would appeal to some play...I'd like to think it would appeal to some players, but I suppose most people find command structures difficult to accept unless there's a strong element of camaraderie and charisma in a leader, or unless they're pretty trapped--stuck in basic training, or unable to get access to the shooting range without satisfying the standards of an authority figure. Maybe strong parents or other role models could get kids interested in a game with discipline, appeal to their sense of honor or desire to be grown-up--but I'm thinking camaraderie and leader charisma would be awfully hard to mock up digitally.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-84353792936753975102017-12-01T10:45:14.671-05:002017-12-01T10:45:14.671-05:00Hm. That instantly gave me the idea for incorporat...Hm. That instantly gave me the idea for incorporating command structures in games like Call of Duty. Why not add a sergeant or lieutenant with directions? And if players go crazy, bring them up on charges in the game. Following difficult instructions might add another dimension of challenge to the game as well.<br /><br />That said, I also suspect the customers would overwhelmingly reject it, unless maybe they could be brought onboard and understand why it was useful and interesting.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-16072963822336016372017-12-01T10:30:46.654-05:002017-12-01T10:30:46.654-05:00I've always been very, very skeptical of the r...I've always been very, very skeptical of the rap against violent games and movies, but he made the point to me for the first time in a way that seems more convincing. He claims that hyper-realistic pop-up targets are much more useful than geometrical bulls-eyes in training people to react quickly and properly to a real-life shooting emergency, and that the improved effect almost entirely relates to overcoming the natural instinct against killing. He also points out that returning servicemen are much less likely to engage in violent crime than guys of a similar age in the general population. His explanation of the contradiction is the profound training in self-discipline. On a shooting range, for instance, careless or self-indulgent behavior with a weapon leads to swift repercussions, so anyone who cares about not being kicked absorbs self-discipline and associates it strongly with guns. Military training is an order of magnitude more profound. On a deep level, a shooter takes in a code of behavior associated with his deadly weapons. Isolated, socially awkward teenagers with video games get nothing of the sort, but they do perhaps get their primitive barriers eroded on the subject of violence to human-looking targets.<br /><br />Grossman claims that teenagers are remarkably prone to stop a shooting spree when a single authoritative adult confronts them and says "It's time to stop now," as if the video console were saying "Game Over." He cites the experience of some police academies with training to stop shooting periodically and police brass--some trainees found that they were doing it automatically in an emergency when they should have continued shooting instead. One guy who trained himself to grab a bad guy's pistol, then hand it back to the instructor, actually found himself handing a pistol back to a convenience-store robber after he disarmed him. These things seem crazy, but we're talking about accessing what Grossman refers to as the "puppy brain," the semi-irrational non-verbal part of the brain that can very easily take over when we're startled or terrified.<br /><br />Another interesting part of the book is how much easier it is for people to engage in deadly violence in what amounts to a "crew-served weapon." He says a car full of gang-bangers is a crew-served weapon; we rarely see drive-by shootings by a single gang-banger. Apparently it's harder to say "no" to one's buddies, or to try to talk them out of shooting their own guns, than it is to go along, though it's actually fairly hard for the average Schmoe to go out alone and start shooting.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-63899957970728483482017-12-01T09:48:36.387-05:002017-12-01T09:48:36.387-05:00I read his book "On Killing" years ago. ...I read his book "On Killing" years ago. It dealt with some of the same themes and was quite interesting. He advanced the thesis that violent first-person-shooter games trained kids to kill and I didn't really buy it then, but it may be that it's not just the games but a combination of several factors that includes FPS games. I'd be interested in reading "On Combat."Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-48307675182142105242017-12-01T09:34:47.352-05:002017-12-01T09:34:47.352-05:00I've been reading a fascinating book called &q...I've been reading a fascinating book called "On Combat" by David Grossman. It's only partly about combat, but more generally about sheepdog types in general, and the pact that society makes with them. This is OT the original post, really more in response to the "High Plains Drifter" idea. The book talks a great deal about the natural aversion to violence, the way training can mute that aversion, and how dangerous it is to mute the aversion in kids without also teaching them tremendous self-discipline. So he's particularly worried about role-playing shoot-em-up games and violent movies, but firmly in favor of appropriate training for soldiers and policemen to ensure that they won't lock up in an existential or even purely physiological crisis on first being confronted with the need to shoot an enemy. He points out that school shooters almost universally love violent video games and movies, but almost never have subjected themselves to any group activity, like sports or ROTC, that required submission to discipline or any notion of service. For that matter, you have to wonder whether they've ever in their lives had to take responsibility for something basic like feeding themselves breakfast before they go to school. Neglect of primal needs combined with neglect of training in self-discipline is a toxic mix.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-17375242739139383492017-12-01T00:10:50.508-05:002017-12-01T00:10:50.508-05:00douglas, I agree with you that less central contro...douglas, I agree with you that less central control means more local control, and I'm all for that. <br /><br />I would be okay with it if the school had a fundraiser for kids from families who had financial problems or something like that, but this particular method is just theft. It is simply "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," and I think it encourages irresponsibility.<br /><br />I think you're right about the High Plains Drifter analogy, too.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-9981096420467764272017-11-30T22:48:02.672-05:002017-11-30T22:48:02.672-05:00" The one thing that seems clear to me is tha...<i>" The one thing that seems clear to me is that neither men nor women handle sex terribly well (in general). It's a powerful set of drivers that confuses even mature adults.<br /><br />Which is why we used to have so many rules around sexual behavior :p"</i><br /><br />Nutshell explanation, right there.<br /><br />This is one of those comment sections that remind me why the Hall is my internet home. Thanks, folks.<br /><br />Tom, that scenario is a little more acceptable to me, because it's local and I actually know the kids in my kids classes. I've grown to think in recent years that if I'm really against centralized government, then perhaps I need to be a little more accepting of local government or institutions being involved in these sorts of ways.<br /><br />I'd also add that I think what I was saying earlier about the relative virtues of our politicians, and how much that matters or not, can also be well illustrated by Clint Eastwood's character in High Plains Drifter. He's clearly not a 'good man', but has the right tools, and also appears to have some sense of propriety, however flawed he may be. As that town hired him to fight their battle, I think a large enough part of America hired Trump to fight theirs.douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03241790925053112959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-29537162752447081492017-11-30T19:47:56.832-05:002017-11-30T19:47:56.832-05:00Wow. Just wow.Wow. Just wow.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-1029999827103711262017-11-30T17:54:31.353-05:002017-11-30T17:54:31.353-05:00A common practice in the elementary school system ...A common practice in the elementary school system here is for the schools to send parents a list of everything their kids need to have for the first day of class. Then, on the first day of class, the teachers tell all of the students to put all of their stuff on the list in one of the rooms and come back to their own classroom. Then, at some point that morning, the students will be told to go to back to the room and take what they need. Not, mind you, retrieve the stuff they brought, but to take what they need from whatever is there.<br /><br />The responsible parents then have to go out and replace the stuff taken from their kids by other kids whose parents didn't provide them with everything on the list.<br /><br />This happens every year.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-4788736628983972022017-11-30T17:37:33.228-05:002017-11-30T17:37:33.228-05:00You cheeky thing, you!You cheeky thing, you!Cassandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00083557761155403492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-3464450407706330502017-11-29T21:19:08.439-05:002017-11-29T21:19:08.439-05:00Hungry kids who can't concentrate in school mi...Hungry kids who can't concentrate in school might conceivably learn that it's a bad idea to show up at school hungry, and therefore that they should exert themselves for 120 seconds each morning to put some easy food into their mouths. I imagine kids who fail to put on clothing might show up at school too cold or embarrassed to concentrate on their schoolwork, too, we heartlessly assume they'll figure that out for themselves, too.<br /><br />But then I grew up in the Dark Ages, when Mom and Dad weren't standing by to drive over to the school to delivery the 3-4 things I forgot to bring with me every single day. The whole time I was going to school I never heard of a single example of a parent driving to school with something a classmate had left home. No one would even have considered asking.<br /><br />My parents didn't do my homework for me, either, or fill out my college applications, or . . . but then I was disgracefully neglected. And now here I am believing I don't need the government to wipe my nose for me every day.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-37129302205246418562017-11-29T20:46:06.645-05:002017-11-29T20:46:06.645-05:00I think the argument goes something like this:
1....I think the argument goes something like this:<br /><br />1. There are parents who "forget" to feed their kids.<br /><br />2. Hungry kids can't concentrate in school.<br /><br />3. Therefore, schools should feed kids so they can learn.<br /><br />I don't get it, but then I'm notoriously heartless that way.<br /><br />FWIW, my grandsons are perfectly capable of fetching food for their ownselves. One of them isn't interested in food right after he wakes up, which I identify with (being of a similar mind).<br /><br />As a grandparent, determined to be tiresome about standards and expectations and doing-things-even-if-you-don't-feel-like-it-right-now, I see some value in habits and a sense of order and ...<br /><br />OK, I'm just an old fart who needs to shut up :pCassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-36289772665818461122017-11-29T14:03:07.121-05:002017-11-29T14:03:07.121-05:00"Can't" even."Can't" even.<br />Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-13772414512403321782017-11-29T14:02:26.398-05:002017-11-29T14:02:26.398-05:00My normally fairly self-reliant county is going th...My normally fairly self-reliant county is going through a paroxysm of dealing with the issue when it's OK to accept help after a disaster. A quick look at social media shows that there is always a sizeable population out there that is always looking to be rescued, and can't get it together to prepare for anything complicated.<br /><br />As for breakfast at school, I'm puzzled, too. My parents both worked. Often both of them were out of the house before I got ready to leave for school, so I can even remember being young enough that anyone made me breakfast. Breakfast is notoriously easy to fix for yourself. A kid that would go hungry rather than rustle up some breakfast at home before school has got something seriously wrong with him, and what's wrong with him is probably his bizarre parents, followed by his bizarre school system.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-38097050345752285102017-11-29T12:23:53.310-05:002017-11-29T12:23:53.310-05:00Our buddy Jon Haidt addresses your point about Loc...Our buddy Jon Haidt addresses your point about Lockean ideals in a way I find particularly compelling (probably b/c it echoes thoughts I've had for years).<br /><br />He talks about how our system of government REQUIRES the careful cultivation/preparation of citizens, who must actively be trained to act in ways that aren't instinctive for the whole scheme to work. Tribalism must be suppressed. Self control must be strengthened. Trust/reciprocity are vital.<br /><br />And yet.... some progressive institutions are not only NOT preparing the citizens of tomorrow to act in ways that promote civilization/republican governance -- they are actively *undermining* the behaviors required for our current system to work. Y'all probably saw this link the other day, but if not it's truly wonderful:<br /><br />http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/the-age-of-outrage.php<br /><br />The spouse and I listened to most of it on the ride back home from Georgia this weekend until we hit West Virginia and our connection grew too weak. Lots of food for thought there.<br /><br />The thought that troubles me (even as I have argued that character may not trump ideology in every case) is well summed up by a line from A Man for All Seasons:<br /><br /><i>If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that abhorrence, anger, pride, and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice, and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little - even at the risk of being heroes...</i><br /><br />Slippery slope, expediency :p It scares me, even as I scramble to keep my own footing.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-5450248212295290072017-11-29T12:06:37.624-05:002017-11-29T12:06:37.624-05:00Tom - in no particular order, a few responses:
I ...Tom - in no particular order, a few responses:<br /><br />I like your New Deal example as a tipping point. This is something my Dem friend and I debate a lot - how do we as a society handle people who can't/won't take care of themselves... or their children? Or their parents?<br /><br />Our grandsons go to school in rural Georgia. The school really acts 'in loco parentis' to a degree that makes me and the Spousal Personage uncomfortable. Case in point: serving breakfast at school. It's hard to get the grandpunks to eat breakfast at home. If they wait, they can eat at school. I don't understand why school is serving breakfast or kids are going early. I get that their parents both work in many cases, but the abdication of parental influence bothers me. There are tons of after school 'clubs' (really, state sponsored day care for working parents). Is this better than having latchkey kids?<br /><br />Maybe. Probably yes, in many cases. But in my day (shaking cane feebly) kids came home, did some chores, maybe started dinner when they were older. I don't know many/any kids who do chores. <br /><br />The overall shifting of what used to be private/personal responsibilities to government, whether state, local, or federal, disturbs me. I see the changes this crowding out encourages in individual behavior, and those changes concern me: passivity, not planning ahead/planning for the worst, looking to government to solve problems, etc.<br /><br />Saw another article the other day about how a majority of families have NO savings! This is nuts! We were literally poor when we got married and we could easily, at any time, have put our hands on 1-2 thousand bucks for an emergency. And that money was worth more then (shaking cane again, for good measure). Now, they can't come up with $400. <br /><br />But if you believe someone will always step in and help you, you don't save for emergencies. I can't see that this is a good thing.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-65814974518565811202017-11-29T11:54:21.083-05:002017-11-29T11:54:21.083-05:00To Ron's comments (I wanted to respond last ni...To Ron's comments (I wanted to respond last night, but didn't have time):<br /><br />FWIW, I don't accept that rape/sexual harassment are *solely* issues of men/masculinity, but I also - despite my belief that men and women aren't as radically different in our natures as some conservatives believe we are - don't happen to believe that mens' and womens' sexuality are exactly the same, either.<br /><br />And I've never accepted that rape is more about power than sex. I think it's about both power and sex.<br /><br />The problem I often have about liberal dogma is the formulaic, one-size-fits -all frame they use to describe social problems.<br /><br />Example: "Rape is something entitled men do to intimidate/hurt women and - in the process - feel more powerful/dominant themselves. If we "fix" toxic masculinity, rape will magically go away."<br /><br />That's just silly. At the same time, I do think there's a larger minority of men who rape women (actually, statistically it's more often young girls who can't fight back) than the other way 'round. Flogging every example of women abusing young boys does challenge the notion that only men commit rape/sexual abuse, but it also has the effect of distorting people's perceptions of the relative frequency with which men and women commit these offenses.<br /><br />It is hard for me to tell whether more women are offending these days (given their newfound license and the decline in public morals, that might well be true) or whether we're just hearing about it more. Or, both could be true!<br /><br />IMO, the proportion of women who have what I'd call "issues around sex" is growing, and that's not a good thing. My perception is that men in general have throttled back on aggressive sexual behavior and women in general are - for the first time in my life - acting out sexually, largely (IMO) because society encourages/rewards/declines to punish these behaviors. <br /><br />Changing incentives elicit different responses in both sexes. The one thing that seems clear to me is that neither men nor women handle sex terribly well (in general). It's a powerful set of drivers that confuses even mature adults.<br /><br />Which is why we used to have so many rules around sexual behavior :p<br /><br />Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-88215021310676105882017-11-28T20:28:53.412-05:002017-11-28T20:28:53.412-05:00Also, Cass, thanks for challenging me and making m...Also, Cass, thanks for challenging me and making me think through things and articulate them. That's good for me!Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-43037418502544472422017-11-28T20:22:34.795-05:002017-11-28T20:22:34.795-05:00Another part of deciding whether or not the US is ...Another part of deciding whether or not the US is in crisis is the definition of the US itself. <br /><br />If people define it as a powerful, democratic nation state, and they generally accept the New Deal changes, then it doesn't look like much of a crisis at all. We're still a major world player, we're still a representative democracy, we still have a great deal of individual freedom, our standard of living is still among the best in the world, we're nowhere close to serious civil unrest, etc. What crisis?<br /><br />On the other hand, if they define it as a set of essentially Lockean, republican ideals, and the system of government those ideals created, then we are way, way off course. FDR's Supreme Court quite illegitimately shifted the balance of power heavily in favor of the federal government over the states, every generation of justices seems to shift that balance even further, the federal bureaucracy is almost untouchable even when they pretty clearly commit crimes to influence elections, state and individual rights are slowly but inexorably being eliminated in favor of a central technocratic bureaucracy, the federal debt is unmanageable, and it sure looks like the good old US of A is on her deathbed. (Not, mind you, that the nation state that <i>calls</i> itself the USA will disappear, but the ideals and form of government that are the heart and soul of the nation, the "real" America, are about to be extinguished with no clear path to resuscitation.)Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-72039371336461422182017-11-28T18:19:30.490-05:002017-11-28T18:19:30.490-05:00Tom -
Thanks so much for the thoughtful response...Tom - <br /><br />Thanks so much for the thoughtful responses - I felt like I was misconscrewing your comments and heading in the wrong direction in my own responses, and your subsequent comments confirmed that for me.<br /><br />Will come back and respond - am in the middle of making curry for dinner after a too-long day at work and the brain is pretty much fried.<br /><br />From what I've read so far though, I think we're mostly in agreement.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-22924253575234680702017-11-28T02:19:51.852-05:002017-11-28T02:19:51.852-05:00douglas says it well.
As for candidates, I was a ...douglas says it well.<br /><br />As for candidates, I was a big fan of Ben Carson just because I believe he is a truly good person, the best of them in my opinion. He obviously wasn't very well qualified or experienced for the job, but if virtue is paramount, you couldn't have done better.<br /><br />More realistically, I track with Tex: Walker, then Cruz.<br /><br />Qualifications are less important to me (not unimportant, mind you) than aspirations. Webb was the most qualified, but his voting record and goals were worse than just about any of the Republican candidates.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-4929979467232981942017-11-28T02:03:54.135-05:002017-11-28T02:03:54.135-05:00To continue:
Cass:Are we in a crisis? Or are we l...To continue:<br /><br />Cass:<i>Are we in a crisis? Or are we living through the normal back-and-forth of human events, in which things swing back and forth like a pendulum?</i><br /><br />That's the question of the day. I don't know. I think we are, though, and I think it's been building since the 1930s. FDR and the New Deal generation fundamentally transformed the US, and WWII and the Cold War shaped generations of Americans into statists. Radical leftists today are trying to accomplish another major transformation that, in my opinion, would effectively kill individual rights as Americans have traditionally understood them and turn the US into another social democracy. Obama was pushing hard for that, with assists from the IRS, DOJ, DOEdu, and maybe even the FBI. Luckily, he did a lot of it with a pen and a phone and never got legislation to back it up. Had Clinton won, she would no doubt pursue that agenda.<br /><br />At some point, you reach a place where there is no return. Instead of a major war, it could just be that last straw on the camel's back. That's the kind of crisis I think we're in. The left is piling on the straw and we're trying to take it off. Each individual straw is a small thing, but the whole mass can be pretty serious, and at some point you don't recover.<br /><br />Me: <i>On the other hand, if they do not think the US is in a crisis, then virtue becomes more important. That's my main point.</i><br /><br />Call: <i>Not sure I understand what you're trying to say here - can you elaborate?</i><br /><br />Sure. I think there's a split between people who think we're in a crisis and those who don't.<br /><br />For the people who think we're in a crisis, they are most concerned with effectiveness and whether or not a politician is personally virtuous is not as important. Every vote is important.<br /><br />On the other hand, those who do not think we're in a crisis treat personal virtue much more seriously. It's OK to lose an election if the candidate is a villain because it's not that big a deal if the other side makes some gains. Every vote is not important; if we lose a few, that's just how the game is played. We'll win a few the next time around.<br /><br />In short, when the perceived stakes of winning and losing are high, virtue takes a backseat to achieving one's political goals. When the perceived stakes are low, achieving one's political goals take a backseat to virtue. Not for everyone, but for many, it seems.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-3720876407718260172017-11-28T01:41:17.321-05:002017-11-28T01:41:17.321-05:00The posting and various commentators on these even...The posting and various commentators on these events have a common thread that troubles me quite a bit - they support (from various directions) that this is an issue of men or masculinity. But do not the feminists tell us time and time again that rape is a crime of power, not sex? Then is not sexual harassment so as well? Do a search on female teachers committing statutory rape and you will be quite surprised at the large number of examples - but why, then, if rape and sexual harassment is an issue of masculinity? The answer is that it is not masculinity that is the problem. It is one of power, and the nature of fallen humans to misuse it regardless of their sex.RonFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13533867151466876449noreply@blogger.com