“You Are My Friend” Tom Hanks as Mister Rogers

[plasticcrapmoneywaster]

This is the kind of nonsense people are being taught in schools. How do you control whether or not you need to wield violence? If you only use violence in self-defense, the person attacking you determines whether or not you need to use it. Meanwhile, when you call the police because of an incident, does that count as wielding violence? Or does it not count, if you ask someone else to wield violence on your behalf? Are you an anarchist? Or do you agree, that we need police officers in order to maintain a peaceful society? You seem to think that delegating the use of violence makes you a "real man". In reality, it makes you a coward.

Edit: My point is, in a world where bullies / authoritarian people exist, it is important for kids to toughen up, so that they have the physical ability and emotional strength to protect each other. To suggest that it is somehow a kid's fault that they're being bullied, because they weren't "man enough" to prevent themselves from being assaulted, is the worst advice you could give a child.

"Dad, Johnny threw sand in my face!"
"Well son, what could you have done to avoid that!"

Your child's dignity is no less important than yours. If you were institutionalized with people who assaulted you, would you blame yourself? Of course not. Neither should your kid. However, allowing your kid to be a victim is also unhealthy. That leads to emotional trauma and PTSD. Instead, if your kid is comfortable with violence, they can prevent, control and deter bullying toward them, and other people.

I don't disagree with any of what you wrote. Honestly, I doubt Mister Rogers did either as I seem to remember him visiting a martial arts school once...lol. There is a difference between conflict resolution and dealing with physical assault. I think we are on the same page here.

 

[Spazz]

You act like assault is an every day occurrence. If you laid a hand on me, my wife, or my kid of course I would drop your ***. However, 99% of conflicts can be resolved peacefully.

Assault is an everyday occurrence. Ask a police officer. Assault happens to meek people more often, while at the same time meek people depend on formidable people to protect them. If you're not entirely meek but live in a community where there is inequality, you're more likely to be asked for help. If (and by the sounds of it, this might be the case) your neighbors recognize you as someone they can depend on, you might very well get sucked into a conflict that has nothing to do with you.

This happened to me a couple of months ago. Admittedly, I de-escalated a scary situation without violence, but there was a credible threat when a neighbor came running to me for help, because of a drunk homeless person who was sexually harassing and following her. If I wasn't capable of wielding violence, I could not have confidently controlled the situation to prevent violence. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

The problem with the Self-Esteem movement, is that it is about self-perception as a motivator. That's a problem. For example, in the handful of times where I've been in a fight, I felt bad about what I had to do, in order to stop someone from hurting me or someone else. You have to put that aside, if you want to live in a community without bullying or harm.

As adults, this gets even more complicated. Every once in a while, we outgrow certain aspects of society, and the group requires change. People who benefit from tradition, resist change. At that point, there's a clash between the majority of the population, and those who rule. We've seen it countless times regarding bigotry, and social inequality. We're entering another phase, soon. This one might be uglier than ever. While aspects of Mr Rogers "pro social" programming are important, like sharing, love, compassion, caring for others, getting to know people by asking questions etc. etc., there are certain anti-authoritarian traits that, while considered a "disorder" by psychologists, are absolutely necessary in order to stop adult-sized bullying. When you live in a fragmented community where people care about one another, but are too weak to help each other, you get a lot of passive, weak people watching horrible things happen to each other. I'm afraid that's what the world will look like in a decade or so. We need more anti-authoritarianism, and less Mr Rogers types. They're too weak.

 

[Spazz]

I don't disagree with any of what you wrote. Honestly, I doubt Mister Rogers did either as I seem to remember him visiting a martial arts school once...lol. There is a difference between conflict resolution and dealing with physical assault. I think we are on the same page here.

Cool. Yeah, I edited the post to clarify what I mean. However, read my last post regarding adult sized bullying. I really do think that we're entering an era where the Self-Esteem movement is going to look a lot more like pseudo-scientific political propaganda to people. Functionality within a framework where people are suffering is not "pro social". If Mr Rogers wants to keep living in a nice neighborhood, he's going to have to become more anti-authoritarian. Basic Income and over 40% unemployment is not the kind of thing Mr Rogers would tolerate, but I don't think he'd be able to do much about it, either.

 

[franpincho]

Spazz is a bad azz.

 

[plasticcrapmoneywaster]

...I think you watch too many dystopian movies my friend. While, yes, assault does happen, every minute of everyday to someone, somewhere, how often has it happened to you personally? Everyday? Naw, I don't think so. Actually violent crime is on the downward.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

No one is saying we shouldn't teach kids to throw a punch, (at least not me or Mister Rogers for that matter) hell, I have taught my kids to throw a punch or two...but, it is far more important to teach them manners and solid social skills.

 

[Spazz]

...I think you watch too many dystopian movies my friend. While, yes, assault does happen, every minute of everyday to someone, somewhere, how often has it happened to you personally? Everyday? Naw, I don't think so. Actually violent crime is on the downward.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

No one is saying we shouldn't teach kids to throw a punch, (at least not me or Mister Rogers for that matter) hell, I have taught my kids to throw a punch or two...but, it is far more important to teach them manners and solid social skills.

I agree that we need to teach kids how to be kind to one another, share etc. However, my problem with Mr. Rogers is that he doesn't like violent cartoons. This whole conversation started with a video of Mr Rogers complaining about violent cartoons during a government hearing. I disagree with him, on that front. I think it's important that we not only desensitize, but train children to be proficient in self-defense, and I advocate the way most children's television shows handle this: violence is glorified when directed toward aggressors.

You're right, violence only happens to individuals a handful of times during their life, presuming they're not a kid constantly being bullied at school. However, if we all took care of one another we'd be exposed to violence a lot more, because we'd be involving ourselves when people need help. We currently live in a world where someone can theoretically starve to death, while begging for change in front of a grocery store. If you involved yourself in that person's problems, realized that, for instance, there are systemic reasons for their unnecessary suffering, you'd suddenly come into conflict with real power. And with real power, there's the threat of real violence.

That's not science fiction. That's the world you live in, right now. Would Mr Rogers care that someone was starving to death, begging for change outside of a grocery store? Of course he would. What happens, when Mr. Rogers realizes there's a problem with the system itself? That our entire understanding of "functionality" is the problem? Well, that's where the Self Esteem movement doesn't work anymore. You need anti-authoritarianism.

Edit: I'll give you a real life example. Back in the 70's, psychiatrists used to prescribe electroshock therapy to gay people, in hopes of curing them of their "mental illness". Like most "mental diseases", being gay was considered a mental illness because it rendered the gay person "dysfunctional" within a nuclear family. Back then, being part of a nuclear family was considered a pre-requisite for functionality. Being gay meant you couldn't function in that aspect of society, so, from the perspective of the pseudo-science, being gay must be a mental illness. Zzzzap! And people died. My friend's uncle died. Then there were protests. While psychiatry eventually backed off that particular diagnosis, they persist in diagnosing any pattern of behavior deemed "dysfunctional" as a mental illness, to this day. That's not science. Science requires falsifiable information.

The problem with the self-esteem movement, is that we don't learn by thinking highly of ourselves. We learn by being critical of our own beliefs, intentionally trying to falsify them. You try to prove yourself wrong. That's how we've understood science since the 70's. The reason why the Self-Esteem movement continues to fail children, is because it's hinged on the notion that feeling good about yourself leads to success. If we all tried to improve ourselves and the world around us as a way of being kind to each other, innovating instead of worrying about massaging each others self-esteem, things might actually improve for people.

 

[YoNoSe]

 

[Shawpaw]

Assault is an everyday occurrence. Ask a police officer. Assault happens to meek people more often, while at the same time meek people depend on formidable people to protect them. If you're not entirely meek but live in a community where there is inequality, you're more likely to be asked for help. If (and by the sounds of it, this might be the case) your neighbors recognize you as someone they can depend on, you might very well get sucked into a conflict that has nothing to do with you.

This happened to me a couple of months ago. Admittedly, I de-escalated a scary situation without violence, but there was a credible threat when a neighbor came running to me for help, because of a drunk homeless person who was sexually harassing and following her. If I wasn't capable of wielding violence, I could not have confidently controlled the situation to prevent violence. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

The problem with the Self-Esteem movement, is that it is about self-perception as a motivator. That's a problem. For example, in the handful of times where I've been in a fight, I felt bad about what I had to do, in order to stop someone from hurting me or someone else. You have to put that aside, if you want to live in a community without bullying or harm.

As adults, this gets even more complicated. Every once in a while, we outgrow certain aspects of society, and the group requires change. People who benefit from tradition, resist change. At that point, there's a clash between the majority of the population, and those who rule. We've seen it countless times regarding bigotry, and social inequality. We're entering another phase, soon. This one might be uglier than ever. While aspects of Mr Rogers "pro social" programming are important, like sharing, love, compassion, caring for others, getting to know people by asking questions etc. etc., there are certain anti-authoritarian traits that, while considered a "disorder" by psychologists, are absolutely necessary in order to stop adult-sized bullying. When you live in a fragmented community where people care about one another, but are too weak to help each other, you get a lot of passive, weak people watching horrible things happen to each other. I'm afraid that's what the world will look like in a decade or so. We need more anti-authoritarianism, and less Mr Rogers types. They're too weak.

SNIKT?

 

[Spazz]

If we all tried to improve ourselves and the world around us as a way of being kind to each other, innovating instead of worrying about massaging each others self-esteem, things might actually improve for people.

Compulsively addressing validation. In one ear, and out the other... This is what the self-esteem movement has done to people.

 

[Caped Baldy]

 

[YoNoSe]

This gif doesn't get enough play.

 

[batfan08]

You’re all *******. Get off the ****ing internet, you pansy *****. If your child is bad, beat them. If someone beats them up, beat them if they don’t fight back. If they fight back, beat them for getting suspended. It’s the only way they’ll ever learn. There’s no such thing as the carrot. All you’ve got is a stick and your fists to punch your problems right in the ****ing face. **** outta here with all this Mr. Rogers Internet forum *** bull****. *******.

 

[Spazz]

You’re all *******. Get off the ****ing internet, you pansy *****. If your child is bad, beat them. If someone beats them up, beat them if they don’t fight back. If they fight back, beat them for getting suspended. It’s the only way they’ll ever learn. There’s no such thing as the carrot. All you’ve got is a stick and your fists to punch your problems right in the ****ing face. **** outta here with all this Mr. Rogers Internet forum *** bull****. *******.

No way. You're assuming that there's such a thing as failure! That's bad for your kid's self-esteem. If you teach your kid that they're a winner, perfect regardless of what they achieve, it will motivate them to do great things! Successful people don't worry about improving upon themselves, they never self-scrutinize, or falsify their own beliefs. Successful people accomplish things by believing that they're awesome. It's the key to success! People innovate because they look at what they've done, and decide "Progress is unnecessary".

If your kid gets bullied, tell your kid that he's got it all wrong. He won the fight, by brutally beating the assailant in the fist, with their face! Oh, the beating that person's hands must have taken! Then, send your kid back to school with a positive mental attitude. That is the best way to protect them from being harassed or subjugated. Your kid doesn't need to learn how to defend themselves. The Meek shall inherit the earth! One day! Any day now! (I mean, they're kind of busy doing menial tasks at the moment, but man, when they're done, there's gonna be some serious earth-inheritance! You watch!)

 

[Darth Snoopy]

Please stick to the topic, a Mister Rogers movie, and keep your social commentary to yourself and out of here.

You've been warned.

 

[Spazz]

Please stick to the topic, a Mister Rogers movie, and keep your social commentary to yourself and out of here.

You've been warned.

That's fine. However, if your grievance is rule based the same should apply for advocates of the movie. The discussion began with people advocating for Mr Rogers in light of the Self Esteem movement. I assume you have a problem with that, as well. You're not solely concerned with criticism of ideas, but discussion of ideas in general that aren't directly pertaining to the film. Right? People shouldn't bring up the Self-Esteem movement, or post videos of Mr Rogers complaining about violent cartoons in favor of nurturing self-esteem. That's not directly movie related. Otherwise, you'd just be censoring critical opinion.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

I don't care what side you fall on; I'm telling everyone to keep the social commentary out of here because all that talk does is cause hard feelings and ends with tears and bans.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

Yeah...

 

[Spazz]

I don't care what side you fall on; I'm telling everyone to keep the social commentary out of here because all that talk does is cause hard feelings and ends with tears and bans.

Great. Then I'd appreciate it if the Mods were more consistent, in making sure that positive social commentary commending films for being "progressive" were also regulated on these forums. If you allow people to consistently say, "The film is great because it advocates X", then penalize people for falsifying the claim, you effectively enforce a one-sided argument. That's propaganda. I'll happily obey the rules so long as they're enforced consistently. However, if people aren't being regulated when advocating dumb ideas, but people are being regulated for questioning those dumb ideas, well... You're a teacher. You should know why someone should have dealt with the issue 3 pages ago, with that Mr Rogers video.

Edit: I just checked, and it was karamazov80, a MODERATOR who began this conversation by advocating the Self Esteem movement. So, are the Mods themselves going to quit interjecting with their normative beliefs regarding films? Or are we all being inundated with the Mods beliefs? Please be more consistent.

 

[Kamandi]

It's clear reading this thread some people didn't grow up to be the person Mr. Rogers hoped they would be.

 

[Darth Snoopy]

Enough already, Spazz, Freaks come here to relax and chat about movies and toys not get into heated debates over politics or such nonsense.

If you have a problem with the way things are moderated on these forums then by all means, contact Darklord Dave and complain.