For those who see the same things I see, what do you think are the reasons why "kids these days" would be more well behaved than previous generations?

I think it’s because they are too busy texting pictures of their genitals to each other.

 

I think it’s because they are too busy texting pictures of their genitals to each other.

No that's millennials and Gen X. SMS text is for "old people." Gen Z has better platforms for sending nudes, where they disappear after a few hours.

 

I'll note that how good or bad, strong or weak, hardworking or not, or whatever metrics you want a kid is depends highly on two things. First is one's perception of those metrics. People are typically heavily biased and way too many people want to judge a kid after seeing just a few seconds or minutes of the kid in action. Also, far too many people offer up their judgement verbally without the need for the judgement OR the verbalization. Some times, it's better to just keep quiet.

Second, I'll note that parenting is the greatest influence on whether a kid is hardworking or not, or any of the above metrics. What generation they are is absolutely immaterial. I had friends from my school years who slacked and friends who were hard working. It happens across every generation.

Lastly, concerning Gen Z, I'll pass along a short story. A few weeks ago, I hired a friend to help me take down some overgrown pine trees. He brought along his 20 year old nephew to help and I agreed to pay him for his time. His nephew pulled up in a Ford F-150 Raptor truck. I'll admit that my first impression was, "Here's another one of those kids whose manly-ness revolves around a truck." But then my friend told me how he'd obtained the truck. His father promised him the truck if he got a full year of straight A's. He did it and his father got the truck for him. The best part about it is that I could tell that he saw the value behind the hard work that got him the truck and he took care of it. That boy worked his butt off the whole day long and truly earned his pay.

Contrast that with my nephew, also 20, who I made the same deal with, but rode around on the back of the tractor I was moving logs with the whole time. This even after I told him to line the logs up so I could grab them quickly. Nope, back to riding the tractor after lining up 1 or 2, more of a hindrance than a help.

So indeed, in keeping with my earlier statement, every generation has its slackers and its overachievers and the whole spectrum in between. It's up to us as parents to guide them but we've got to keep in mind that broad criticism is unfair to the ones that are doing well.

 

No that's millennials and Gen X. SMS text is for "old people." Gen Z has better platforms for sending nudes, where they disappear after a few hours.

Which just leaves these Gen Z kids shocked when the nude pictures they sent get circulated around to the friends, classmates, teachers, and family. Even though many of them routinely take screenshots of images on their phone -- or even take pictures of things displayed on someone else's phone, they can't grasp why their nude pictures didn't somehow magically cease to exist after a few hours.

 

Well I encountered a representative of the Gen Z "bad boys club" this weekend at my daughter's graduation party. I rented an AirBNB beach house for the event and he showed up already drunk, having just been uninvited from someone else's graduation party. After a couple of hours of being generally annoying he destroyed the kitchen waste basket because he wasn't satisfied with how the lid automatically closes when you take your foot off the pedal. He wanted it to remain open, so he snapped the lid off at the hinges and disposed of it inside itself. Several others saw him do it and they all told me who it was. When I went to confront him about it he lied about it and got belligerent. I asked him to leave and he said "I ain't going nowhere ni**a" (he's white and so am I). So I turned my attention to his girlfriend who drove him there and who was not drinking, and said "please take your boyfriend and leave," which he took as the mother of all insults and took a swing at my face. He telegraphed it so badly that I had time to shove him over backwards before the fist ever entered controlled airspace. Immediately several other boys at the party subdued him and kept him a safe distance away from me for the 30 minutes it took to convince him that there would be no epic beatdown of the old guy and that nobody wanted him around. After threatening to come back and murder me later, he did the sensible thing and left. I am happy to report that I remain so far unmurdered.

 

You know, sometimes calling in the police is the right thing to do. For the benefit the boy, not you, who handled the situation quite well. He had apparently not yet learned that his actions have consequences.

 

You know, sometimes calling in the police is the right thing to do. For the benefit the boy, not you, who handled the situation quite well. He had apparently not yet learned that his actions have consequences.

My niece's boyfriend was murdered so I take all threats real or perceived as legitimate. I strongly believe this is what we pay police for. They are there to act as arbiters and who are most likely to be bound to the law in the event of a 3-way disagreement. I also learned from rough experience the most unruly people only respond to actual authority when pressured. Any kind of "dad" or "boss" mentality seems to infuriate them further.

 

You know, sometimes calling in the police is the right thing to do. For the benefit the boy, not you, who handled the situation quite well. He had apparently not yet learned that his actions have consequences.

Point taken. I was conflicted about it at the time and in the clarity of hindsight I agree with you.

 

Point taken. I was conflicted about it at the time and in the clarity of hindsight I agree with you.

At least you have a police dept. that might might actually show up for a party fist fight.

 

At least you have a police dept. that might might actually show up for a party fist fight.

Probably? I don't know, this wasn't in my town, it was 45 minutes away in a beach town and I don't know what the cops are like there. I know they have time to drive up and down the beach writing littering tickets to tourists, so yeah they probably would have found time to come. To your point I'm glad I don't live somewhere that people's legitimate need for police goes unanswered because there is too much other legitimate crime going on.

 

Well I encountered a representative of the Gen Z "bad boys club" this weekend at my daughter's graduation party. I rented an AirBNB beach house for the event and he showed up already drunk, having just been uninvited from someone else's graduation party. After a couple of hours of being generally annoying he destroyed the kitchen waste basket because he wasn't satisfied with how the lid automatically closes when you take your foot off the pedal. He wanted it to remain open, so he snapped the lid off at the hinges and disposed of it inside itself. Several others saw him do it and they all told me who it was. When I went to confront him about it he lied about it and got belligerent. I asked him to leave and he said "I ain't going nowhere ni**a" (he's white and so am I). So I turned my attention to his girlfriend who drove him there and who was not drinking, and said "please take your boyfriend and leave," which he took as the mother of all insults and took a swing at my face. He telegraphed it so badly that I had time to shove him over backwards before the fist ever entered controlled airspace. Immediately several other boys at the party subdued him and kept him a safe distance away from me for the 30 minutes it took to convince him that there would be no epic beatdown of the old guy and that nobody wanted him around. After threatening to come back and murder me later, he did the sensible thing and left. I am happy to report that I remain so far unmurdered.

Had situation back in 1983 that had some eerie similarities (so it's not unique to Gen-Z, by any means). Was at a Halloween party with the folks from work (we were all either in high school or recently graduated). There was one guy, call him Jim, that had been hired that no one could stand and the invitation had been kept from him. The party was going well, meaning that everyone was getting thoroughly drunk (the father of the girl hosting the party, call her Tyra, was the one spiking the punch with Jack Daniels, Mad Dog, and Everclear -- while pronouncing that he would teach these kids a lesson -- hey, it was the '80s). Everyone was pretty wasted when Jim showed up and was very belligerent about any attempt (by thoroughly-inebriated folks) to tell him to leave, so eventually everyone just ignored him. At some point, he saw Tyra go into her bedroom and pass out, so he got the bright idea to go in and rape her, being completely unaware of a little well-known fact amongst everyone else -- when Tyra got drunk, Tyra got violent. About the time that Jim emerged from her room, somewhat worse for the wear, others had figured out what was happening, at least roughly, and where trying to physically eject him from the house (and, again, all said teens, except Jim, where drunk as hell). The commotion eventually got the attention of Tyra's dad, who clued into the situation very quickly (he wasn't drunk) and who had a very simple solution -- shoot Jim. So he went to his bedroom and got a rifle (which, it turned out, was not loaded, but only her dad knew that). Some of the kids noticed and were trying to push him back into his bedroom, while on the other side of the living room Jim was still refusing to leave -- until he saw the gun, at which point you couldn't clear a path to the door fast enough. The next day, he called into work and quit immediately and, according to one person that still had some interaction with him at another job, he became a much less confrontational (though still generally loathsome) person afterward. I've often wondered what eventually became of him -- did his new caution stick, or is he buried in a shallow grave somewhere?

 

Probably? I don't know, this wasn't in my town, it was 45 minutes away in a beach town and I don't know what the cops are like there. I know they have time to drive up and down the beach writing littering tickets to tourists, so yeah they probably would have found time to come. To your point I'm glad I don't live somewhere that people's legitimate need for police goes unanswered because there is too much other legitimate crime going on.

It's more the local police have been told not to care about most personal dust-ups.
Some states have a mutual combat statute for things like bar or party fights. I think Texas might be one of those. It's (mutual combat as a defense) not legal in Oregon but it's seldom charged or even investigated unless there is serious bodily damage.

 

It's more the local police have been told not to care about most personal dust-ups.
Some states have a mutual combat statute for things like bar or party fights. I think Texas might be one of those. It's (mutual combat as a defense) not legal in Oregon but it's seldom charged or even investigated unless there is serious bodily damage.

As a Canadian I'm conflicted about the utility of letting citizens fight themselves. I'm a Star Trek nerd so I envision the day where there is nothing to fight over. As a simple rule of law, by not allowing certain modes of aggression, that aggression is either eliminated or displaced. Moving from war to sport is a good example of this. It's controlled aggression. Better that then letting the crazies run loose.

 

As an American, fighting is part of our history and culture. Some of my best childhood friendships started with a fight. I think your right about too much aggression when the circumstances don't warrant it but too little is also bad because the world is not tame.
Star Trek had a kill setting on those phasors for a good reason, everything is not rational, eventually the mean drunk will poke his finger on the wrong chest and will be instructed properly.

 

As an American, fighting is part of our history and culture. Some of my best childhood friendships started with a fight. I think your right about too much aggression when the circumstances don't warrant it but too little is also bad because the world is not tame.
Star Trek had a kill setting on those phasors for a good reason, everything is not rational, eventually the mean drunk will poke his finger on the wrong chest and will be instructed properly.

Unfortunately the right to defend yourself is largely removed from Canadians and even carrying a small knife is grounds for investigation.

I've never felt the need to carry a firearm until I encountered a cougar in the bush. Since then I feel vulnerable when faced with the wilderness but also people because I know without a weapon, I'm at their mercy.

The part I'm still trying to figure out is why you guys experience way more human vs human violence. Things like mass shootings and ideology killings are practically non-existent here. But as time goes on, the enemies of freedom are becoming stronger and without armaments for citizens, I think countries like Canada are at a severe disadvantage.

 

The part I'm still trying to figure out is why you guys experience way more human vs human violence. Things like mass shootings and ideology killings are practically non-existent here.

There are lots of reasons and there are lots of different kinds of violence, so any simplistic answers you come across are pretty much guaranteed to be far off the mark. Consequently, comparing two countries in any meaningful way is a daunting task and not at all easily done.

A big part of it, but certainly not the only part, is population and population density. The U.S. has roughly ten times the population of Canada (I think that is trending downward, but it's probably still at least about 8x or 9x or so). But we also have a lot more urban centers where large numbers of people live in close proximity, thus drastically increasing the number of interactions, some fraction of which will be violent. But it's much more complicated than that, since urban populations are simply different than rural populations -- different attitudes, different cultures, different backgrounds, different types of relationships with the community and other members of it, different expectations, different relationships with local government and law enforcement, different ways of interacting and resolving conflicts, different (lots of other things).

U.S. culture has also shifted radically in many ways over the last fifty years or so (and the same can certainly be said for other parts of the world, too). To some degree, the negative consequences of this (and there are always both positive and negative consequences to cultural shifts) are probably somewhat transient as it just takes time for things to adapt to those changes -- the feedback mechanisms that evolved to control things fifty years ago are simply not as good a match, and hence not as effective, under the new conditions and the new feedback mechanisms that are a good match take time to develop.

Just a couple of examples -- when I was a young kid and went to the park to play, there were usually just a couple of moms there along with lots of kids, like me, with no parents there. But those moms had no hesitation or inhibition when it came to disciplining kids that weren't their own and the threshold for them stepping in was pretty low, occasionally including a good swat on the behind or, more commonly, being told to leave (and the offending kid always did, I don't recall a single incident where the kid backtalked the adult or insisted that they had some right to be there, though I'm sure it happened from time to time). Schools, of course, routinely meted out corporal punishment to unruly kids -- I got more than a few paddlings by teachers and principals, most of them deserved. You definitely don't see that any more, so young kids have lost that feedback control on what is and what is not acceptable behavior around others and, in my opinion, we are a long way from evolving something effective in its place. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that those kinds of community-level mechanisms and expectations that shaped a good portion of the youth at that time were a big part of what enabled teenagers and even pre-teens, to climb aboard city buses with their target rifles on their way to range practice near downtown Denver. While I never had to do that -- we lived too far away and so we always carpooled -- several of our members did and I don't recall being the least bit surprised when I learned that they did (though it's a bit hard to remember, since I was only about ten at the time).

 

There are lots of reasons and there are lots of different kinds of violence, so any simplistic answers you come across are pretty much guaranteed to be far off the mark. Consequently, comparing two countries in any meaningful way is a daunting task and not at all easily done.

A big part of it, but certainly not the only part, is population and population density. The U.S. has roughly ten times the population of Canada (I think that is trending downward, but it's probably still at least about 8x or 9x or so). But we also have a lot more urban centers where large numbers of people live in close proximity, thus drastically increasing the number of interactions, some fraction of which will be violent. But it's much more complicated than that, since urban populations are simply different than rural populations -- different attitudes, different cultures, different backgrounds, different types of relationships with the community and other members of it, different expectations, different relationships with local government and law enforcement, different ways of interacting and resolving conflicts, different (lots of other things).

U.S. culture has also shifted radically in many ways over the last fifty years or so (and the same can certainly be said for other parts of the world, too). To some degree, the negative consequences of this (and there are always both positive and negative consequences to cultural shifts) are probably somewhat transient as it just takes time for things to adapt to those changes -- the feedback mechanisms that evolved to control things fifty years ago are simply not as good a match, and hence not as effective, under the new conditions and the new feedback mechanisms that are a good match take time to develop.

Just a couple of examples -- when I was a young kid and went to the park to play, there were usually just a couple of moms there along with lots of kids, like me, with no parents there. But those moms had no hesitation or inhibition when it came to disciplining kids that weren't their own and the threshold for them stepping in was pretty low, occasionally including a good swat on the behind or, more commonly, being told to leave (and the offending kid always did, I don't recall a single incident where the kid backtalked the adult or insisted that they had some right to be there, though I'm sure it happened from time to time). Schools, of course, routinely meted out corporal punishment to unruly kids -- I got more than a few paddlings by teachers and principals, most of them deserved. You definitely don't see that any more, so young kids have lost that feedback control on what is and what is not acceptable behavior around others and, in my opinion, we are a long way from evolving something effective in its place. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that those kinds of community-level mechanisms and expectations that shaped a good portion of the youth at that time were a big part of what enabled teenagers and even pre-teens, to climb aboard city buses with their target rifles on their way to range practice near downtown Denver. While I never had to do that -- we lived too far away and so we always carpooled -- several of our members did and I don't recall being the least bit surprised when I learned that they did (though it's a bit hard to remember, since I was only about ten at the time).

It's hard not to sound like a racist but I think what you speak of are co-evolving mini societies. They ARE different and that is because of physical constraints imposed ultimately by Nature. It's because of this I support post-nationalism because it breaks away from the Darwinian aspect of our evolution. Specifically, I think it's accurate to say most religious folk were raised to believe. Likewise, most patriots are natives. On some level, a child given a gun is instructed to kill.

Yesterday I had an interesting experience. I sitting in a parking lot when a woman and her child both wearing the full Muslim setup and it was a bit much for the weather.

They had come to a tree to pray. I was a bit upset about how young the child was to be indoctrinated but nonetheless I remarked how they were allowed to do this without persecution. It was one of those little things that made me feel really good about being in Canada because the fact they can do that means I can do, if I want. It's also the case that my ability to hurt them is limited which is an important detail. It sort of a forced stale-mate of ideologies. Nobody really wins but nobody gets the drop on each other much either. I felt like the situation was neutral with the woman and her child being completely comfortable around me.

You mentioned feedback mechanisms and I think for the most part, they are working here. At the risk of getting political, I think this is largely attributed to Liberal ideology. On the other hand, I think Canadian way of life is facilitated by American way of life as well as other NATO countries. They keep the peace so we don't have to. It would be foolish of me not to appreciate the sacrifices.

 

A big part of it, but certainly not the only part, is population and population density

My state is the most urbanized of the 50 states. 91.3% urban population. And it has the fourth lowest rate of homicide.

It also has the lowest rate of gun ownership.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

My state is the most urbanized of the 50 states. 91.3% urban population. And it has the fourth lowest rate of homicide.

It also has the lowest rate of gun ownership.

Draw your own conclusions.

That Mass is filled with sheeple might be one conclusion.

Sorry, you left it hanging out.

 

That Mass is filled with sheeple might be one conclusion.

Sorry, you left it hanging out.

Please explain. We are “sheeple” because:

1. We don’t often murder each other.
2. Most of us live in cities.

or

3. Not many of us own guns.

Which is it, because those were the only assertions I made in my post.

Or maybe you inferred that we argue with facts instead of insults, and that makes us “sheeple.”