At least 99% of parents can't be trusted with the ability to hit their kids.
It may seem this implies they can't be trusted with kids at all. Probably.
Fundamental trust aside; can do privileges instead. Have a weekly car ride. Heck, have a weekly on-your-back ride for a couple hours. Then take it away if they insist on treachery.
The ongoing effort from the parent is key to a proper privilege. It doesn't count as a privilege if there's a higher cost for interrupting it than continuing it, such as video game [privileges]. Easier not to steal the power cord than to let it stay.
If parents can hit their kids, parents will use it for exploitation. Negative reinforcement allows extortion, blackmail, etc.
This should be against their interests, but they're horrible (i.e. sapiens) so it isn't.
You can tell they're horrible because they shouldn't need encouragement from pseudonymous text boxes on the internet to give [privileges] in this sense to their kids. Why aren't you already showering your kids with nice nonmonetary luxuries, for the sake of being nice? Why have I literally never witnessed this even a single time?
All this virtue-signalling online to avoid virtue-signalling at home. To the alleged loved ones.
Don't forget commoners only recognize mandatory and forbidden. If commoners can extort their kids, then they think they have to. Options are too rich for their blood. That is: there's a backstop. In the extraordinary case of a virtuous commoner, they will still act viciously to their kids if it is permitted.
Note that the 1% or less direspect rules because they can. At best they re-write the rules for their own convenience. Soycial design doesn't apply to them, regardless of system.
By revoking a positive rather than applying a negative, it's the parents as well as the kids who receive discipline. If I demand something absurd from my kids, they will sacrifice the privilege to get out of it. "Clean your sister's room or no more piggy backs." "Oh, well, never mind on the rides then."
A lot of the reason for [parental discipline] is merely that words are hard. Parents are inarticulate. Need a way for the children to understand the instruction. The intensity of the punishment is irrelevant, merely that it's an embodied punishment, rather than a reward. That and the fact moms say things for the sake of saying things all the time, so [consequences] are necessary to tell when she's not merely spewing bullshit from her face-butt.
Parents being non-verbal means they can't hear their kids either. They can't tell how much the demands are burdening the children. Using privileges, they can find out. What is the greatest privilege the kid will give up to get out of the command? Imagine demanding they finish their dinner. Will they give up decorative door ribbons? They would probably give that up for a nickel. If they're giving up daily trips to the video game museum to avoid having to finish dinner, then it turns out the parent is asking far more than they realized. "Yeah, uh, your cooking is literal torture dude." Commoners are retarded. Without being smacked in the face like this, they will never figure it out. I model them as constitutionally incapable of love (storge or otherwise).
Note that hunter tribes don't hit their children. (But do hit their wives.) Hitting someone 1/4 your weight is bullying, regardless of the reason. Cowardly and treacherous; shameful twice over. Your soyvilization should at least be as civilized as pre-agricultural societies. China is less civilized, more soyvilized, than guys who think a pointy rock is the height of ingenuity and eat off baked dirt.
All the popular talk about rights and privileges doesn't apply to governments. It should, however, apply to families. Dinner is a right. Mcdonald's is a privilege. Make the latter non-arbitrary so it can be used as enforcement.
P.S. You need a father, entry #36896: moms don't comprehend systems. Is she saying no to mcds because you pissed her off or because you were bad? No, she's just bummed about the weather and in a [no] mood, and she wouldn't tell you even if she had a good reason and knew what it was.
If she did say when she had a good reason, not saying would reveal all the times she has no good reason.
A common woman especially takes her feelings as gospel, and the result is incomprehensible to her let alone to anyone else. That is; babies cry to replace mom's emotions with their own, and if you're not replacing her emotions, she's inherently abusive. Women are non-sapient that this emotion-replacement trigger can go off reliably. I wouldn't have done it that way, but it's not my evolution, not my karma, and not my decision.
6 comments:
Good to see you back.
You're talking about proper use of coercion. However, there is a lot of emerging thought, especially from Stefan Molyneux, about the unacceptability of force and coercion with children and defaulting to persuasion and explanation.
As a parent of 3, the latter strategy has worked more than threatening more often than not. Though I've always wondered about proper use of coercion.
Would you say Molyneux strat is simply a better off for peasants as they can't be trusted with force at all? Or is there a more prevailing element of truth there?
I would say the molyneux strat is better, yes. However, it 's probably a moot point, since they can't be trusted to follow the strategy either. They won't put any effort into protecting their children from school or rotherhams, but they will put endless effort into figuring out how to be a blood traitor. Not coincidentally. Common parents will subvert whatever rules are laid down the instant nobody is looking over their shoulder. Just like their kids.
The proper use of violence is the same for children as for adults. If they insist on committing crimes, force them not to, using whatever is efficient. Vandalism is still vandalism if the perpetrator is short. Acts of war vs. acts of war. The romans let you execute your own children. The romans were overzealous and encouraged wrongly at times, but it's the modern ban on it that's corrupt, not the ancient attitudes. The attitude works for everyone who isn't a blood traitor, and, as above, no set of rules works for blood traitors.
The thing is that usually you barely have to do anything. Hint you're disappointed, and they'll stop. If you need more, generally but not quite always, the error is on your end.
"My kids are drawing on the walls."
"Okay, why do they have access to crayons in the first place?"
If they're too young to remember the rules, they shouldn't have the opportunity to break them.
I have some experience with seriously disobedient children, and it's clear nothing short of metal chains can get them to stop attempting vandalism and battery. Beating them is ineffective; antisocial sadism. If they can be criminals, they will be.
There isn't a whole lot of middle ground. Traitors gonna...trait? A society, as opposed to soyciety, would hand them directly to jail with no chance of parole, regardless of age. No reason to wait when it's already known.
Also if execution/jail is a live option, it motivates the virtuous children to avoid being seen as a possible traitor. The middle ground evacuates yet more.
It occurs to me this is the logic behind banning stuff like spray paint in an attempt to suppress graffiti.
The difference is that if you stop toddlers from getting crayons, they can't make their own. They won't hatch a plot with grandma to smuggle crayons into the house. A grownup criminal does exactly this. Personnel is policy. If you ban guns only criminals have guns; the natural result of trying to mother an adult.
But, well, soyciety & Egalitarianism. Everyone is identical. One person is a child, therefore, adults are children.
P.S. Regarding anti-utopianism. Sometimes preventing the kids from breaking stuff is too expensive for one reason or another. Then it's the parent's fault, and the solution is to accept imperfection. Parents typically know this when it comes to, for example, mealtime and the state of the dinner table after, but regularly forget in diverse other circumstances.
Thank you for your reply. And indeed, between you, Molyneux, and myself, the opinions are consistent regardless of the dressing on top.
Less is more
Authorized force during an NAP event
And in your words, don't sadistically torture your children.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but application of piety = the crayons were never there for them to mess with in the first place.
You're welcome.
Secure your shit. In most cases asking in verbally deft way works as security. Children legitimately gain rights when the parent doesn't need to physically restrain or reprimand them to protect the parent's rights. If not, put the crayons on a high shelf.
Also, JBP: the house rule is [don't piss off mom or dad]. They will punish the child, the only question is whether it's openly or covertly. Therefore, it's the parent's responsibility to ensure the children nearly can't do anything to inspire wrath.
"How did the soccer ball get inside the house in the first place?"
"Why is playing baseball where windows can break even an option?"
Expense: maybe this means, if they have the ball, they need adult supervision because they can't be trusted not to take it inside the house. Okay, so supervise. Or don't let them have balls at all. Or it's your own fault. Accept some breakage as the cost of having children. Put it in the budget.
In particular it's a good idea to work out what privileges a child would give up to never have to do homework again. In this way the harmfulness of homework can be measured. (Even mainstream science can show that there is no benefit to homework.)
But also, as on twitter, raising children competently is likely a 160 IQ sort of task, because childhood evolved under average IQs of 160 or so.
>emerging thought from molymemes
>2025
Post a Comment