LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-11-2019, 04:29 AM   #46
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 3,284
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsonite2010 View Post
Social media has heaped pressure on younger people - older people never had to deal with this kind of 24/7 scrutiny from our peers while growing up. I have 7 nephews and the older ones think that their career path will be to make YouTube videos of Minecraft. ...
It's a nightmare growing up these days. I got bullied at school but I was able to cope because it only happened during school breaks and when school was out, that was that. Nowadays kids are online 24/7 and the bullies follow them even into their bedrooms. No wonder they're all suffering from depression and anxiety.
 
Old 09-11-2019, 05:29 AM   #47
Samsonite2010
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 163
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
It's a nightmare growing up these days. I got bullied at school but I was able to cope because it only happened during school breaks and when school was out, that was that. Nowadays kids are online 24/7 and the bullies follow them even into their bedrooms. No wonder they're all suffering from depression and anxiety.
Apparently kids can get bullied for not being on social media or having phones, so it is difficult for parents to do the right thing.
 
Old 09-11-2019, 05:43 AM   #48
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 306

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
@hazel
Information technology is only part of the problem..another part is incompetent teachers. But..when it comes to bullying at school kids have it bit easier cause nowadays almost all children carry pocket audio&video recorders. Back in 90s people used brute force more cause they could get away with it..none to tell tale.

Last edited by Arcane; 09-11-2019 at 05:44 AM. Reason: more
 
Old 09-11-2019, 06:26 AM   #49
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,311
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
@hazel
Information technology is only part of the problem..another part is incompetent teachers. But..when it comes to bullying at school kids have it bit easier cause nowadays almost all children carry pocket audio&video recorders. Back in 90s people used brute force more cause they could get away with it..none to tell tale.
Well no you have it wrong - backwards in fact - it means now that the bullying is filmed and put up on the web for all to see... to humiliate the victim even further. In fact the "bullying act" is often carried out solely for the purpose of posting it up online.

Phones should not be in schools, they should not be in playgrounds, not available in lunch breaks - full stop.

There was always bullying and there probably always will be, but here I agree with hazel 100%, that even as recently as the early to mid 00's, children could go home and leave it all behind - now they quite simply can't.

You cannot explain to e.g. a 10 year old, that if they simply delete that account and don't use that particular platform again, that what other children are posting about them no longer matters. They will likely go back regardless, get sucked into that tangled web of lies and deceit - and cynical multi billion dollar corporations profit massively at the expense of kids' well-being and mental health.

In my view it encourages bullying. I never remember so many overheard conversations among groups of children usually gathered around with a phone / phones, or a single child on a phone, about an absent third party - who is usually being mocked or ridiculed. As a commuter on the railways, as someone without a smartphone and without constantly plugged in earphones, I hear a lot. 10 years ago, people used to talk, now they don't - they are listening to music, watching televisions series (yes even in the morning) or swiping through endless pages of utter shite "social media" banality. This is the great example being set for the next generation.

The "social media" thing has been extended to almost everything - just look at platforms like "github" and it's quite frankly an embarrassment. All of the social media shite that goes with social media is present there as well.

Regarding a certain streaming video site - if when using a medium like this, someone provides a link to a video, instead of e.g. linking to a written article and/or posting a few words - I won't bother to click it.
 
Old 09-11-2019, 06:59 AM   #50
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: Currently OpenMandriva. Previously openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 2,995

Rep: Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555Reputation: 1555
You make a very good point cynwulf, and to add; if someone doesn't have a smartphone, and their the "only kid on the block" as it were without one; then that in itself would give enough reason to the "bully" to bully that kid even more. That same kid would be further victimized by the fact it's all happening behind their back in that case, which would effectively make that kid an "outcast" - which only leads to yet more bullying.

At least in the 90's and pre-smartphone era there was a chance you could physically confront the "bullies", and sort it out that way. But with social media, what's said is not only there for all to see, it generally stays there. Even if it's deleted, another site that archives websites could still archive what's said - similar to "what's put on the internet, stays on the internet". And as mentioned, and given almost everyone has internet access nowadays, where you could go home and forget about it before, you can't do that anymore - regardless of whether you own a smartphone or not - I remember reading comments about a school principle (not bad comments) I had back in the early 90's when almost nobody had internet access, certainly not that same principle, and certainly not back then either. The school in question didn't even have a computer lab back in the early 90's.
 
Old 09-11-2019, 07:15 AM   #51
Samsonite2010
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 163
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
You make a very good point cynwulf, and to add; if someone doesn't have a smartphone, and their the "only kid on the block" as it were without one; then that in itself would give enough reason to the "bully" to bully that kid even more. That same kid would be further victimized by the fact it's all happening behind their back in that case, which would effectively make that kid an "outcast" - which only leads to yet more bullying.

At least in the 90's and pre-smartphone era there was a chance you could physically confront the "bullies", and sort it out that way. But with social media, what's said is not only there for all to see, it generally stays there...
It also means that the number of bullies has increased exponentially - traditionally, there would be only a handful of bullies and you could probably avoid them for the most part, or if you were physically not to be messed with, you were left alone. But now anyone can be a bully. I have seen my own friends who are perfectly nice people in person, but have ended up with some hate war on social media over a post which turned into arguments, insults, then spills over into real life (e.g. bizarrely, they are no longer friends in person, but still social media "friends" - go figure). That is the tame side of things and no doubt it is worse for younger people who tend to push barriers a bit more.
 
Old 09-11-2019, 08:28 AM   #52
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,311
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583
Bullying has been somewhat "normalised" because it reflects certain aspects of society. Here for example - it's on TV, in film, it's depicted and trivialised, in certain TV series and so called "soap operas", it's in talent shows and reality shows in the form of voyeuristic "entertainment", it's rife in politics, in certain music, in "comedy", in the corporate world and of course it goes on among adults using social media - that's the example these children will follow.

In their minds, they're not bullies, they're just part of the "in crowd" or a group which is directing abuse / reproach at or "making fun of" someone who's face doesn't fit.

The old (legendary) image of a bully was of the bigger kid who pushed the smaller kids around in the playground, whom others tended to shun and who was usually intellectually challenged, but physically bigger and stronger.

These bullies consider themselves as part of a majority group with peer support and are crucially "popular", so they feel far removed from that old stereotype. However it's in the same league, but much more serious and damaging to the victims. I'm sure we have all read articles about depression, self harm, etc - and in extreme cases even suicides - all linked to "social media" use and bullying.

While social media is undeniably a negative thing, operated for profit, but the unscrupulous - it is merely a medium for the nastiness and victimisation in today's society, which already existed and which has only flourished in the Trump / Brexit era.

Statistics show that many of the so called "cyber bullying" victims are girls. They are also the biggest, school age users, they are under the most pressure to look and behave a certain way. Just how much have we progressed in terms of equality, when children, particularly girls, are being sexualised at such a young age. How exactly is that "gender equality"?

Last edited by cynwulf; 09-11-2019 at 08:40 AM.
 
Old 09-11-2019, 08:33 AM   #53
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 3,284
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840Reputation: 1840
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
Statistics show that many of the so called "cyber bullying" victims are girls. They are also the biggest, school age users, they are under the most pressure to look and behave a certain way. Just how much have we progressed in terms of equality, when children, particularly girls, are being sexualised at such a young age. How exactly is that "gender equality"?
What is particularly nasty is that very young girls, 10-12-year-olds, are encouraged to "sext" on their phones, then boys who are hardly older threaten to put the pictures up on the web if the girl doesn't give them a blow job or something. How can any child grow up sane and normal in an atmosphere like that?
 
Old 09-11-2019, 09:00 AM   #54
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,311
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583Reputation: 1583
Filming and photos is also a problem, a bigger one I'd say as it's more incriminating and usable as "revenge porn"... "social media" certainly facilitates it - and it goes back to a point I have made before in other threads about the absurdity of everyone running about with a camera / video camera at their disposal.

I think the bullying issue is more ingrained nastiness which has been deemed permissible over the last few decades and smartphones and "social media" have added to the problem hugely.

If you've even seen "celebrity chef" competition type shows or, god forbid, "the apprentice" you can see "corporate" nastiness as "entertainment" - as in an unfeeling "hard nosed" boss type, who treats subordinates who don't deliver consistently like shit they've wiped off their shoe. In the case of "the apprentice" the subordinates are encouraged to out nasty each other, stab each other in the back, etc to rise to the top - they are willing participants, as they believe it's what it takes to "succeed" - and they intend to be in that position one day doing the same to others. This is the example set to young people by many mediums and wider society - "succeed at all costs".
 
Old 09-11-2019, 09:08 AM   #55
Samsonite2010
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 163
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cynwulf View Post
Statistics show that many of the so called "cyber bullying" victims are girls. They are also the biggest, school age users, they are under the most pressure to look and behave a certain way. Just how much have we progressed in terms of equality, when children, particularly girls, are being sexualised at such a young age. How exactly is that "gender equality"?
I couldn't agree more. Gender equality goes wrong from around age 3 and only because that is about the age where children can fully understand and communicate things. Shops target clothing at genders (pink for girls, etc.). Toys and TV programs are largely the same with some exceptions. The biggest problem I have seen is that the younger parents seem to be particularly stereotypical and their children reflect that. I am not sure if it is because only when you get older and care less about public image, you are not trying to conform as much? I suppose it could be perceived peer pressure that the young parents do not want their children to stand out from the crowd or they want their child to be presented in the way they think everyone else wants to see and is acceptable.

On the other hand, in the adult world we have businesses shouting about how they are making the workplace equal, by doing things like "actively hiring women to even the score". I am not sure that is ethical really - actively discriminating in order to even up the numbers - will that not give women (or everyone) the impression that they are being hired for their gender rather than their skills - is that equality?

And am I the only person who is confused about the point of big tech companies setting up women-only "women in tech" groups within their companies? I have never seen a men-only tech group at a tech company, but I expect it would not be allowed. I am of the opinion that equality will only happen if everyone is on the same playing field, like a tech group of men and women perhaps. This comes full circle with children - girls need to be interested in careers that are typically male dominated - I expect the damage is largely done before they leave school.
 
Old 09-11-2019, 10:46 PM   #56
Geist
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: Slackware 14 / current
Posts: 86

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Gender equality is a sham.
When the chips are down where they can't go down any further, with everything extraneous stripped away, bare bones, when the human condition is distilled to the most basic function, the actual truth shines through.

Women are worth more than men and shouldn't be fed to the wolves, whatever the wolves may be. They should be protected.
Women have higher biological worth than men because a woman can only get pregnant, with one child on average, every nine months, plus some time for recovery.
Therefore, when things are reduced to actual biological truths, it's better to have more women then men.
More women = more children, the tribe can go on, less fighting between the men. If you have one man and ten women, then that's ten babies right there.
More men = less children, because if you have one woman and ten men then no matter how hard you go on that poor lady to restock humanity, she can't do it any faster. A lot more fighting.

Dimissing this truth is naive because, again, at the end of the day when all the things that we could lose, like infrastructure, society, etc pp, this is what would remain.
It's like vomiting, not a pleasant thing to think about (and there's a lot of women who bridle at the thought of just being a womb, which isn't true anyway, if you have the capability to birth children then you're simply more valuable, doesn't mean you're an automaton, etc), but you'll be glad to have the ability when you're poisoned in some way and can therefore purge some, if not all of that, possibly living to tell the tale.

Sadly, warped incentives nurtured over way too long have turned people against one another, etc, and that's a can of worms I am not feeling to elaborate, at least not right now.

Just wanted to make the point that at the end of the day, genders are simply not equal when it comes to, you know, THE ESSENTIAL BASICS OF BIOLOGICAL LIFE IN THE CONTEXT OF HUMANS, and many other animals.
 
Old 09-11-2019, 11:53 PM   #57
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 306

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist View Post
Gender equality is a sham.
When the chips are down where they can't go down any further, with everything extraneous stripped away, bare bones, when the human condition is distilled to the most basic function, the actual truth shines through.

Women are worth more than men and shouldn't be fed to the wolves, whatever the wolves may be. They should be protected.
Women have higher biological worth than men because a woman can only get pregnant, with one child on average, every nine months, plus some time for recovery.
Therefore, when things are reduced to actual biological truths, it's better to have more women then men.
More women = more children, the tribe can go on, less fighting between the men. If you have one man and ten women, then that's ten babies right there.
More men = less children, because if you have one woman and ten men then no matter how hard you go on that poor lady to restock humanity, she can't do it any faster. A lot more fighting.

Dimissing this truth is naive because, again, at the end of the day when all the things that we could lose, like infrastructure, society, etc pp, this is what would remain.
It's like vomiting, not a pleasant thing to think about (and there's a lot of women who bridle at the thought of just being a womb, which isn't true anyway, if you have the capability to birth children then you're simply more valuable, doesn't mean you're an automaton, etc), but you'll be glad to have the ability when you're poisoned in some way and can therefore purge some, if not all of that, possibly living to tell the tale.

Sadly, warped incentives nurtured over way too long have turned people against one another, etc, and that's a can of worms I am not feeling to elaborate, at least not right now.

Just wanted to make the point that at the end of the day, genders are simply not equal when it comes to, you know, THE ESSENTIAL BASICS OF BIOLOGICAL LIFE IN THE CONTEXT OF HUMANS, and many other animals.
This post is nonsense from MGTOW(menism)|WGTOW(feminism) movements. Sure Gender equality is not Gender identicalism but it does it exist in terms of Law. You say it is better to have more women then men but without those men who will protect those women and their babies? Golden middlepath is key. About 50:50. If God|Aliens|Evolution|Creator wanted to make Adam and Eve identical we would have Adam and Steve or Eve and Martha for example. Gender equality exist but in society in terms of rights and duties. Women have same right to do stuff that was previously done (only) by men and men have right to do stuff that was previously done (only) by women. If they choose to but then they also are required to do it properly more or less. And boys and girls are conditioned to like either cars or dolls by parents and teachers and everyone else. Not that it is a bad or good thing. There are stuff that are better fit for one gender|sex or second gender|sex. For this reason wage gap myth exist.

Last edited by Arcane; 09-12-2019 at 12:28 AM. Reason: typo
 
Old 09-12-2019, 12:01 AM   #58
Geist
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2013
Distribution: Slackware 14 / current
Posts: 86

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcane View Post
This post is nonsense from MGTOW(menism)|WGTOW(feminism) movements. Sure Gender equality is not Gender identicalism but it does it exist in terms of Law. You say it is better to have more women then men but without those men who will protect those women and their babies? Golden middlepath is key. About 50:50.
It's absolutely not nonsensical, but I crapped the bed with that extreme example, for sure, apart from that, it's 100% accurate.
We generally need less protection against warring tribes and angry higher lifeforms than we need biological regeneration.
You are not going to club the black death to death, you'll try to outbreed them, and while men are needed there, too, and an extreme example of "one man" would quickly fall again, it's just to illustrate the point.
That one man could still do a quick round of the whole village in a desperate attempt to prolong life, but again, that's an extreme example, an extremism that rarely occurs naturally.

Unless, of course, people forego the truth I talk about and, let's say, would send women to a battle even though there's enough men around, just to be "equal".

Edit:
To further drive the point home.
What's more damaging after a "surge of protection" where there were more or equally as many men in a tribe, and the threat is now gone?
The war is over, the enemy is defeated, it's 'safe'.

A situation with two women for every man, or two men for every woman?

Which tribe would be more likely to bounce back? Even only after one year?
It would be the one with more women, of course.
Why? Because I'm not talking nonsense, I'm talking sense.

Last edited by Geist; 09-12-2019 at 12:06 AM.
 
Old 09-12-2019, 12:31 AM   #59
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 12,307
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 3309Reputation: 3309Reputation: 3309Reputation: 3309Reputation: 3309Reputation: 3309Reputation: 3309Reputation: 3309Reputation: 3309Reputation: 3309Reputation: 3309
Well - I believe that all forms of bullying already existed before mobile computing & www, and continue to do so.
It is true though: When you (or a kid's parents) allow it, it follows you right into your bed room, and that's new.
Smartphones and all that sh!t have grown too quickly, we as a society haven't adapted yet.
It pains me to hear that they aren't strictly regulated at most schools - the school I see every day certainly has some strict rules. The effect is that the kids are glued to their phones as soon as they leave the school grounds, cluttering up the pavement like minecraft zombies...

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
...
Sorry, hazel, you cannot say things like that without citing a source. Otherwise it's just an ugly rumour.
While I believe that things like that happen, I resent the generalisation. It certainly isn't a thing amongst the 10-13 year olds I see every day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist View Post
Gender equality is a sham.
Well.
Another generalisation.
But children are good consumers (they don't see the price tag and have amazing abilities of convincing their parents), and almost every sector tries to double their sales by creating separate shit for boys and girls. Just a recent example - the message couldn't be clearer.
It's sad how it works counter to what most adults try to promote in child rearing nowadays.
 
Old 09-12-2019, 02:37 AM   #60
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 306

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist View Post
{...}Why? Because I'm not talking nonsense, I'm talking sense.
Because you ignore context in posts and use generalisations. It is like me saying all and everyone who seek money are Gold Diggers(and even they are not after money but what it provides) despite this quote.
Quote:
A man needs to be wealthy, but not too much.
That is why. As long as rich and poor will exist there can be no true happiness in poverty or overdosed resources. Because striving to achieve most in life is human nature if they will notice they can.
And gender equality is not gender identicality. We are built different by nature. It is true. But we have same oppurtunity rights and duties in society despite our differences.
http://www.genderequality.ie/en/GE/Pages/WhatisGE

Last edited by Arcane; 09-12-2019 at 06:07 AM. Reason: more
 
  


Reply

Tags
life


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Libreboot C201 from Minifree is really really really ridiculously open source jeremy Linux - News 0 12-09-2016 10:51 AM
Does it really make a difference to use make -jK instead only "make" while compiling? angel'le Linux - General 1 04-26-2014 01:14 AM
World of warcraft for Linux.(This is a forum for people who want world of warcraft..) darkstarbyte Linux - Games 17 09-05-2011 02:30 AM
How can I get people to use Linux? I'm bad at converting people over. Mr. Hill Linux - Newbie 31 10-19-2008 09:16 AM
Really, really Weird trouble with make (make error 2) flyeater SUSE / openSUSE 5 06-20-2005 12:05 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration