5 ms·

I believe it's the guilt of those things we did as children that makes us such restrictive parents. We realize that the things we did were dangerous and we don

by e40 12y ago

I believe it's the guilt of those things we did as children that makes us such restrictive parents. We realize that the things we did were dangerous and we don't want that for our kids. Also, back then was a different time. You could do stuff like that, get caught, and not pay a huge price. Now, that's not true, in the US, at least. The climate is one of zero tolerance for stuff mentioned in the article. Example: some kids in the middle school my son goes to played a prank in the computer lab: they swapped a bunch of keys of some of the keyboards. The result? They were banned for life from using computers in the school district (yes, this would follow them to high school). A complete over reaction, but the norm for punishment in the US.

pmh 12y ago
Not to mention that when you do make a mistake, if it's publicized at all it will follow you for a good while by being Googleable.
copperx 12y ago
I spent my teenage years in a third-world country. I would be convicted of the following if I had spent those years in the US: 1) Trespassing private property 2) Theft 3) Willful and malicious destruction of property 4) Arson 5) Indecent exposure 6) Consensual rape (my girlfriend was 2 years younger than me) 7) Driving under the influence I consider myself a highly moral individual, and some people consider me the most level-headed and patient person around. I would argue that being a vandal in your teenage years may have a positive impact on the rest of the life of some people. You have to be smart about it and try not to hurt you or anyone else too much in the process.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  To be fair, you probably wouldn't have been caught for most of that stuff unless you were doing it during school hours, on school grounds. The knee-jerk massive overreaction stuff is mostly perpetrated by school administrations, whose primary concern is preventing a lawsuit, not contributing to the child's development.
  - bowlofpetunias 12y ago
    Take into account that "during school hours" and "on school grounds" is a much bigger chunk of kids' lives in the US than it is in most other countries. In most countries, school is just the place where you have lessons for a few hours, and all other activities, including even lunch breaks, are part of kids' private lives outside of school and outside of school grounds. Add to that no school buses and no parents driving their kids to and from school in SUV's, and you get a culture in which kids have a considerably chunk of private life outside of either parental or school control. The problem imho is giving school administrations so much influence and authority over kids in the first place.
    - rtpg 12y ago
      >Take into account that "during school hours" and "on school grounds" is a much bigger chunk of kids' lives in the US than it is in most other countries. Citation needed, my experience has been the opposite (except for Germany). I was getting out of school at 2:45 in the US, 6 in France. I know there are extracurricular activities, but still.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- rtpg 12y ago
  > You have to be smart about it and try not to hurt you or anyone else too much in the process. So theft, destruction of property, driving under the influence, and arson are victimless crimes? Maybe I'm a stickler for rule of law but when you start fucking with other people's stuff, that's not cool (understatement). Especially if it's just because you're bored.
  - x1798DE 12y ago
    Although I'm sympathetic to your general view, driving under the influence is in fact a victimless crime. If the crime were "causing damage or injury as a result of driving under the influence", then it would have a victim, but getting drunk then driving somewhere and not hurting anyone is still a crime, but has no victim. You could say you're increasing the risk for everyone else, but the same can be said for use of PCP or meth or some drug that correlates with higher rates of violent crimes, and those are acknowledged to be victimless crimes.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Its a sliding scale. What's the chance of this 'victimless crime' turning into a real one? And that ranges from property damage to manslaughter to killing whole families. There's a risk/reward analysis at work here, an driving under the influence has had a very, very bad track record.
      - x1798DE 12y ago
        Well it just is a victimless crime is all. Clearly the author of the parent post didn't hurt anyone, so it had no victim. It's probably not worth it to get into it, but I think I'd prefer a situation where you don't get punished for "pre-crime" like driving under the influence, but you get punished extra harshly for anything that causes damage as a result of something like that. So crash into a pole when sober, pay a fine. Crash into a pole when drunk, fine plus 3 months in jail. That sort of thing. Similarly you can imagine a lot of the outrage about jaywalking would go away if jaywalking were legal everywhere, but causing an accident or traffic jam while jaywalking would carry a hefty fine. This allows people to make local risk assessment decisions for which they are taking responsibility (it's 2 AM and there are no cars around - is it worth it to cross now knowing that if I do end up causing an accident or traffic jam it'll cost me $500?). Not saying it's a perfect system, but it seems like a start in addressing the legitimate concerns people have about victimless crimes.
- anodari 12y ago
  Nothing unusual for kids: jumping a fence to steal a fruit or play with fireworks. It is quite unlike anything illegal done for profit.
ryandrake 12y ago
If I was a 14 year old in school today and did the stuff I did as a 14 year old in the 1980's, I'd be suspended, expelled, or in jail by now. Kids can't even be kids anymore, it's pretty sad.
kenrikm 12y ago
I seriously don't know how myself and my brothers survived. The article was more then just familiar it was growing up. Now that I'm a dad it's hard to think of letting my son do the same crazy/stupid things however I know it's better that he does rather then be scared of the world.
keithpeter 12y ago
"Example: some kids in the middle school my son goes to played a prank in the computer lab: they swapped a bunch of keys of some of the keyboards. The result? They were banned for life from using computers in the school district (yes, this would follow them to high school)." Seems a little harsh. Is there any 'process' available (appeal against ban &c)? In UK that would be telling off and phone call to parents with perhaps a formal disciplinary depending on age.
colordrops 12y ago
In the very early 90s I put a fake virus on the library computer as a prank. The "virus" was in-memory only and would disappear on reboot. It mimicked the real DOS virus that caused letters to start to drip down from the screen. I was contacted as the resident "computer expert" to come in and fix it. In retrospect I realize two things: 1. This virus was probably the inspirations for the Matrix lettering effect. 2. The school must have known it was me that installed that shit on their computers.
xorcist 12y ago
I think the trend is common all over the western parts of the world, but most pronounced in the US. It saddens me. People must be allowed to change and better themselves. The keycaps punishment sounds completely over the top. Surely both administration and parents can see that? It is not possible to have a rational discussion about it?

by e40 12y ago

pmh 12y ago

Not to mention that when you do make a mistake, if it's publicized at all it will follow you for a good while by being Googleable.

copperx 12y ago

I spent my teenage years in a third-world country. I would be convicted of the following if I had spent those years in the US: 1) Trespassing private property 2) Theft 3) Willful and malicious destruction of property 4) Arson 5) Indecent exposure 6) Consensual rape (my girlfriend was 2 years younger than me) 7) Driving under the influence I consider myself a highly moral individual, and some people consider me the most level-headed and patient person around. I would argue that being a vandal in your teenage years may have a positive impact on the rest of the life of some people. You have to be smart about it and try not to hurt you or anyone else too much in the process.

cookiecaper 12y ago
To be fair, you probably wouldn't have been caught for most of that stuff unless you were doing it during school hours, on school grounds. The knee-jerk massive overreaction stuff is mostly perpetrated by school administrations, whose primary concern is preventing a lawsuit, not contributing to the child's development.
- bowlofpetunias 12y ago
  Take into account that "during school hours" and "on school grounds" is a much bigger chunk of kids' lives in the US than it is in most other countries. In most countries, school is just the place where you have lessons for a few hours, and all other activities, including even lunch breaks, are part of kids' private lives outside of school and outside of school grounds. Add to that no school buses and no parents driving their kids to and from school in SUV's, and you get a culture in which kids have a considerably chunk of private life outside of either parental or school control. The problem imho is giving school administrations so much influence and authority over kids in the first place.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    >Take into account that "during school hours" and "on school grounds" is a much bigger chunk of kids' lives in the US than it is in most other countries. Citation needed, my experience has been the opposite (except for Germany). I was getting out of school at 2:45 in the US, 6 in France. I know there are extracurricular activities, but still.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rtpg 12y ago
> You have to be smart about it and try not to hurt you or anyone else too much in the process. So theft, destruction of property, driving under the influence, and arson are victimless crimes? Maybe I'm a stickler for rule of law but when you start fucking with other people's stuff, that's not cool (understatement). Especially if it's just because you're bored.
- x1798DE 12y ago
  Although I'm sympathetic to your general view, driving under the influence is in fact a victimless crime. If the crime were "causing damage or injury as a result of driving under the influence", then it would have a victim, but getting drunk then driving somewhere and not hurting anyone is still a crime, but has no victim. You could say you're increasing the risk for everyone else, but the same can be said for use of PCP or meth or some drug that correlates with higher rates of violent crimes, and those are acknowledged to be victimless crimes.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Its a sliding scale. What's the chance of this 'victimless crime' turning into a real one? And that ranges from property damage to manslaughter to killing whole families. There's a risk/reward analysis at work here, an driving under the influence has had a very, very bad track record.
    - x1798DE 12y ago
      Well it just is a victimless crime is all. Clearly the author of the parent post didn't hurt anyone, so it had no victim. It's probably not worth it to get into it, but I think I'd prefer a situation where you don't get punished for "pre-crime" like driving under the influence, but you get punished extra harshly for anything that causes damage as a result of something like that. So crash into a pole when sober, pay a fine. Crash into a pole when drunk, fine plus 3 months in jail. That sort of thing. Similarly you can imagine a lot of the outrage about jaywalking would go away if jaywalking were legal everywhere, but causing an accident or traffic jam while jaywalking would carry a hefty fine. This allows people to make local risk assessment decisions for which they are taking responsibility (it's 2 AM and there are no cars around - is it worth it to cross now knowing that if I do end up causing an accident or traffic jam it'll cost me $500?). Not saying it's a perfect system, but it seems like a start in addressing the legitimate concerns people have about victimless crimes.
anodari 12y ago
Nothing unusual for kids: jumping a fence to steal a fruit or play with fireworks. It is quite unlike anything illegal done for profit.

ryandrake 12y ago

If I was a 14 year old in school today and did the stuff I did as a 14 year old in the 1980's, I'd be suspended, expelled, or in jail by now. Kids can't even be kids anymore, it's pretty sad.

kenrikm 12y ago

I seriously don't know how myself and my brothers survived. The article was more then just familiar it was growing up. Now that I'm a dad it's hard to think of letting my son do the same crazy/stupid things however I know it's better that he does rather then be scared of the world.

keithpeter 12y ago

"Example: some kids in the middle school my son goes to played a prank in the computer lab: they swapped a bunch of keys of some of the keyboards. The result? They were banned for life from using computers in the school district (yes, this would follow them to high school)." Seems a little harsh. Is there any 'process' available (appeal against ban &c)? In UK that would be telling off and phone call to parents with perhaps a formal disciplinary depending on age.

colordrops 12y ago

In the very early 90s I put a fake virus on the library computer as a prank. The "virus" was in-memory only and would disappear on reboot. It mimicked the real DOS virus that caused letters to start to drip down from the screen. I was contacted as the resident "computer expert" to come in and fix it. In retrospect I realize two things: 1. This virus was probably the inspirations for the Matrix lettering effect. 2. The school must have known it was me that installed that shit on their computers.

xorcist 12y ago

I think the trend is common all over the western parts of the world, but most pronounced in the US. It saddens me. People must be allowed to change and better themselves. The keycaps punishment sounds completely over the top. Surely both administration and parents can see that? It is not possible to have a rational discussion about it?