3 ms·

I think this article was way overdone, based on what I see with my teenage kids. They don't go to any "parties", but during the summer they are at the beach ar

I think this article was way overdone, based on what I see with my teenage kids. They don't go to any "parties", but during the summer they are at the beach around 4x per week with bonfires at night. Almost 1/3 of their class (at a somewhat small school) is there. And with Snapchat they know where everyone is. It's typical on a Friday school night they are scanning their map to see, "this group is at the mall. this group is at the football. this group went to her house." And then pick where to go. Honestly, the current method of social gathering seems so much better than what I did in the 80s.

yieldcrv 1y ago
Its definitely more efficient than riding on your bike or later a car, hoping someone was home
realo 1y ago
Aaaahhh... You have "beach" ... with the "bonfires" option pack ... This is very nice urban furniture. Here we have "streets" and , occasionally, "public parks". Forget the "bonfires" option.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > Forget the "bonfires" option. This right here is emblematic of the change in culture. When Gen X were young you weren't allowed to have bonfires (in most public places) either, but that never stopped anyone. Nowadays the kids are too afraid to do anything.
  - kondu 1y ago
    How much of that is because of the difference in how severely the legal/policing systems punish this kind of harmless activity now vs back then?
    - 9rx 1y ago
      It is possible. How has the punishment for being caught with a bonfire in a place where it is not permitted changed over the last number of decades? Or is it just the reduction in lead? That is what is oft cited as the reason for why crime rates have dropped substantially over a very similar period. Which may leave my framing of the kids being fearful to be a little off, rather the reduction in lead would suggest that they have better impulse control, but I am sure you can understand that the intent there is the same either way.
  - watwut 1y ago
    Or maybe they are less of assholes in that regard. It is actually ok to not start fires where you should not. And starting them does not make one courageous, just jerks.
    - 9rx 1y ago
      > Or maybe they are less of assholes in that regard. What's the difference? There has been nothing to suggest that the kids today are afraid of fire itself – with earlier implication that they would have bonfires in parks if allowed to – so, what else could they be afraid of other than to upset someone else? Perhaps you forgot to read the thread before replying? > And starting them does not make one courageous, just jerks. Now you're going off into la-la land. Did not read the thread confirmed.
      - watwut 1y ago
        > so, what else could they be afraid of other than to upset someone else? People, including teenagers, can and do act in pro-social and non assholish ways for reasons other then fear. Simple as that. > Now you're going off into la-la land. Did not read the thread confirmed. I did read the thread. The thread projects fear on them, because quite a few people on HN cant explain teenagers not destroying things or not breaking the "no fire in the park rules" by anything else then the fear. Quite a few people here assume that since they were jerks, everyone young was a jerk and everyone who is not a jerk must do so out of fear.
        9rx 1y ago
        > People, including teenagers, can and do act in pro-social and non assholish ways for reasons other then fear. It is unlikely a hermit living in the forest, who hasn't seen another human in years, can find ways to be an asshole. So, technically, it is possible to not be an asshole without worry for others. But it would also be unusual to call such a person an asshole given the lack of opportunities to be one. Realistically, to be an asshole is, at least in part, to show lack of worry for others. So, no, worry is a necessary precondition here. Assholes demonstrate less-to-no worry, while "less assholes" are more afraid of how their actions affect others. > The thread projects fear on them, because quite a few people on HN cant explain teenagers not destroying things or not breaking the "no fire in the park rules" by anything else then the fear. Yeah. No. You just made that up. The only comment in the entire thread you could, if you squint hard enough, take to be about fear is mine. It contained the word "fearful", which is a very different concept to "fear", but I'll grant you that it shares some of the same letters. Perhaps you'd didn't bother reading the entire thing? But even if you did somehow read the wrong word somehow, it explains that it may not be fearfulness at all, rather greater impulse control. The exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

yieldcrv 1y ago

Its definitely more efficient than riding on your bike or later a car, hoping someone was home

realo 1y ago

Aaaahhh... You have "beach" ... with the "bonfires" option pack ... This is very nice urban furniture. Here we have "streets" and , occasionally, "public parks". Forget the "bonfires" option.

9rx 1y ago
> Forget the "bonfires" option. This right here is emblematic of the change in culture. When Gen X were young you weren't allowed to have bonfires (in most public places) either, but that never stopped anyone. Nowadays the kids are too afraid to do anything.
- kondu 1y ago
  How much of that is because of the difference in how severely the legal/policing systems punish this kind of harmless activity now vs back then?
  - 9rx 1y ago
    It is possible. How has the punishment for being caught with a bonfire in a place where it is not permitted changed over the last number of decades? Or is it just the reduction in lead? That is what is oft cited as the reason for why crime rates have dropped substantially over a very similar period. Which may leave my framing of the kids being fearful to be a little off, rather the reduction in lead would suggest that they have better impulse control, but I am sure you can understand that the intent there is the same either way.
- watwut 1y ago
  Or maybe they are less of assholes in that regard. It is actually ok to not start fires where you should not. And starting them does not make one courageous, just jerks.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > Or maybe they are less of assholes in that regard. What's the difference? There has been nothing to suggest that the kids today are afraid of fire itself – with earlier implication that they would have bonfires in parks if allowed to – so, what else could they be afraid of other than to upset someone else? Perhaps you forgot to read the thread before replying? > And starting them does not make one courageous, just jerks. Now you're going off into la-la land. Did not read the thread confirmed.
    - watwut 1y ago
      > so, what else could they be afraid of other than to upset someone else? People, including teenagers, can and do act in pro-social and non assholish ways for reasons other then fear. Simple as that. > Now you're going off into la-la land. Did not read the thread confirmed. I did read the thread. The thread projects fear on them, because quite a few people on HN cant explain teenagers not destroying things or not breaking the "no fire in the park rules" by anything else then the fear. Quite a few people here assume that since they were jerks, everyone young was a jerk and everyone who is not a jerk must do so out of fear.
      - 9rx 1y ago
        > People, including teenagers, can and do act in pro-social and non assholish ways for reasons other then fear. It is unlikely a hermit living in the forest, who hasn't seen another human in years, can find ways to be an asshole. So, technically, it is possible to not be an asshole without worry for others. But it would also be unusual to call such a person an asshole given the lack of opportunities to be one. Realistically, to be an asshole is, at least in part, to show lack of worry for others. So, no, worry is a necessary precondition here. Assholes demonstrate less-to-no worry, while "less assholes" are more afraid of how their actions affect others. > The thread projects fear on them, because quite a few people on HN cant explain teenagers not destroying things or not breaking the "no fire in the park rules" by anything else then the fear. Yeah. No. You just made that up. The only comment in the entire thread you could, if you squint hard enough, take to be about fear is mine. It contained the word "fearful", which is a very different concept to "fear", but I'll grant you that it shares some of the same letters. Perhaps you'd didn't bother reading the entire thing? But even if you did somehow read the wrong word somehow, it explains that it may not be fearfulness at all, rather greater impulse control. The exact opposite of what you are suggesting.