The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
On Spanking
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following graph shows spanking sentiment by selected demographic characteristics. Spanking sentiment is calculated from responses to the assertion that “it is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good, hard, spanking”. The percentage of respondents who “strongly agree” is multiplied by 1.5; those who “agree” by 0.5; those who “disagree” by -0.5; and those who “strongly disagree” by -1.5. The higher the value, the more favorably inclined towards spanking as a disciplinary tool the group is. For contemporary relevance, results are from 2000 onward:

There is a strong element of the white liberals and black rednecks effect–the tendency for attitudes towards cultural issues to go from white liberals on the progressive end to blacks on the traditionalist end, with white conservatives falling in between–at work here.

Corporal punishment has never been in my parenting toolkit. It began that way on account of uncritically accepted cultural transmission. I was never hit as a child so I never thought of hitting my own children.

But there’s a strong philosophical case to be made against the practice, and it’s one I accept. There is hardly any greater power disparity in human society than that between parent and child. There are social and legal protections for victims of spousal abuse. Yet a woman who is hit by her husband can leave him and she chose to be with him in the first place. A child cannot leave his parents (and in the extreme case that he does, it’s often out of the pan and into the forest fire) and he of course did not choose his parents.

His takehome message from being spanked by mom, much bigger and stronger than he, is that the way a person gets what he wants is by physically dominating others. Cultivating a functional relationship with violence is an important life skill. However, punitively dispensing it against one’s own child with the expectation that the child passively submit to the spanking warps that relationship in dysfunctional ways.

GSS variables used: SPANKING, RACECEN1(1)(2)(3)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), MARITAL, CHILDS, SEX, WORDSUM(0-4)(5-7)(8-10), BORN, ATTEND(0-2)(3-5)(6-8), PARTYID(0-1)(2-4,7)(5-6), YEAR(2000-2018)

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Children, GSS 
Hide 203 CommentsLeave a Comment
203 Comments to "On Spanking"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. EldnahYm says:

    I do not have a particularly strong opinion on spanking, but that last paragraph seems purely speculative. If so, it seems odd for someone who has never experienced spanking to speak so confidently about how it impacts the relationship between child and parent. It doesn’t ring true for my experience, where I was spanked as a child. I can’t remember ever thinking it a big deal.

    While I do not have a strong opinion on spanking, I do have a somewhat stronger opinion on people who are against spanking. My impression is that many people are against it simply out of squeamishness. That is not a good reason.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  2. Obviously, you’ve never attended the dread ‘family meeting.’

    Spanking is a vast improvement.

    More seriously, whatever works for you. However, if Attila the Boy had descended on your home, you’d have spanked.

  3. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    But there’s a strong philosophical case to be made against the practice, and it’s one I accept. There is hardly any greater power disparity in human society than that between parent and child. There are social and legal protections for victims of spousal abuse. Yet a woman who is hit by her husband can leave him and she chose to be with him in the first place. A child cannot leave his parents (and in the extreme case that he does, it’s often out of the pan and into the forest fire) and he of course did not choose his parents.

    Molyneux is not really a good authority on family relations. He encourages people to take an unnaturally skeptical view of family relations and to alienate themselves from their parents and families. He calls this “deFOOing”, “FOO” standing for “family of origin” relationships. This is pretty standard operating procedure for cults, which try to alienate people from kin based relations so they can serve unrelated strangers.

    The parent-child relationship is so fundamental that the risk of state intervention into this relationship will always be greater, regardless of how noble the rationale for intervention is. State intervention will always be justified by noble intentions but will inevitably serve some ideological or personal interest of people who are not related like the children’s parents are. Spouses are not related like parents and children are, and spousal love is not unconditional like that between parents and children tends to be.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  4. Talha says:

    I think cultural context is important. I got whupped, but in my culture every kid got whupped (by parents, teachers, etc.). I never felt scarred by it and understand why my parents (mostly father did it). I didn’t bring spanking into my disciplinary repertoire but I can understand why some parents might. Again, culture is important; if you are the only kid in your class or neighborhood getting whupped then it will feel very oppressive, even if it’s not that bad.

    Of course there are reasonable limits; if you are using an object that one might in a bar fight, you need to rethink strategy – likewise if you are leaving a bruise or breaking skin.

    Each kid is different, I never really thought of physically disciplining any of them except number three; that dude can be stubborn as a mule. But I will cop to grabbing him by the ear to get him to come along on occasion.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @The Big Red Scary
  5. res says:

    Could you do crosstabs by sex and whether or not someone is a parent? I think that would make for useful comparisons. Are there any interesting age trends?

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Feryl
  6. Jason Liu says:

    If high IQ correlates with anti-spanking, then Jews really do possess the highest IQ?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @iffen
  7. Twinkie says:

    As with much in human affairs, corporal punishment of children is a complex topic that is difficult to capture with a few words (or, worse, with slogans). Many people are also highly emotionally tied to one argument or another, so it is often futile to discuss the issue.

    However, punitively dispensing it against one’s own child with the expectation that the child passively submit to the spanking warps that relationship in dysfunctional ways.

    I disagree with this absolutist statement and would modify it – spanking can warp the relationship, I would say, rather than that it does or would.

    I think much depends on what one means by spanking and how that spanking is delivered. In my case, for example, both of my parents doled out corporal punishment. My father was a pretty cantankerous man and, as did most men of his society and generation, drank heavily. He did not hit me very often, but when he did, it was usually out of temper and charged emotion. In other words, he got angry and lashed out at me. Because of this, I naturally came to resent him intensely and had a strained relationship (it took a long time for me – once I became a father myself, in fact – to understand his unimaginably difficult early life and appreciate all the sacrifices he made for me). But even he knew there was a limit. I think I was about to graduate from elementary school when he sat me down and declared, “You are becoming a man now. You are not a child anymore. I will no longer hit you and will only use words to discipline you.” And he kept his word.

    My mother, being the primary caretaker, spent much more time with me. I was also more rebellious with her. So naturally she beat me more frequently. But with her, the punishment was very ritualistic. She would tell me what I did wrong clearly and what she expected of me instead. She would then have me stand on a stool and whip my calves with a wooden rod. I once saw her sob quite a bit after doing so. I was puzzled and asked her why she was crying when my legs hurt. I never forgot what she said in response – “Because I hate disciplining you. Because I love you so much, when you feel pain, it hurts me more than you can ever imagine. But I must do it, because I want you to be a correct person.” Because she never lashed out at me and because she disciplined me properly with love and good intentions, I never once resented her punishments, took them with a positive attitude, and have adored her.

    I am heavily involved in Christian homeschooling communities, in which the consensus is that corporal punishment should be allowed by law and that parents should at times resort to it. But the majority also seems to understand very explicitly that lashing out at children in anger or frustration is highly counterproductive and can, indeed, damage the sense of safety and trust children ought to have in their parents. The recommendation is to use corporal punishment sparingly and with a clear head – without a negative emotion in mind and always with love and good intentions. I have followed this advice in my own parenting. When I get angry at something my little ones did – I tell them to go to their rooms. I go somewhere else and do something else to dissipate that emotion. Then I come back and administer the correct discipline, physical or otherwise (unsurprisingly, I find that once I cool down, I don’t much feel like using force). As my father did, I also have the “graduation” conversation with my children who pass the elementary school age.

    Of course, I am but a flawed human being, and I haven’t been perfect. I did once lose my temper badly. One of my sons shoved one of his sisters into the wall, and she ended up hitting her eyebrow on a sharp edge. We had to take her to the emergency room. She could have been blinded, had the impact been but a quarter of an inch lower. I lost it and spanked the boy until he cried. I think I was doubly angry, because as an older brother, he was supposed to look after and protect his little sister, as I have taught my boys it’s their job to protect the women and children when I am not around. Instead he hurt a female, his own sister, someone much weaker than he.

    After my anger subsided, I felt quite badly. So I had a conversation with the boy and apologized to him for hitting him out of anger. I told him that I made a mistake and let anger, not love, guide my actions. Of course, I told him that what he did was very wrong and that he still needed to be disciplined properly (and he was, but not physically). But I tried to get him to understand that what I did was even worse than what he did (for I was an adult and he was not) and that he must not imitate my errors… that I was a better father to him than my own was to me and that he must be a better father to his own children than I was to him. I think it’s every parent’s job to be so, and any discipline, corporal or otherwise, should be performed with that in mind, always.

  8. Twinkie says:
    @Jason Liu

    If high IQ correlates with anti-spanking, then Jews really do possess the highest IQ?

    There is such a thing as too much of a good thing. 😉

    There is excellence of life in balance.

  9. It may well be a spurious correlation, but the decline of the Western World began in earnest when corporal punishment started to fall out of favour.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  10. The black point of view:

    In the country as well as the city,
    A chile must be weaned from the titty;
    To wean them from sin
    You must whup they hine-end—
    Thirty stokes, maybe fawty or fitty.

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  11. Rosie says:
    @Talha

    Of course there are reasonable limits; if you are using an object that one might in a bar fight, you need to rethink strategy – likewise if you are leaving a bruise or breaking skin.

    That’s just it. The trouble with corporal punishment is that kids get desensitized to it and you have to either escalate or find another strategy. I have never found it to be effective more than two or three times per child.

    Some things you just have to wait out until they’re old enough to reason with.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Talha
  12. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    This is definitely an issue. I think it may have been effective on us because my father used it sparingly; if the kid is getting hit every day for every little infraction, it will certainly lose any meaning…or can get out of hand.

    Peace.

  13. iffen says:
    @Jason Liu

    It’s almost as if all sorts of behaviors and norms correlate with IQ within a given environment.

  14. As a southern family, i got a few smacks if i truly started to act up.

  15. I was spanked as a child, consequently, I set my mind against it and never spanked my son. He was a naturally good-natured kid, however, so I wonder how I would have fared with someone who posed a real discipline problem.

  16. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:

    1. My kids are adults. At least anecdotally, the results of my (and my wife’s) approach are IN.

    2. My kids are, by any honest measure, astonishingly successful (personally, professionally, etc.)

    3. I believe children are born barbarians.

    4. My kids were raised on a set of aphorisms. One of them is, “There are two kinds of control in this world: Self-control and ‘others-control,’ and if you reach my size and are not self-controlled, the ‘others’ who will control you come with badges, guns and bad attitudes.”

    5. Self-control can be taught once a child reaches the cognitive development stage where they can process “predictable consequences” (somewhere around age 3, certainly by age 4.) Kids who don’t learn it early are handicapped by this lack.

    6. I think threats of physical harm are a crappy way to parent.

    7. I decided that a horrible thing to a child is the loss of physical movement.

    8. When it came time to start enforcing “the rules,” that first day I would catch a kid breaking a rule and I’d tell him to go sit on the couch for 5 minutes. Being the first time they’d heard it, I was (of course) ignored. I went to the child, picked him up, sat down on the couch, put the kid on my lap, and wrapped my arms over him, pinning him to me.

    9. I then said, calmly, “I am 100 times stronger than you, and I can keep you pinned here as long as I want. You have 5 minutes on the couch, and your time will start when you stop yelling, kicking and head-butting me. At that time I’ll put you next to me and I’ll make three attempts to explain why I told you to sit on the couch. If, after the third attempt you still don’t understand the rule you broke, the answer is ‘because I said so,’ not all the rules are for your benefit, some of them exist so we can live under the same roof.”

    10. I further stated that my goal was to not have to pin them, not have to send them to the couch. I had my own life to control, and only because it was my responsibility to help them learn self-control did I take the role of “others-control,” and then only as long as they’d require it. Their mother and I were the only people who could be trusted to “others-control” them because we had no incentive to do it for a second longer than necessary. Other people got paid to control others, and so they had a positive incentive to keep doing so. Only we, who loved them, had no such conflict of interest.

    11. Two of my kids required but ONE time of me holding them down on my lap, and from then on would grudgingly do “time out” without physical restraint. The most headstrong kid took two or three restraint iterations before he got the memo and did it voluntarily thereafter.

    12. There could be a sample bias problem. All my kids exhibit very high cognitive ability. Whether this works for a different substrate of kid is unknown, but I’d sure as heck try it before moving toward threats. The closest I ever came to threatening my kids was that I’d tell them if they got out of line I’d sit on them…and bounce. (I said it laughingly.) Never once did I threaten to actually hit them.

    Your mileage may vary, but be aware that children in grade schools now exhibit astonishingly poor median levels of self-control. The number of kids with good self-control is now a fraction of what it was just 10 years ago. This will have pretty big consequences in a decade or two.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Audacious Epigone
  17. red6020 says: • Website

    I notice high-IQ parents are less favorable (though still overall favorable) to spanking versus low-IQ parents. One could read this as “dumb parents hit kids, smart parents know better”. But that take reminds me of the headlines “spanking causes bad behavior”. Instead, one could just as easily (and more reasonably) say “badly behaved children are more likely to get spanked”.

    I think the same dynamic is at work with IQ. High-IQ parents are more likely to have the luxury of well-behaved children. Therefore, they are more likely to view spanking as unnecessary, instead of a case-by-case decision.

    However, punitively dispensing it against one’s own child with the expectation that the child passively submit to the spanking warps that relationship in dysfunctional ways.

    As to possible ill-effects of spanking, I agree with @twinkie, it’s all in how it’s done. Here, I am reminded of The Authoritarian Personality by Adorno et al., specifically the parts on parental discipline.

    Famously, that study sought to pathologize healthy (white, gentile, right-wing) group behavior. Simply put (and contrary to Adorno et al.), it is good for children to grow up in cohesive, tight-knit families with clear boundaries and a strong sense of in-group feeling. I would say success in transmitting parental values is a overall good for society, not a negative.

    The low-scorers on the “F-Scale” tended to be rebellious individuals without strong boundaries or much parental investment. As for the high-scorers, to quote MacDonald:

    “Whereas the negative feelings high scorers had toward their parents tend to derive from parental efforts to discipline the child or get the child to do household chores, the negative feelings of the low scorers are the result of feelings of desertion and loss of affection. …

    … [A]uthoritative parents set standards for their children’s behavior and monitor compliance with these standards.”

    Of course, the “F-Scale” is just a way to slur good, normal, healthy American behavior. Whatever the Cultural Marxists might desire, we want high-scorers on the “F-Scale”. The low-scorers are the ones who reject their parents’ values and discipline. We shouldn’t want to raise individualists here. That’s bad for everyone involved.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  18. A long time ago I did some scholarly research on this kind of topic (more broadly, differences in parenting strategies) from an anthropological perspective. A line of argument and body of literature which I found persuasive, held that different parenting strategies were closely connected to a parent’s level of articulateness, and ability to verbally explain moral concepts like empathy, in ways a child could understand. This ability and its opposite, the need to resort to inarticulate appeals to authority and brute force rather than explaining things, were in turn closely linked to social class, type of work, and levels of education.

    An educated professional has both more time, inclination and ability to reason with a child (“how would you feel if somebody did that to you?”) than a high-school dropout working double shifts at the tuna canning plant (“do it because I said so!”). Resorts to corporal punishment are frequently a result of class-related physical exhaustion and limited-time exasperation, combined with an inability to conceptualize a problem any other way. (And frequently a more disorderly and chaotic household.). So I’m not surprised if a Jewish dentist and an overworked Black waitress take opposing views of the question.

  19. Rosie says:
    @dc.sunsets

    12. There could be a sample bias problem. All my kids exhibit very high cognitive ability. Whether this works for a different substrate of kid is unknown, but I’d sure as heck try it before moving toward threats. The closest I ever came to threatening my kids was that I’d tell them if they got out of line I’d sit on them…and bounce. (I said it laughingly.) Never once did I threaten to actually hit them.

    Yes, that’s just it. Another thing I wonder is how poverty affects discipline.

    My husband and I have always made a priority of structured extracurricular activities, and if you find things your child likes, you have great leverage:

    “Of you want mommy to take you to dance class, you have to pick up your toys. Otherwise, I’ll have to do it and then I’ll be too tired!”

    But what if you can’t afford dance class to begin with?

  20. Rosie says:

    A line of argument and body of literature which I found persuasive, held that different parenting strategies were closely connected to a parent’s level of articulateness, and ability to verbally explain moral concepts like empathy, in ways a child could understand.

    Yes, indeed. That is another reason I try not to judge. My kids rarely attempt to win arguments with me. They generally feel it’s no use.

    On the other hand, what if you are smarter than your parents? The general assumption around here is that women who get knocked up out of wedlock are getting pregnant by dumb thugs, but that’s not always the case. The resulting child may wind up talking circles around Mom and Stepdad alike. This can cause real issues with discipline and respect for authority. Trust me. I know whereof I speak.

  21. @The Alarmist

    About what year would that be? My year for the beginning of the decline in Western Civilization would be 1914, when the West put a gun to its brains and blew them out. I don’t recall corporal punishment being banned that year; Sweden first banned its private use in 1979.

    So, 1979?

  22. @Talha

    Of course there are reasonable limits

    Limits for punishment but also for behavior. I do have a redline: I will not spank for misbehavior or even disrespect as such (it would be counterproductive in our family), but I will give a slap on the cheek for shame rather than pain in case of impiety. I once received such a slap from my mother and I deserved it. Fortunately I haven’t actually had to do that with my own children and hope that I shall not need to.

    • Replies: @Talha
  23. @TomSchmidt

    I’ve previously suggested that the passage of the Parliament Act 1911, which neutered the role of hereditary peers in the UK House of Lords, set the stage for the destruction of the British Empire, as they were the folks who had the most to lose from the destructive policies their opposites in the House of Commons wanted to follow. 1914 was made possible, perhaps far more probable by the 1911 Act. WW1 almost certainly destroyed the main countries that represented the peak of Western Civilisation, so 1914 is a good choice for the turning point to decline for the broader West. Great Britain gets honourable mention for taking the first serious steps towards self-destruction.

    My earlier point was that the decline accelerated as corporal (and capital) punishment fell out of favour, which would be somewhere in the 1960s. I still got whacked by the occasional teacher into the 1970s, but nothing like the stories our elders told us from their school days, though I once had an old-school Nun throw a desk with me, not long before I was kicked out of Catholic school for telling the Mother Superior I was giving up Catholicism for Lent.

  24. Talha says:

    Was very happy to hear the one piece of advice Khabib gave (after his last fight over the weekend) when he was asked what he wanted to tell all his young fans that look up to him?

    Khabib: “Young fans…? Respect yur parents. Be your parents very close [be very close to your parents], this is very important. Parents [are] everything, you know – your mother, father. I think that’s it – and everything in your life in gonna be good.”

    Solid. This message doesn’t get enough play these days.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  25. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @Rosie

    But what if you can’t afford dance class to begin with?

    I no longer claim omniscience, so… (grin)

    My experience informed me that basic self-control was in place long before kindergarten, so I’m not sure it was a function of taking something that cost money from the kiddie. As I said, I took away the ability to move about freely…which nominally was free when the kid enjoyed it.

    I also note that I did this with 3 or 4 year-olds. As the child becomes older, larger and stronger, sure I could still restrain them but as that gap closed there was a much higher chance of me hurting them (or them hurting me) during the restraint phase. I could man-handle a 10 year old without problem, but if I erred on the side of protecting myself from their resistance I’d leave bruises at the least.

    I hear a lot of stories from a 4th grade public school teacher. There are increasing numbers of 9-year-olds who lack even basic self-control. Some of them are (diagnosed) emotionally disturbed, and some of these are on powerful drugs, even anti-psychotics (yikes!!) The school, the same place my kids attended decades ago, now has a full time social worker, a half-time psychologist and a padded room where a kid in volcano mode can be placed (they have a “code” signal that tells all teachers to get their kids out of the hallways so said screaming child can be physically dragged by four adults to the rubber room.)

    Spanking or no spanking, I don’t know if it’s TV or the Internet or fluoride or HFCS or {xxx}, all I know is that someone is failing to instill discipline in really large numbers of kids. It could be that parents fear the kid or bystanders calling “Children Services,” or society’s general embrace of idiotic “it takes a village” (to raise an idiot), but uncontrolled people are proliferating.

    That teacher notes it well. Kids who can’t control themselves are doomed. And I’m not sure if someone who doesn’t learn self-control early can remediate it late. It might be like language, only really learned prior to puberty (or some other cognitive/biological cutoff.)

    PS: even well-disciplined kids can be a PITA as teens. They know just how to push your buttons, no? Adolescent impulsivity is no fun (and nowadays there are lots of folks who never leave that stage.)

    • Replies: @Feryl
  26. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @The Alarmist

    In the USA, candidates for the beginning of the Great Decline:
    1. Lincoln’s war to prevent southern secession, which repudiated the voluntary compact of the states and turned the United States into a unitary empire.
    2. 1913’s year of disaster, when the Central Bank was created, direct election of senators eviscerated the power of the state legislatures to “veto” federal legislation and the ratification of the Income Tax, which gave the empire a massive source of new funds to work its evils.

    We’re still paying a horrible price for the central bank, because it is funding (via credit creation and thus debt issuance) the digging as “we” dig a hole for ourselves so deep that the sky is but a memory.

    I think Western Civ peaked in the 19th century, and by every measure we see parallels today with the Western Roman Empire very close to 2000 years ago when it too was a little over 100 years into its (approximately) 400 year collapse.

    I’m not sure about accelerating the decline by stopping teachers from whacking students. I am, however, certain that the lack of parental support and parental “consequences” (spanking or my preferred, less corporal approach) is playing a role.

    Parents know what to say (“oh, we’ll take Johnny’s tablet away for the weekend as punishment”) but many are lousy on follow-through.

    I will say that electronic devices are quite literally destroying our civilization. In hindsight the Internet will be recognized as a massive contributor to the eventual collapse.

    Ironic, huh?

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @216
  27. It all varies. The Japanese, supposedly, do not hit children at all. On the other hand…

    I had a girlfriend once who was applying for a job as a teacher at an Armenian private high school for boys.

    The principal inquired if she was prepared to hit the boys — hard. Slap them? Supposedly, Armenian boys will simply be uncontrollable if the teacher won’t do that.

    And it is worth noting that in public schools in Los Angeles — where of course teachers are not allowed to hit students — Armenian boys are infamously uncontrollable.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Audacious Epigone
  28. iffen says:

    There is hardly any greater power disparity in human society than that between parent and child… A child cannot leave his parents (and in the extreme case that he does, it’s often out of the pan and into the forest fire) and he of course did not choose his parents.

    Yet, no second thoughts are given to the practice of filling the child’s head with whatever religion, ideology, philosophy, etc. that the parent thinks is “best.”

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @dc.sunsets
  29. Talha says:
    @iffen

    Parent indoctrination is better than government indoctrination. This is an axiomatic position.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @iffen
  30. “However, punitively dispensing it against one’s own child with the expectation that the child passively submit to the spanking warps that relationship in dysfunctional ways.”

    So the last five millennia of parenting were “warped”, and at last we’ve emerged onto the sunlit uplands of progress.

    (PS – is there any other context outside of “punitively” when it could be dispensed? I don’t think a child should be smacked for amusement, do you?)

    My little Son, who look’d from thoughtful eyes
    And moved and spoke in quiet grown-up wise,
    Having my law the seventh time disobey’d,
    I struck him, and dismiss’d
    With hard words and unkiss’d,
    His Mother, who was patient, being dead.
    Then, fearing lest his grief should hinder sleep,
    I visited his bed,
    But found him slumbering deep,
    With darken’d eyelids, and their lashes yet
    From his late sobbing wet.
    And I, with moan,
    Kissing away his tears, left others of my own;
    For, on a table drawn beside his head,
    He had put, within his reach,
    A box of counters and a red-vein’d stone,
    A piece of glass abraded by the beach
    And six or seven shells,
    A bottle with bluebells
    And two French copper coins, ranged there with careful art,
    To comfort his sad heart.
    So when that night I pray’d
    To God, I wept, and said:
    Ah, when at last we lie with tranced breath,
    Not vexing Thee in death,
    And Thou rememberest of what toys
    We made our joys,
    How weakly understood
    Thy great commanded good,
    Then, fatherly not less
    Than I whom Thou hast moulded from the clay,
    Thou’lt leave Thy wrath, and say,
    “I will be sorry for their childishness.”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  31. iffen says:
    @Talha

    Parent indoctrination is better than government indoctrination. This is an axiomatic position.

    Big Brother would like a word with you in private.

    • LOL: Talha
  32. iffen says:
    @Talha

    The UR class assignment for today: write an essay comparing and contrasting the civics class curriculum and instruction provided to Rosie’s children, Twinkie’s children and Talha’s children.

  33. @Talha

    ‘HBD…?’

    ‘HBD…’ Hmm. Well, he doesn’t mean ‘Happy Birthday.’ Human Bio-diversity? Probably.

    If so, I’d suggest this really is cultural rather than genetic. Not that — in my view — it matters much. I don’t think we understand how culture works very well, and shouldn’t tinker with it unless it’s obviously necessary. If Armenians need to beat their boys, Armenians need to beat their boys. Practically speaking, I don’t see why it matters much whether the reason is cultural or genetic.

    Of course Turks and Kurds might like the idea that Armenians inherently do require regular beating. The Armenians, though, probably have suggestions of their own.

    • LOL: Talha
  34. The marked decline of Western Civilization corresponds exactly to the Dr. Spock generation of enlightned psychologists who suddenly discovered that capital punishment is not a deterent to violent crime, and that corporal punishment has no effect on curbing barbaric behavior.

  35. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @iffen

    You wish to replace parental arbitrariness with you own?

    • Replies: @iffen
  36. iffen says:
    @dc.sunsets

    replace parental arbitrariness

    I have already inflicted my arbitrariness upon my children because they are adults. I merely pointed out that people get all philosophical and hand-wringy about physical coercion visited upon children by the parent while ignoring the mental coercion which in my opinion is dollars to donuts. The sticks and stones wounds usually heal quite nicely, but the mental traumas fuck up a mind forever.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  37. A swift spanking (by spanking I mean a single smack on the butt with an open palm) for a child between the ages of 3-5 is a very effective way to correct behavior outbursts from children who are just learning how to test their boundaries and the will of their parents. The application of a spanking should be immediate but sparing, meaning if you’re in the aisle of a grocery store and the kid is testing you, it has to be right there, not once you’re back home or after taking the kid to the bathroom. It’s too late and the shock will no longer be associated with the poor behavior. There should also be no warning or other preamble. Children that age are feral, and cannot be reasoned with. However, they are without a doubt able to understand pain (pain isn’t even the right word; the startle caused by a moderate smack on the butt is more accurate) association.

    The single spank was the limit for me and my daughters. One spank results in the desired behavioral modification and anything further is unnecessary. Also, starting or continuing to spank kids past the age of 5-6 is too late and will likely create the opposite effect intended. I am also not a proponent of beating a kid’s ass, using props, or making them pull their pants down because hurting or humiliating the child isn’t what makes spanking useful. I haven’t laid a hand on either since both were about 5 and frankly never needed to. Both have always made straight A’s and are polite and respectful to adults. Both excel in their extra curricular activities.

    Spanking is clearly only one small part of a parent’s overall ability to raise their children well. So while the graph is interesting, it doesn’t really seem to mean much. The Choose, blacks and smart rich kids I observe through my kids’ social lives are the most spoiled, ignorant and or obnoxious of the groups polled.

  38. His takehome message from being spanked by mom, much bigger and stronger than he, is that the way a person gets what he wants is by physically dominating others.

    Where’s the lie?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  39. 216 says: • Website
    @dc.sunsets

    direct election of senators eviscerated the power of the state legislatures to “veto” federal legislation and

    German lander still have this power, arguably even more because they can dismiss any Bundesrat delegate that votes against direction.* It doesn’t seem to have done much to prevent increasing centralism.

    *Recall was not a provision in the original Constitution, indeed recall is actually a Progressive Era reform.

    I’d put the decline as starting in 1898, with the Spanish-American War which ended the traditional foreign policy of the United States.

    Or we can suggest 1619, when the first slaves arrived at Jamestown.

    • Agree: dc.sunsets
  40. t says:

    Looking at generational patterns* the younger generations are somewhat more pro spanking than the older one.

    *Someone created a variable GENERATION.

  41. @Colin Wright

    However, if Attila the Boy had descended on your home, you’d have spanked.

    Right.

    Persons who have never had a truly difficult child are free to theorize. I have several children (and incidentally a homemaking wife), though, so the question is hardly theoretical to me.

    Most of mine not need to be spanked. One or two did. Small children who understand little else understand spanking.

    One may conjecture that genetics causes children that need spanking to grow up to have children who need spanking. If you are not one of those, then you might not understand.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  42. @MikeatMikedotMike

    ‘A swift spanking (by spanking I mean a single smack on the butt with an open palm) for a child between the ages of 3-5 is a very effective way to correct behavior outbursts from children who are just learning how to test their boundaries and the will of their parents. The application of a spanking should be immediate but sparing, meaning if you’re in the aisle of a grocery store and the kid is testing you, it has to be right there, not once you’re back home or after taking the kid to the bathroom…’

    Indeed. We went through that with the Boy, and I suspect our daughter as well. ‘Will you spank me here?’

    ‘Oh yes, I will, and I won’t stop even if Hangin’ Judge Ginzberg from the Berkeley Family Court is looking on.’

    Seriously. I can’t recall the details, but there was one of those magical moments. Like the first time your kid does something, and you realize, ‘He knows he shouldn’t have done that.’

  43. @EldnahYm

    I’m against it from a rights perspective–huge power disparity, no recourse. Unless in self-defense or with consent, we censure hitting anyone else. Why don’t children get that protection?

  44. @Colin Wright

    I understand the presumption that advocates of peaceful parenting are squeamish pacifists, but that’s not true in my case.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  45. @Howard J. Harrison

    ‘One may conjecture that genetics causes children that need spanking to grow up to have children who need spanking. If you are not one of those, then you might not understand.’

    Genetics are definitely there. We once ran into one of my old babysitters, and she reminisced, ‘your brother was lively, but you…’ and she shivered.

    Then I had my son. Yeah, the sins of the fathers…

  46. @Audacious Epigone

    ‘I understand the presumption that advocates of peaceful parenting are squeamish pacifists, but that’s not true in my case.’

    That thought never occurred to me. After all, supposedly it’s the Japanese who never beat their children.

  47. @Anonymous

    Molyneux’s response would be that one can break a relationship with a boss, a friend, or even a spouse for less than he advocates breaking a relationship with a family member.

    I hope this isn’t misinterpreted as advocacy for state intervention to ‘protect’ children from their spanking parents. I don’t think it should be illegal, and it definitely shouldn’t be grounds for separating parent and child.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  48. ‘…Yet a woman who is hit by her husband can leave him and she chose to be with him in the first place. A child cannot leave his parents (and in the extreme case that he does, it’s often out of the pan and into the forest fire) and he of course did not choose his parents…’

    There is, of course, more than one way to resolve the inconsistency.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  49. @Twinkie

    Did your father acknowledge his fault for making you the object of a drunken emotional catharsis later in your life? If not, it would seem like he’d be potentially subjecting his grandsons to the same treatment for the rather vain sake of protecting his pride (just as you followed his lead in the elementary school graduation talk, you could have conceivably followed his lead with the alcohol hitting).

    Is it possible that he stopped hitting you when you were heading into middle school because he realized you were getting close to the point of being able to effectively hit back?

    These are prying personal questions you obviously need not answer if you’d prefer not to.

    The story with your son is touching. Did he shove her out of anger? If so, then it is doubly admirable of you to explain to him afterwards how bad physically lashing out in anger–especially towards those you love–is so bad, since you’d just finished doing to him what he’d done to her.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  50. @dc.sunsets

    Thinking through it, I’ve done the same with a son, just once. He was throwing an inconsolable tantrum right around the time he turned three. I held him on my lap, told him he could resume playing once he’d calmed down, and let the tantrum burn itself out.

  51. @red6020

    In a discussion like this, it’s good to avoid dichotomous corporal or beatnik framing. I’m no advocate of unparenting. There are a lot of carrots to withhold even if you disallow grabbing the stick.

  52. @Rosie

    Similarly, if a child breaks a promise, the response can be “I said I’d take you to dance class, but I’m breaking my promise just like you broke yours. From now on let’s always keep our promises.”

  53. @Audacious Epigone

    “I’m against it from a rights perspective–huge power disparity, no recourse.”

    Should children have the right to purchase, keep and bear arms independent of adult supervision? How about sexual activity being protected for 10 year olds based on what our courts have determined to be freedom of speech? Marriage and abortion are considered rights, should children be allowed to marry at the age of 6? They’re already allowed to seek abortions absent parental consent or even knowledge. How’s that working out?

    Children are subject to the power disparity of all parental discipline… without recourse.

    “Unless in self-defense or with consent, we censure hitting anyone else. Why don’t children get that protection?”

    Read Lord of the Flies.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  54. Talha says:
    @The Big Red Scary

    I glad you’ve been able to avoid it and hope you are able to in the future, that is the better route. Very interesting how different people have different standards. For instance, I don’t hit, but I would avoid hitting the face if I did because that’s a big no-no in Islam. Again, cultural context.

    Peace.

  55. @Talha

    And the corollary, of course, for parents: Be worthy of the respect of your children.

    • Agree: Talha
  56. 216 says: • Website

    o/t

    This might be heating up soon…

  57. @Colin Wright

    On the other hand, blacks are more likely to spank their children than other groups are.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Feryl
  58. Americans are obsessed with solutions. Everything has to have a solution. When the truth is, most things have no solution.

    Corporal punishment of children is one of them.

    Christopher Lasch addresses it. He points out that there is no way out. Children who are spanked grow up with symptoms of grief and depression. Children who are not spanked grow up with symptoms of narcissism and borderline disorder.

    I prefer the depressives. If you’d ever been around a borderline, you would too.

  59. @YetAnotherAnon

    I was referring to violence more generally, not just corporal punishment. When I wrestle with my kids, I’m dispensing violence to them but it is not punitive.

  60. 216 says: • Website

    Repeat?

    Still, another reason why we need Civilian Control of Academia

    Representation Matters, Affirmative Action for the Right!

  61. @MikeatMikedotMike

    The question of whether or not it is something you’d do publicly is a pretty good first approximation as to whether or not it’s abusive. In the case of a startling swat like you’re talking about, that almost seems comparable to harshly and abruptly saying “Mike!” to, well, startle your son into compliance.

  62. Rosie says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Also, starting or continuing to spank kids past the age of 5-6 is too late and will likely create the opposite effect intended.

    Fortunately, that is the age when you can start using stories to teach children right from wrong. A little crrredit for the Africans: I love the Anansi the Spider tales.

    I usually just wing it till then. I was always either pregnant or nursing during that awful power struggle phase. I either had no will to fight or literally couldn’t get up from my chair.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
  63. @Anonymousse

    Jews are by far the least favorably inclined towards it and yet there’s a case to be made, or some I’m told, that Jews tend to do a pretty good job getting what they want without having to physically dominate others.

  64. Rosie says:
    @216

    I would love to see the numbers for philosophy professors. In theory at least, they should be less susceptible to bandwagoning.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  65. @Audacious Epigone

    Unless in self-defense or with consent, we censure hitting anyone else. Why don’t children get that protection?

    Why is that no one—not a single soul!—objected during the dozens of times I made my son eat vegetables, but the one time I tried forcefeeding my neighbor’s high-school-age daughter I was almost immediately surrounded by police?

    But seriously: learning as early as possible in life that force trumps argumentation is good for anyone who isn’t going to live his entire life inside a Charles Murray bubble. Spanking transmits this incredibly useful message effectively.

  66. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Your points are well taken.

    But those are all age-related restrictions that are statutorily lifted upon reaching adulthood. There is no age at which someone is not considered a victim after being battered. Even in the case of children, it’s generally only considered acceptable if it is a parent or legal guardian doing the hitting, not other adults.

    I don’t mean to construct a straw man, but the racial group most likely to hit their children is the same racial group most likely to create a lord of the flies situation if left unattended.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  67. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    Anansi takes are great stories. My kids loved them growing up!

    Peace.

  68. @216

    The GSS sample sizes aren’t big enough, I’ve tried.

    Swap economics and physics, and we have what doubles as a rank ordering from most useful to least useful. Pure coincidence, of course!

  69. @Audacious Epigone

    “The question of whether or not it is something you’d do publicly is a pretty good first approximation as to whether or not it’s abusive. ”

    I reject the premise that punitive physical contact is always abuse.

    “In the case of a startling swat like you’re talking about, that almost seems comparable to harshly and abruptly saying “Mike!” to, well, startle your son into compliance.”

    It’s not and I guess you’ll never be able to observe the difference.

  70. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Molyneux’s “thought” is based on a combination of libertarian “voluntaryist” ideology and bad semi-Freudian psychology. It’s a completely wrongheaded understanding of human nature. Meanwhile, he’s made a living posing as a guru and authority figure to disaffected young men whom he’s conveniently counseled to be wary of their parental authorities and family members.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  71. @Audacious Epigone

    ‘On the other hand, blacks are more likely to spank their children than other groups are.’

    Yeah — but they also like barbecue. It doesn’t follow that barbecue is therefore a bad thing.

    Anyway, there you are. Opposing spanking is inherently racist. It’s just another example of white privilege.

    • Replies: @216
  72. @Audacious Epigone

    Jews tend to do a pretty good job getting what they want without having to physically dominate others.

    True, but when called to account for their manipulation, how well has the Jews’ philosophy of physical cowardice served them through the ages?

    I betcha the ones who live in Israel have a different attitude toward spanking. It instills a martial spirit that lasts ones entire life. Or at least an understanding that might makes right, and that you can’t talk your way out of everything.

    • Replies: @SFG
  73. @Rosie

    “I usually just wing it till then. I was always either pregnant or nursing during that awful power struggle phase. I either had no will to fight or literally couldn’t get up from my chair.”

    This is where teamwork with a husband is beneficial.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Rosie
  74. MBlanc46 says:
    @Rosie

    Indeed. However, 50 years ago, when I was a philosophy grad student, I can’t recall a fellow student who didn’t seem pretty far Left, including me.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  75. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    But the buck has to stop somewhere. And it usually stops with some goys that they use to indirectly physically dominate others and get what they want.

    I don’t think the Jewish example supports opposition to corporal punishment. If anything, it’s the exact opposite. Jews are famously obnoxious and subversive and disruptive of the wider host society. Corporal punishment might teach them to respect other people and the social order more.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  76. @Audacious Epigone

    “There is no age at which someone is not considered a victim after being battered.”

    This is hyperbole. A spanking is not battery.

    “Even in the case of children, it’s generally only considered acceptable if it is a parent or legal guardian doing the hitting, not other adults. ”

    I was going to actually say something along these lines in my last comment. I think the latter point works against your previous point about children not being protected from non consensual physical contact.

    “I don’t mean to construct a straw man, but the racial group most likely to hit their children is the same racial group most likely to create a lord of the flies situation if left unattended.”

    Also the group that is least likely to have a biological father present during childhood. Let’s go ahead and agree that good parenting is dependent upon more than one minor criteria.

    I think you’re attempting to categorize all punitive physical contact into one narrow field. That’s a mistake. To prove it all I have to do is ask you: Is all verbal discipline the same? I mean certain groups above (thank you Rosie) like to use stories/lessons/examples in order to correct a child’s behavior. Other groups like to motherfuck their children up and down the Walmart parking lot for 10 minutes. I think my method was not only less abusive, but more effective.

    • Agree: 95Theses
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  77. 216 says: • Website
    @Colin Wright

    Opposing spanking is inherently racist.

    The spanking done by:

    -white
    -southern
    -evangelical

    will be forthrightly condemned.

    When it is done by blacks it must be ignored by whites, only blacks can call it out.

    This is your society on intersectionality.

    • Agree: iffen, Audacious Epigone
  78. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    The Victorians were smarter than we are and corporal punishment was the norm back then. The decline in support for corporal punishment has correlated with decline in IQ. So I don’t think opposition to corporal punishment has to do with greater intelligence.

    More likely, because corporal punishment is unfashionable and declasse these days, more intelligent people, who tend to keep up with intellectual trends, tend to be against it. More intelligent people are also able to tolerate the immediate cost of opposing corp punishment, since they’re less likely to have kids, and if they do have kids, they’re less likely to be major foul-ups like criminals and the like, although that’s not to say that they necessarily become “good” members of society. The example of Jewish social behavior suggests otherwise.

    Edward Dutton touches upon the issue of corporal punishment in his book on Churchill:

    http://www.amerika.org/lifestyle/churchills-headmaster-the-sadist-who-nearly-saved-the-british-empire-by-edward-dutton-2019/

    This becomes useful when we consider the stealth thesis of the book, which is that Winston Churchill suffered from personality disorders which could have been cured through ritualized corporal punishment:

    Poor life outcomes are strongly genetic and predicted by poor impulse control (Nettle, 2007), which also predicts being violent to your children. However, when this violence is ritualistic, structured, controlled and administered by a parent who is otherwise loving — with factors such as socioeconomic status controlled for — then use of corporal punishment (specifically to the buttocks), as long as it is not overly severe and is administered by a predictable parent or guardian, is associated with positive life outcomes (Larzelere, 2000). Indeed, when the children are from groups which tend to have poor impulse control and low Agreeableness — in other words, people like Churchill — the outcome was positive even if the corporal punishment was extremely severe, as long as it was structured and predictable (Lansford et al., 2009). When imposing genetic controls, corporal punishment only led to poor life outcomes if comprised of random violence, such as punching and kicking (Lynch et al., 2006). (189-90)

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian
  79. @Audacious Epigone

    I dunno, sure they publish an article or two but when it comes down to it the US military (and its IDF auxiliary), antifa (with its police helpers), the FBI… all that seem pretty integral to their control

    Was Germany put down with convincing arguments?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Audacious Epigone
  80. @Audacious Epigone

    ‘The question of whether or not it is something you’d do publicly is a pretty good first approximation as to whether or not it’s abusive…’

    Isn’t it merely a pretty good indication of how confident you are your action will meet with public approval and how much you care about that?

    If I’d readily spank a child in Konya, but wouldn’t dare touch him in Oslo, what does this demonstrate?

    If, say, I was hesitant to kiss my wife in public in Konya, but would readily do it in Oslo, would it follow that the kiss must be abusive?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  81. Twinkie says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    drunken emotional catharsis

    He drank heavily, as did most men of his generation in his country, but he did not beat me when he was drunk. He was usually very happy through the first half of a bottle of a Scotch and would get pretty depressed with the second half and on.

    When he was not drinking, he would often be irritable and easily provoked. And if I did something very wrong during this period, he’d lash out. Again, he did not hit me often, indeed far less frequently than my mother did. But when he did, it hurt. I don’t think hitting me was “catharsis” for him. I think it was more a combination of the fact that he was often depressed, was irritable, and was a consummate perfectionist.

    I should also note that he did not know how to be a father. He lacked the experience of having a father. His own father passed away when he was a baby (reputedly from heart-break, for his family was of very gentle origin, but was dispossessed suddenly of all its property and sank from important magistracy and large land-holding one day to being close to beggars the next day). He suffered terribly in his childhood, including severe malnutrition (when he was intoxicated once, I heard him cry and talk about how he’d go without food for days at a time while a child war refugee).

    Despite the unimaginable suffering early on, he made it to the naval academy of his country, became an officer, and later a respected bureaucrat, a judge, and a diplomat (between his military and government services, he was sent to the United States to attend graduate school and law school, and immediately fell in love with the country and a certain very large state in it). Later on in his career, he once called me from The Plaza Hotel in NYC where his government rented out an entire floor for its delegation during some treaty negotiation with the United States, and I imagined how emotional it must have been for him to go from a hungry street urchin scrounging for chocolate dust in the empty wrappers left by American soldiers to staying at a luxury hotel in the financial capital of the world to negotiate with high-ranking American officials.

    In some ways he was a terrible father (and I resented him for being so as a young man), but he was also highly accomplished despite his privations. And he had an indomitable will and spirit. I knew few men who could equal his mental and physical toughness. He once told me that it was his intention to raise me as a man who could, not only survive, but thrive anywhere in the world. In many ways, I owe much of what I am today to the fact that God gave me such a driven and hard SOB as a father. I respect him immensely and am very proud to be his son.

    Did your father acknowledge his fault… The story with your son is touching.

    My father never ever acknowledged being wrong with me. He just wouldn’t brook such a notion, as far as I could tell. So I resolved early on that I would admit and explain candidly any mistakes to my own children. I wanted to teach them how to “be wrong the right way.”

    he’d be potentially subjecting his grandsons to the same treatment

    Later on in his life, he was quite soft and sweet toward children (I suppose he saved all his expectations for his own). Had he known his grandchildren, he’d have been one of those totally indulgent grandfathers who’d sneak in ice cream and expensive toys to his grandkids despite his son and daughter-in-law’s objections. It’s one of my greatest regret that he passed away before he got to experience the pure joy of seeing one’s grandchildren. But I am glad he got to meet my wife, whom he quickly grew to adore.

    Is it possible that he stopped hitting you when you were heading into middle school because he realized you were getting close to the point of being able to effectively hit back?

    Not a chance. He and a colleague of his got into a brawl one time with four reporters and absolutely smashed them (which required the intervention and reconciliation by his boss, a cabinet minister, to smooth over – in the characteristic fashion of that society, all the combatants got piss-drunk together and made up, not that they had any other choice). He was the boxing champion at the naval academy of his country and could have turned pro, if he so desired.

    For that matter, I was pretty scared of him until quite late into his (and my) life. I remember seeing him after a long stretch when he became afflicted with an end-stage cancer. My first thought was both shock and a deep sadness at seeing him, a man I thought of as an iron horse, so debilitated and frail. It’s a bit embarrassing to admit this, but my second thought was, “Wow. I think I can take this guy with one hand tied behind my back. THIS is the guy I’ve been so scared of all my life?”

    These are prying personal questions you obviously need not answer if you’d prefer not to.

    Sorry about the longwinded reply, but you caught me at a particularly sentimental moment. I just returned from visiting his grave (where, yes, I poured a bottle of very good Scotch on his tomb and had a long conversation with him).

    Did he shove her out of anger?

    The boy who hurt his sister is ordinarily extremely tolerant and sweet. That’s why it was such a surprise. But that’s his God-given personality, as my wife and I discovered. He is the type that takes, takes, and takes and then, bam!, he will explode into earthshaking fury once he reached a certain point. He hasn’t hurt a fly (intentionally) since that incident (but of course he has thrown quite a few peers on their heads in his Judo and Jujitsu career).

  82. Twinkie says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    The question of whether or not it is something you’d do publicly is a pretty good first approximation as to whether or not it’s abusive.

    I wholeheartedly disagree! There are lots of interpersonal things I would do in private that I wouldn’t do in public, none of which I or the other party would consider abusive. 😉

  83. Twinkie says:

    I’m surprised no one linked to this already:

  84. @Audacious Epigone

    > Unless in self-defense or with consent, we censure hitting anyone else

    This is bad policy. “Talk shit get hit” is ancient wisdom. We shouldn’t have to live in a fake and gay pseudolawyer existence where people are allowed to basically say and do anything they want but you can’t hit them unless they hit you first. Violence is a vital tool. Taking it out of the equation warps everything and deeply harms people.

    On topic – the spanking question. I am allow. The only way to get through to a child who can not, is not capable of reasoning, does not have the ability to self-regulate, etc, etc, the only way to get the message across is at the primal level. This is again ancient wisdom. Yes, some problems can come from this, parents who will lash out at their kids, under cover of discipline. This is a risk we have to accept in order to keep the tool available. Same logic applies directly to women. Often no other way to communicate with a woman in the grip of hysteria. This used to be so completely accepted and unremarkable that it was even shown in movies and TV.

  85. Lot says:
    @The Alarmist

    “the passage of the Parliament Act 1911, which neutered the role of hereditary peers in the UK House of Lords”

    Outed as a baronet.

    Isn’t the real problem the Lords were too weak to stop their neutering?

    Most of the steps against them followed them using their power to prolong their exploitation of the rest of the population, from the Corn Laws to the Rotten Boroughs.

    The final hill they died on was fox hunting, not mass migration.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  86. dfordoom says: • Website
    @The Alarmist

    Great Britain gets honourable mention for taking the first serious steps towards self-destruction.

    The British have been incredibly enthusiastic about destroying their own society. It seems to me to be a result of the extraordinary levels of seething class hatreds in that wretched nation. And those class hatreds are arguably more vitriolic today than ever before.

    If the Europeans were smart they’d be delighted by Brexit. They’ll be better off without the British. Especially as Britain advances further and further down the road to totalitarianism.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  87. dfordoom says: • Website

    One thing hasn’t been mentioned. Are high-IQ parents more likely to have their kids drugged to the eyeballs to treat them for imaginary disorders like ADHD? Maybe their kids are just too zonked out to misbehave.

    There’s an extraordinarily high correlation between high IQ and belief in imaginary things. More research needs to be done into this.

  88. Rosie says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    This is where teamwork with a husband is beneficial.

    The thing about husbands is that they often have a habit of leaving the house every morning to go out and earn a living.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  89. Rosie says:
    @MBlanc46

    Indeed. However, 50 years ago, when I was a philosophy grad student, I can’t recall a fellow student who didn’t seem pretty far Left, including me.

    It was defensible to be Leftist 50 years ago. We didn’t have nearly the accumulated body of evidence against it that we have now. Besides, I bet even at your most liberal you didn’t see wholesale population replacement coming.

  90. Rosie says:
    @Anonymousse

    I dunno, sure they publish an article or two

    Understatement of the year.

  91. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    It seems to me to be a result of the extraordinary levels of seething class hatreds in that wretched nation.

    Class hatred, which often has an (((ethnic))) component destroys nations. If the ruling elite doesn’t identify with the proles, you’re in for big trouble.

  92. 95Theses says:

    Spanking, no. Caning, yes! ツ

    • Troll: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @95Theses
  93. iffen says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    I’m told, that Jews tend to do a pretty good job getting what they want without having to physically dominate others.

    LOL!!

  94. @Rosie

    You need to get with IT, Rosie. Millennial men send their women to work and collect UI!

    But seriously, that’s a fair point. I do believe that dad will get a glimpse of the daytime behavior when he is at home at night/weekends, and thus still have opportunities to correct. 3-5 years of age is a sufficient window.

  95. iffen says:
    @Twinkie

    In many ways, I owe much of what I am today to the fact that God gave me such a driven and hard SOB as a father.

    Johnny Cash
    A Boy Named Sue

    …There at a table, dealing stud
    Sat the dirty, mangy dog that named me Sue
    Well, I knew that snake was my own sweet dad
    From a worn-out picture that my mother’d had
    And I knew that scar on his cheek and his evil eye
    He was big and bent and gray and old
    And I looked at him and my blood ran cold
    And I said, “My name is Sue, how do you do
    Now you’re gonna die”
    (yeah, that’s what I told him)
    Well, I hit him hard right between the eyes
    And he went down, but to my surprise
    He come up with a knife and cut off a piece of my ear
    But I busted a chair right across his teeth
    And we crashed through the wall and into the street
    Kicking and a’ gouging in the mud and the blood and the beer
    I tell ya, I’ve fought tougher men
    But I really can’t remember when
    He kicked like a mule and he bit like a crocodile
    I heard him laugh and then I heard him cuss
    He went for his gun and I pulled mine first
    He stood there lookin’ at me and I saw him smile
    And he said, “Son, this world is rough
    And if a man’s gonna make it, he’s gotta be tough
    And I knew I wouldn’t be there to help ya along
    So I give ya that name and I said goodbye
    I knew you’d have to get tough or die
    And it’s the name that helped to make you strong”
    He said, “Now you just fought one hell of a fight
    And I know you hate me, and you got the right
    To kill me now, and I wouldn’t blame you if you do
    But ya ought to thank me, before I die
    For the gravel in ya guts and the spit in ya eye
    ‘Cause I’m the son-of-a-bitch that named you Sue”
    Well what could I do? What could I do?
    I got all choked up and I threw down my gun
    And I called him my Pa, and he called me his son
    And I came away with a different point of view
    And I think about him, now and then …

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  96. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    It was defensible to be Leftist 50 years ago.

    Leftists look to the future and envision what progress can be made. Rightists look to the past and want to keep the status quo or go back. This makes it difficult to “recruit” among those that don’t have fond memories of their group’s past status. (This is why the SJWs and the totalitarian left spend all of their propaganda time on reminding blacks of slavery and women of unequal treatment.) The only way around this is by retconning the past to resemble what one wants for the future, and this is a key aspect of successful “revolutions.”

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  97. @Audacious Epigone

    And I almost forgot this classic:

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  98. Pericles says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    In particular, I’ve heard, the Jewish mother.

  99. @The Alarmist

    I’ve lately become a fan of the theory that the 1907 British foreign policy pivot, led by Lord Grey, was the key step in setting the Russians against the Germans, and the increase in German paranoia that they would need to fight a war sooner rather than later. The reason that the British wanted to set the Russians against the Germans was to prevent the Russians from expanding further in Asia and threatening India.

    Of course the people making a profit on India were not the landed gentry, but adventurers, army officers, and other monopolists attached to the crown. What happened was that the control of the British government was seized by people more interested in exploiting the empire for personal gain than in maintaining and holding on to it.

    The 1911 act that you point out is just further evidence in this idea. Ironically, the more the focus of the British government fell to foreign policy and was not directed by landed gentry, the quicker the British Empire collapsed.

    Lord Palmerstonwept.

    • Agree: The Alarmist
  100. @iffen

    Leftists look to the future and envision what progress can be made. Rightists look to the past and want to keep the status quo or go back.

    Leftists totally discount the value of understanding the essence of human nature, which rarely changes, and are therefore incapable of learning from, much less avoiding the mistakes prior societies have made in their progress to their extirpation. Many, though not all on the right, want to avoid the mistakes of the past.

    This, among many things, was a major point of studying the classics. For example, if our so-called leaders understood and embraced the lessons of the Trojan War, as told by Homer, or the Pelopenisian War, as told by Thucydides (“Democracies need leadership, but leadership can be dangerous to democracy.”) we might not be in half the messes we are in today. One thing though: Our so-called leaders did learn from the Hellenic War, as they’ve done a fine job of disposessing the average citizen of the benefits of society and in establishing rule by the Plutocracy.

    • Replies: @iffen
  101. Pericles says:
    @216

    -white
    -southern
    -evangelical

    Intersectional oppressors!

    • Replies: @iffen
  102. iffen says:
    @Pericles

    ewws

    evangelical, white, workers, southerners

    • Replies: @216
  103. @Rosie

    “We didn’t have nearly the accumulated body of evidence against (Leftism) that we have now”

    What?!? We didn’t have all those mountains of corpses? Not only mountains of corpses, but entire mountain RANGES of corpses.

    Wholesale population replacement is just a passive, alternate way to get mountains of corpses. More specifically, mountains of goyim corpses.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  104. Jay Fink says:

    I find it interesting that single mothers are more pro-spanking than married mothers by over 20 points. I was raised by a single mom and she did spank me. I remember my first spanking wben I was really young. My mom saw me hit a boy outside. She chased me into the house and spanked me while yelling “Do not hit..do you understand? Do not hit!” I was too young to appreciate the hypocrisy.

    Some won’t like to hear this but I think I turned out better because of the spankings. I say that because often times boys who grow up in single mother households become criminals. I didn’t come close to doing anything like that. Yeah maybe it was in my DNA not to be predisposed to criminal behavior regardless of the enviornment I grew up in. Then again from looking at this chart black boys raised by single moms are as likely as anyone to get spanked and many still turn out to become criminals.

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Audacious Epigone
  105. iffen says:
    @The Alarmist

    Leftists believe that human nature can be “improved” and we are correct, while rightists want to keep people in their place and as is. This post on spanking could not illustrates it much more clearly. Spanking is passing from the norms that are acceptable (a good thing) and that passing has accelerated in the last couple of generations. Notice that you rightists don’t mention that not too long ago it was more or less expected that kings and sons of kings would try to murder each other. Need I point out that according to you rightists these were the creme de la creme?.

    People change every day, all day long.

  106. @iffen

    You really need to broaden your studies of history; you seem to have only noticed the sensationalised bits.

  107. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @iffen

    but the mental traumas fuck up a mind forever.

    My most-favorite aphorism of all: Everything we do becomes a part of us.

    By logical extension, this includes everything we experience (e.g., what is done to us.)

    When I think about it, the real issue is context. The same action involving another person can be positive or negative depending on its context. In this, I agree with you; mental anguish leaves no visible bruises, and is thus “easier” to perpetuate over time. The more subtle the vice, the easier are the rationalizations enabling it.

    As a result of this (and recent epiphanies) I now believe that the real adventure in life is learning to exercise conscious control over what we allow ourselves to think. Thought precedes action, so self-controlled action is downstream of self-controlled thought. Given insights in Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow, I think the ancient Stoics were onto something, which is why I have three books on Stoicism on my current reading list.

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Audacious Epigone
  108. red6020 says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    I agree with your response.

    However, my point isn’t that there are no alternatives for punishment (although these are more difficult for single parents, certain children, large families, etc.), but that I don’t see how “Obey the rules or you’ll get a spank” is that much worse than “Obey the rules or I’ll take away what you enjoy” or “Obey the rules or I’ll make you stand in a corner”, etc.

    Each involves a show of force (the child isn’t going to punish himself, afterall). Each encourages the child to “passively submit” to parental values. And, in the end, that’s ultimately the whole point of child-rearing, not a reason why spanking is bad.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  109. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    I concur.

    In relationships between people, the only time a vast power discrepancy is often helpful/benign is that of parent-child. BIOLOGICAL fathers are generally unlikely to sexually abuse their children, for example, and without data to link, I have no doubt that sexual abuse of children is radically more common when the adult is NOT the parent, and rises as the genetic-relatedness approaches zero. [Exceptions obviously exist. Don’t raise them.]

    Those who cannot manage themselves will be managed by someone, and there is but ONE relationship that has the best likelihood of that management being benign or helpful. Anyone who thinks otherwise must have had miserable parents (and if we wanted to read about such, The Last Closet by Moira Greyland is excellent. I do not claim she thinks ill of parenting in general, just of her own execrable parents, for good reason.)

    As to violence in general, I very much like the art-as-ideal-reality from the Movie The Shootist, where the main character, a gunfighter, states among the reasons he’s shot and killed men, “…and I won’t be laid a hand on by any man.”

    If a man (or woman, I suppose) places unjustified hands on another, the latter is (in my opinion) morally justified in using deadly force to contest it. Fists and feet kill more people each year than do shotguns and rifles combined. I get sick to death of reading discussions of men arguing who could kick whose ass in a fist/street fight, when a single blow to the head is potentially deadly. Men who swagger around, ready to demonstrate their “status” by threatening or attacking others should be removed from the gene pool at the point of sale.

    That said, SWIM (someone who isn’t me) was threatened by his own (teenaged) son with “calling Dept of Children and Family Services” over a confrontation they had that didn’t involve blows (it did involve being grabbed very forcefully.) Impulsive teens do stupid things, and creating a means for them to drop a metaphorical hand grenade into the middle of their family is a terrible idea, and possibly the foundation for why today’s parents often seem afraid to discipline their children.

    Public policies as one-size-fits-all are blunt and prone to abuse.

  110. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @iffen

    Leftism is a religion that posits magic as a means of changing reality. What else are statute laws, but magical incantations written on parchment intended to change reality?

    Humans have a nature, and this yields Nature’s Laws. It is biologically determined. It includes a phenomenally rich library of behavioral subroutines that allow humans to survive under conditions almost as varied as those that cockroaches can survive. The problem is that the subroutines are there all the time, and under any one set of environmental variables, a host of subroutines don’t enhance survival, they just create problems for us.

    There is no set-and-forget, always-ideal way to organize human social relationships. Above all, humans have clearly irrational cognitive pathways available at all time. Emotions don’t learn, and neither do phobias. Kahneman’s System 1, the low-energy, always-on, quick-and-dirty answer system is in my view almost coincident with emotion, which means (1) it has no sense of time, (2) thus no sense of predictive consequences, and (3) it learns very, very slowly if at all, so our impulses tend to get us into trouble. They are the source of the herding behavior we see everywhere we look, the basis for all these silly fads and fashions that are our Extraordinary Popular Delusions and [the] Madness of Crowds. Paraphrasing Kahneman, we “fall in love with our own ideas” and we’re “poor judges of our own cognition.” That’s a nasty combination.

    This means (to me) that every system implemented will go through the three phases of life (early action, middle wisdom, late sclerosis.) In my opinion, today’s Leftist Lunacy is clear evidence of late sclerosis. What follows it is now unknown to me, at least. Going backwards is never possible, but I think that the end of belief in unlimited resources will Darwin Award those who cling too long to the Cargo Cult. That’s just my take.

    To me, the Left-Right thing is bimodal BS. The graph of human belief is on an X,Y,Z axis 3D plot, and Left-Right is grossly too limited a frame for good analysis.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @dfordoom
  111. red6020 says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    Don’t both these points apply to any negative form of child discipline? We also don’t allow adults to restrict the freedom of movement of other adults (that’s called “kidnapping”). We don’t allow adults to take away the property, gifts or playthings of others (that’s called “theft”). Giving your child tasks to do without his or her agreeing to them (in adults called “slavery”).

    All of these involve a huge power disparity with no recourse. Even scolding your child relies a bit on intimidation. If you want to avoid a huge power disparity with no recourse, then I don’t see what parenting strategy is open to you except talk-only/bribe-only.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  112. @Not My Economy

    “Talk shit get hit” is also a horrible way to order one’s affairs.

    Why permit the inferior intellect to vent his frustration with his fists?

    Why permit the thin-skinned, emotional pygmy, to go primal?

    Would you be okay with an amendment to your position? If A observes B assaulting C because C called B a name, A gets to hit B and enlist the aid of others to maul B.

    • Replies: @Not My Economy
  113. @dc.sunsets

    The Shootist was the Duke’s last film. Great cast with Jimmy Stewart, Lauren Bacall, Ron Howard, Richard Boone, and the ever smiling negro, Scatman Crothers.

  114. Feryl says: • Website
    @res

    https://denofinquiry2.blogspot.com/2019/09/white-views-on-spanking-1980s-2010s.html

    White views on spanking from 1986-2018 (is spanking ok?):

    1980’s: 80% say yes
    1990’s: 73% say yes
    2000’s: 72% say yes
    2010’s: 67% say yes

    Now keep in mind that according to child abuse researcher David Finkelhor, child behavior has been improving since the early 1990’s. So it’s fair to say that when kids were worse behaved in the 70’s and 80’s, parents felt more, uh, encouraged to hit their kids. Child abuse (as opposed to corporal punishment) soared from the mid-1970’s-early 90’s, but has been declining since 1993 (indeed, nearly all forms of crime have declined heavily from their very high early 90’s levels). It looks like Gen Z is so well behaved that today’s parents are particularly opposed to the idea of hitting their kids.

  115. Feryl says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    Because Sun People expect their kids to be rambunctious and incorrigible, and figure that they might as well try and beat it out of their kids.

    Ice People (with Ash. Jews and/or the Japanese as the ultimate Ice People) expect their kids to be mature enough to understand consequences, delayed gratification, and the like relatively well at a young age, without much correction necessary*. There’s a big difference between blacks seeing a prison cell in their kid’s future, vs Jews seeing a six-figure bank account in their kid’s future.

    *For the minority of Ice People who are particularly resistant toward behavioral norms, that’s where drugs/counseling/specialized classes etc. come into play. But as we see with “good” and “bad” schools, whites and Asians can manage relatively well with only about 10-15% of the population needing serious guidance in their “good” public schools. Whereas with blacks, at least 1/3 of them are poorly adjusted (and/or lacking in intelligence), and furthermore, they are even more resistant toward correction than whites and Asians are. And that’s why blacks create “bad” schools. In addition, mediocre to poor quality black students really hurt the more talented black kids, whereas low quality whites and Asian students will usually be shrugged off by the better students.

  116. Feryl says: • Website
    @dc.sunsets

    I hear a lot of stories from a 4th grade public school teacher. There are increasing numbers of 9-year-olds who lack even basic self-control. Some of them are (diagnosed) emotionally disturbed, and some of these are on powerful drugs, even anti-psychotics (yikes!!) The school, the same place my kids attended decades ago, now has a full time social worker, a half-time psychologist and a padded room where a kid in volcano mode can be placed (they have a “code” signal that tells all teachers to get their kids out of the hallways so said screaming child can be physically dragged by four adults to the rubber room.)

    I dunno what to say other than….It’s hysterically false to claim that kids are “worse than ever before”. School fist fights peaked in the 1970’s. Teen promiscuity and pregnancy peaked in the 1980’s.

    The Youth Risk Behavior survey shows a decline in fighting, bringing a weapon to school, experimenting with drugs, abusing alcohol etc. Teen use of illegal drugs peaked in the late 70’s and early 80’s, but began to decline heavily in the late 80’s (although there was a brief uptick that lasted from about 1997-2003).

    Steven Pinker has convincingly argued that the overall trend has been toward ever falling social acceptance of violence as an appropriate means to an end. That being said, we still have occasional spikes in reckless behavior. For example, the 1910’s and 1970’s were two decades of exploding inter-personal violence (child abuse, domestic violence, murder, rape, etc.), and these trends didn’t begin to “burn-out” until about 20 years later (In the US, the murder rate began falling in the late 1930’s and late 1990’s). Interestingly, the following decades (the 1920’s and 1980’s) both saw aggressive campaigns to reduce substance abuse as a means toward calming the population down.

    I do agree that over-medicating is a serious issue, since it sucks the life out of people and we can’t even began to imagine the long-term mental consequences of playing with kids’ brain chemistry. It’s very important that kids not be exposed to either illegal or prescription drugs, as developing minds need to be protected. But let’s be clear: today’s children and teenagers are far better behaved than they were in circa 1920 or circa 1980*.

    Peter Turchin thinks that there’s variance in the nature of the violence cycle; collective violence (riots and terrorism)tends to peak 10-20 years before individual violence (bar fights, rape, serial killing), etc.) does. So we had a major spike in collective violence from about 1910-1920, but interpersonal violence peaked from 1920-1935. Similary, collective violence spiked from about 1965-1975, but interpersonal violence peaked from 1975-1990.

    It’s as if we do a lot of riots, terrorism etc., then get bored with that stuff and “move on” to domestic violence, rape, and murder. It also look likes like collective violence periods take about 10 years to burn out, and suddenly appear and disappear. Whereas interpersonal violence periods last about 15 years, and gradually show up then gradually fade away (e.g., the murder rate gradually rose in the 60’s and 70’s, hit record highs in 1980 and 1991, and it wasn’t until the tail end of the 90’s that the murder rate was obviously lower.

  117. iffen says:
    @dc.sunsets

    The graph of human belief is on an X,Y,Z axis 3D plot, and Left-Right is grossly too limited a frame for good analysis.

    There are certain precepts, ideas, values, political proposals and positions, etc. upon which “most” people on the left agree or entertain and the same goes for the right. The fact that it is a continuum with many people who are exceptions with certain views does not negate the fact that there is a linear left to right political reality. I’m on the left, but I don’t want Medicare for All because I don’t want the government’s hands on my Medicare. 🙂 (However, if that’s the only way that all Americans can be insured, then so be it.)

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  118. 216 says: • Website
    @iffen

    Hard to say about “workers”

    The left imagines the Platonic Ideal of the oppressor to be a wealthy southern evangelical man directly descended from some important Confederate official. Said person is a business owner that cynically exploits black and brown “bodies”, while fooling the working class white into “false consciousness”

    • Replies: @iffen
  119. vok3 says:

    Every single family I know that forswears corporal punishment of any sort has been a complete clusterfuck.

    I have one particular close relative, of a similar age to me, whose parents made a point of applying these sorts of philosophical arguments to their child-rearing. The result is the single most messed up human being I have ever known. You can sort of see that somewhere inside there’s a very nice person who just wants to be liked and doesn’t know how to accomplish it, but is so wrapped up in a lifetime’s worth of all the wrong habits and lessons and training that within half an hour of meeting this person, even complete strangers get very leery and realize they cannot possibly trust a single thing this individual says or predict with any accuracy what they will do.

    That’s what privileging theory over experience accomplishes.

    You have to have authority, and you have to have the means to enforce it. You don’t need to maintain it indefinitely but you do need it during the formative years. If you don’t do that, you might get along without it for a while, but that’s merely a matter of luck. Sooner or later luck runs out. And in a case like this, where the evidence and experience of uncounted prior generations is clear, “luck running out” means “you got what you goddamned well deserve”.

  120. iffen says:
    @216

    Hard to say about “workers”

    Ewws

    evangelical, white workers, southerners

    Better?

  121. SFG says:
    @Daniel Williams

    I had to Google it, but nope, banned in Israel (as well as most European countries, and the famously pale Argentina and Uruguay):

    https://www.simplemost.com/countries-spanking-illegal/

  122. SFG says:
    @dc.sunsets

    Stoicism heavily influenced cognitive-behavioral therapy, which is the kind they actually use now, as opposed to Freud.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  123. SFG says:
    @Jay Fink

    Could be there’s a tradeoff where the single mom has to spank to show she’s powerful enough to be respected (particularly by a boy), whereas the father’s larger frame may be threat enough. Similarly, boys usually really want to please their father, whereas the single mom has no such advantage. (Of course, she’s doing the best she can under difficult circumstances.)

  124. SFG says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    The Golden Mean, as the Greeks put it.

  125. Rosie says:
    @SFG

    Stoicism heavily influenced cognitive-behavioral therapy

    I didn’t know that. Makes sense though.

  126. @Anonymous

    He has likely done more than any other single person in spreading the truth about IQ.

    He counsels them to be wary of their parents and other family members when those parents and family members screw up and–and this is crucial–refuse to acknowledge and rectify those screw ups. If your mom chose a bad man to be your dad or was so bad herself that she drove him away, dumped you in daycare and then subjected you to a parade of sleazy men coming through the apartment while spending her spare time in a drunk or drugged stupor, you don’t owe her a damned thing in her dotage.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  127. @Anonymous

    I don’t know, have you read the book of Exodus?

  128. @MikeatMikedotMike

    I didn’t mean to imply that you were abusive. To the contrary, something that doesn’t cause a scene when done in public is as a general rule not abusive, and what you described seem to fit comfortably there.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  129. @216

    This is your society on intersectionality.

    Has that been meme themed? That is perfect for early Xers/late millennials. The possibilities are endless.

  130. @Anonymousse

    Was the Soviet Union put down with nuclear strikes?

  131. @Colin Wright

    “pretty good first approximation” should not be read to imply anything like an ironclad law.

  132. @Audacious Epigone

    I was just speaking in general terms, but yeah, no, I didn’t mean to suggest that you had.

  133. @Twinkie

    I knew few men who could equal his mental and physical toughness.

    Despite shouldering all that–and it sounds like a series of hardships that would break most men–his mental toughness occasionally failed him when it came to defenseless you. That’s tragic and I can’t help but wondering if without the implicit social condoning of corporal punishment it still would’ve happened.

    It’s a bit embarrassing to admit this, but my second thought was, “Wow. I think I can take this guy with one hand tied behind my back. THIS is the guy I’ve been so scared of all my life?”

    Maybe embarrassing, but certainly understandable. The tables had turned and you realized you could now return to him what he had dumped onto you.

    I’m putting pressure on the soft spots, but there is clearly a lot to admire about the man.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  134. @Not My Economy

    My sense is that population densities tend to be way too high in modern cities and inner suburbs for an honor society to be anything other than a disaster. Ancient wisdom is not necessarily universally applicable–it makes sense in traditional H&G, herding, and agricultural societies, but it’s not suited for post-industrial conurbations.

    It may come to predominance again, though, I admit, because these new victim societies began imploding immediately and cannot possibly shamble on more than another generation or so.

    The dignity society was the sweet spot, but it’s one that seems to require ourselves and our posterity to maintain.

  135. @Lot

    The picture would be more effective if the pup was dead on the beach.

  136. @The Alarmist

    Part of me loves it, part of me hates it.

  137. @Jay Fink

    Part of the reason is surely that fathers are effortlessly more forceful and commanding than mothers are. Kids think “Maybe I’ll ‘tempt’ mom into swatting me, but dad? I’m playing with fire.”

    How deeply have you thought about whether it was beneficial or harmful, being spanked? You want to be sure you’re not providing moral cover for your mom.

  138. @iffen

    If you see a fence as you’re exploring in the woods, the optimal response is neither to immediately remove it because it seems to be inhibiting you (leftism) nor incorrigibly maintain that it must remain undisturbed (a variant of rightism), the optimal response is to figure out why it is there and whether it’s being there still serves a useful purpose (better rightism!).

    • Replies: @iffen
  139. @dc.sunsets

    I’d love to talk to you about them after you’re finished with the trio.

    I’ve prescribed to Stoicism for several years now. You can’t calm a stormy sea by screaming at it, but you can survive a stormy sea by steadying your own ship.

    Or, more popularly: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” That needs some qualifying to count as sagacity in my view, but it’s on the right track.

  140. @red6020

    Yes, we’re on the same page regarding the benefits of instilling self-discipline through constructive parental violence. To some degree, it’s ultimately a question of tactics. If you could come up with a scenario where punching your kid in the face with a closed fist was the only way to save him from killing himself, I’d be on board.

  141. As a dude who gets classified as “Asian” (nominally), this number is BULLwinkle. Whatever that is but you get the gist. No way in hell the numbers for the Asian category is that low be it South Asian, Southeast Asian or East Asian. I grew up with people from the communities I listed and let me tell you something…their parents were QUITE partial towards beating their kids.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  142. @dc.sunsets

    You’re correct re: biological parents. The differences are measured in orders of magnitude.

  143. @dfordoom

    A lot of low IQ people also believe in religion…..

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  144. dfordoom says: • Website
    @dc.sunsets

    Humans have a nature, and this yields Nature’s Laws. It is biologically determined.

    Human society has changed a great deal over the course of history. Human behaviour has changed. Hunter-gatherer societies are much more violent than any modern societies. As other forms of social organisation replaced hunter-gatherer societies human behaviour changed.

    The way we behave, the way we see the world, the beliefs we hold, are radically different today compared to medieval society. And the way people behaved, the way they saw the world, the beliefs they held, were radically different in the classical world compared to medieval society.

    Culture seems to be just as important as biology. Possibly even more important.

    If human nature was completely unchangeable we’d still be murdering each other at the same rate as hunter-gatherer societies.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  145. Twinkie says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    his mental toughness occasionally failed him when it came to defenseless you. That’s tragic and I can’t help but wondering if without the implicit social condoning of corporal punishment it still would’ve happened.

    I guess I don’t see it as a failure of mental toughness on his part, but more that he reflected his society and time. To borrow a phrase from Dennis the Peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, there was much structural “violence inherent in the system.”

    Corporal punishment was doled out liberally from parents to children, from teachers to pupils, and from officers to conscripts in the army. My parents’ discipline paled in comparison to the beatings and other physical punishments I received from my teachers (you might recall the film footage I linked a while back that showed a teacher punching a row of his students for not doing well in class, and you described the character as possessing the irascibility of “the Irishman of Asia”).

    The tables had turned and you realized you could now return to him what he had dumped onto you.

    I didn’t have any sense of retribution or vengeance toward my father. In both East Asia and the United States, I heard an odd kid or two curse their parents. That was, and remains, unthinkable for me – let alone the idea of physical violence against them. I take “Honor thy father and thy mother” seriously as God’s commandment.

    That “I can take him” moment was more about the realization that the man who loomed so large in my imagination was but an old, frail being. It taught me much about the disparity between what is in one’s mind and the physical reality, about the terrible toll that the passing of time exacts on even the strongest of us – that I was at the peak of my power, but, one day, my time will come for me too. I was deeply sad about what was happening to my father, but it also occurred to me that I was, finally, my own man.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  146. Twinkie says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    East Asian

    Young Japanese and Korean parents of today rarely, if ever, beat their kids. And their militaries no longer use corporal discipline, which but a few decades ago were legendary in ferocity.

    If anything, there is now a persistent sense among older generations of their societies that today’s children are much too undisciplined, indulged and self-absorbed. Then again, that’s a pretty perennial complaint of the old in most, perhaps all, societies.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
  147. Twinkie says:
    @dfordoom

    Culture seems to be just as important as biology. Possibly even more important.

    Culture and biology are not opposing forces. There is (usually) a constant feedback between the two. Culture is a social expression of a particular biology, which, in turn, shapes the future of that biology – and the cycle goes on.

    As much as human civilizations have changed (and they have changed enormously as you note), basic human nature has not – we are still afflicted with envy, lust, greed, etc. and are still ennobled by love, courage, sacrifice, etc., all of which are enduring qualities across time and space.

  148. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    The members of the sort of deadbeat families you describe already tend to be alienated and estranged from each other, or on the way towards alienation and estrangement, anyway. Furthermore, the typical young man searching for intellectual content online isn’t going to be from such dysfunctional families.

    The targets for this sort of thing are more likely like the following, from normal middle class families:

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/15/family-relationships-fdr-defoo-cult

    One Wednesday afternoon in May, when Barbara Weed’s 18-year-old son, Tom, was right in the middle of his A-levels, he abruptly left home. “Dear Family,” said the note he left on the doormat. “I need to take an indefinite amount of time away from the family, so I’ve moved in with a friend. Please do not contact me. Tom.”

    He has not been in touch with any of his relatives since. But Tom is not a missing person. His family know roughly where he is. It’s just that he won’t talk to them and they suspect he never will. “He got hooked in by an online cult,” Barbara says. “The website convinces vulnerable people that they should hate their parents and should leave their family.”

    Barbara and her husband already had two sons – Nick, two, and John, four – when their youngest, Tom, was born. “I adored Tom,” says Barbara. “Nick was the mischievous one and sometimes I did get cross with him. But I didn’t need to get cross with Tom. He was such a joy to be with and had long, serious conversations with everyone. I always thought he would be the last one to leave home – that at 40 he might even still be here, which is ironic.”

    The boys were so close in age that they all played together. Barbara took them to parks, playgrounds, theatre shows and Alton Towers and, even though money was tight, there were family seaside holidays every year. “When Tom left, John said, ‘But we had a great childhood.’”

    Tom and his girlfriend, meanwhile, had become increasingly interested in an online community called Freedomain Radio (FDR), which invites discussion around philosophy, politics and personal freedom. Unbeknown to Barbara at that time, a key topic of the site – whose members seem to be mostly in their teens and twenties – is the idea that ultimate personal freedom can be gained by cutting yourself off from any involuntary relationships (ie your family) and entering into completely voluntary ones (ie your new mates online). “I think once you get these corrupt people out of your life you will for sure have enough room for all the new awesome, virtuous friends in the world,” said one member to another recently.

    For members unsure about such drastic measures, there are podcasts with titles such as “But my parents were really nice!” and there is a chatroom in which members discuss how so many families are unjust. There is also a Sunday call-in show in which the website’s founder counsels callers. Often the subject is leaving your family.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    , @Feryl
  149. dfordoom says: • Website
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    A lot of low IQ people also believe in religion…..

    Low IQ people often believe in irrational things but they’re usually irrational things that have proven over the years to be useful.

    High IQ people tend to believe in whichever irrational things are the current intellectual fashion. And they often believe in irrational things that are purely based on wild theoretical speculation. Lots of high IQ people used to believe in Freudianism. That was a typical high IQ belief – there was zero evidence to support the belief and the belief was totally incoherent but it sounded impressive in theory. And it made high IQ people feel like they were much cleverer than everybody else.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @iffen
  150. iffen says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    figure out why it is there and whether it’s being there still serves a useful purpose

    The Wall! The Wall!

    Left and right will disagree on why and purpose.

  151. 95Theses says:
    @95Theses

    Hey, it was just a joke (which my wry smiley ought to have clued you). Lighten up, my friend. ツ

  152. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    Lots of high IQ people actually thought that communism was scientific and was inevitable because it was some sort of natural law that had been discovered.

    In retrospect, we could say that the smartest ones saw it for what it was: a vehicle for obtaining political power.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @dc.sunsets
  153. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    Lots of high IQ people actually thought that communism was scientific and was inevitable because it was some sort of natural law that had been discovered.

    It’s also surprising how many intellectuals in Britain and the U.S. in the 30s thought that fascism had real potential. High IQ people are attracted to extreme political ideologies like marxism, libertarianism and fascism because they appear to be intellectually satisfying. High IQ people are attracted to belief in climate change because they think it’s scientific (in fact it’s as scientific as marxism).

    They’re attracted to weird and wonderful psychological theories. Some of these theories are even more wacky than Freudianism.

    The irrational beliefs of low IQ people are sometimes personally harmful, sometimes personally beneficial, but usually socially neutral. The irrational beliefs of high IQ people are very often socially catastrophic.

  154. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @Twinkie

    I, too, was scared of my (adoptive) father. He spent 8 years in the USMC including part of the South Sea adventure in Guadalcanal, and though by 18 I was taller, heavier and much stronger than he was, he wore “ex-Marine” on his sleeve and acted as though he was primed for a real fight, not this BS codpiece-measuring contests common when today’s faux men debate who’d kick whose ass in a street battle.

    We learn something from everyone. Some teach us what to emulate, some teach us what to avoid doing. I learned how NOT to parent from my parents.

    My kids are all well into adulthood now. I’m still taller, heavier and stronger than each of them. And that doesn’t matter one bit.

  155. res says:

    For a taste of where parenting philosophies in America are today: https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/family/story/momtroversy-call-kids-annoying-65488153

    Apparently being in public and telling your children they are being annoying is beyond the pale for some. I wonder what they would think of saying someone else’s child is being annoying? Or saying they themselves are being annoying? ; )

  156. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @dfordoom

    High IQ people tend to arrogantly cling to their ideas regardless of a constant history of failure.

    They’re like an alcoholic who rationalizes his impulse-driven drinking by defining out of existence the evidence of the harms he does to himself and those around him.

    In Thinking Fast and Slow, Kahneman notes that we both “tend to fall in love with our ideas” and “are generally poor judges of our own cognition.”

    Add the arrogance of the person experienced at being among the smartest person in the room and it’s a prescription for collective error on a scale we can only watch in awe.

    I had an association with a “high IQ” group (140+) and the stridency among the leftists was astonishing.

  157. Mark G. says:
    @iffen

    People pretty much agree what the current positions of the left are but there have been historical changes in the positions of the left. Historically the left wasn’t all that socially liberal. When the Republicans decided to pursue a southern strategy in the nineteen sixties, they pulled a lot of socially conservative Southern Baptists out of the Democrat party. Around the same time, Catholic intellectuals like Buckley and his National Review were encouraging the Republicans to become more socially conservative and for socially conservative Catholic Democrats to switch parties. By the seventies even long time Catholic Democrats like Frank Sinatra were switching over to the Republicans. There was no relation between frequency of church attendance and voting habits until the 1972 election when socially conservative religious voters started going Republican. Some commenters on here bemoan the fact that there is no socially conservative socialist party. That party actually existed with the Democrats until the nineteen seventies when it became a socially liberal McGovernite party. The socially moderate Republican congressional representatives have also declined in numbers as more socially conservative voters emigrating from the Democrats entered the Republican party.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @dfordoom
  158. RSDB says:
    @dfordoom

    Fascism did have real potential; or perhaps one could say it had little remaining potential, having actualized much of its energy. It was destroyed as a result of Mussolini’s alliance with Nazi Germany.

    You might find this post written by an SF author whose day job was in some sort of management analysis interesting: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2015/02/keep-change.html

    He divides people based on their opinions on Topic X into three categories: Inhibitors, Conservatives, and Innovators (each of which has subcategories), which he applies to the topic under discussion:

    Similarly, as John Lukacs tells us in The Last European War, the youth of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s were demanding hope and change from the old stuffy bourgeois society. And so they hopped on board the new fascist and national socialist parties that were springing up. But there were others who were dead nuts against the innovation, and these included traditionalist aristocrats like von Molkte and his circle, religiously-motivated Catholics like the White Rose, or confessing Lutherans like Bonhoeffer. Here, the Innovators failed because fascism is just one of those Bad Innovations. The Conservatives also failed because as actual results rolled in — Germany rebounded from the Great Depression faster than other countries; legitimate German territorial demands were satisfied with little more than bluster — it seemed as if national socialism was actually working.

    And it did, until it didn’t.

  159. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    The irrational beliefs of high IQ people are very often socially catastrophic.

    Well, it’s not like they came up with stuff like rationalism, The Enlightenment, the Constitution and muh Liberties and got us into this mess.

    Never mind.

  160. iffen says:
    @Mark G.

    there have been historical changes in the positions of the left

    True enough and I don’t want to be associated with the current totalitarian looney left.

  161. @Twinkie

    I think you’re saying that because you’re a part of the group you are talking about. Of course, it’s natural for you to want to defend yourself and your friends from these slanderous allegations towards your collective views and whatnot. But what’s true is true.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  162. @Libertt Mike

    >Why permit the inferior intellect to vent his frustration with his fists?

    Your position here is the equivalent to “as long as they come in legally

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  163. @TomSchmidt

    As you might expect, spanking declined in favor as psychologists / psychiatrists came into power. From the chart, I’d say it was the Jewish establishment enforcing its views on its host society to eliminate an element of society that they didn’t want, and the rest of society arguably needed. In the old two parent family, the mother was responsible for child care and affection, and the father was responsible for enforcing standards — usually on the boys. It seemed to work fairly well. Eliminating spankings not only destroyed the man’s role in the family (and made it a good deal less hospitable for him as he now had no effective control over the kids), it also made the father into a villain who, at any minute, might spank the kid he’s impatient with.

    Ever since that episode with raising chickens [1], I’ve been a bit wary of kindness.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] http://www.unz.com/isteve/jewish-intellectual-self-awareness-c-2019/?highlight=rooster#comment-3080770

  164. @Not My Economy

    If you can’t use violence to protect yourself, you can’t use it to protect other people or the society you live in. that little implication was a large part of what brought down the Anglo Saxon Protestants. Everybody and is _dog_ could treat them and their symbols with absolute contempt after about 1970. They could not even protect their women. Now they’re dying out. Funny coincidence, that.

    Counterinsugency

  165. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    What?!? We didn’t have all those mountains of corpses? Not only mountains of corpses, but entire mountain RANGES of corpses.

    Right, but:
    a) the corpses weren’t in the US.
    b) the Left looked like a fringe back then, people with strange attitudes but nothing more.
    c) the government that had just gotten us through WW II said everything was fine, and it looked fine.
    d) the idea that the Jewish establishment was leftist in some dangerous way was as taboo as the idea that some Italians were mobsters. Bolsheviks were never portrayed or described as Jewish. The Spanish Civil War was less well known than Caesar’s conquest of Gaul.
    e) Up until the late 1960s, the Anglo Saxon Protestants and other European descended populations seemed in good demographic health.

    To believe that something was seriously wrong (it was) you had to believe that everything you saw around you was a carefully crafted myth. That turned out to be largely the case, but sounded like a psychotic break, and was treated that way by most.

    So there were reasons, much as German citizens had reasons before Merkel let in the tide.

    I’ve just finished the Cambridge history of the Spanish Civil War. It reads just like today. Nothing has changed, except that the Left has a different group of cannot fodder to dominate. Same demands, same methods, same insufferable arrogance and inability to feel pain as long is it isn’t theirs. How many people today see that identity? Isn’t that much like the blindness of the 1950s?

    Summary: people back then were smug, but not stupid. They just had no strong immediate cause to reject consensus reality. We do, and (my real point here) even we haven’t rejected it enough.

    Counterinsurgency

  166. Twinkie says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    I think you’re saying that because you’re a part of the group you are talking about.

    I think you should stop projecting. I happen to be one of those old folks who look askance at the way young parents in East Asia let their children run wild and disturb others around them. And they aren’t my people.

    But what’s true is true.

    You seem not to understand that Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have undergone dramatic economic and cultural transformation in the past several decades. Good grief, man, there is homosexual “marriage” in Taiwan now.

    And I have worked with some of the military forces in the region and can attest that the culture of severe corporal discipline in them has faded away precipitously in that time. Years ago, I witnessed during an exercise a senior officer pistol-whip a junior officer in the face after the latter’s unit maneuvered away, leaving the neighboring unit’s flank open. That kind of punishment would be unthinkable today and would lead to nonstop news coverage and protests.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
  167. My daughter got swats to the bottom. Never in anger. Never more than 3 at a time. Never for accidents or just being a kid. On!y for disobedience, lying, or safety reasons. She never needed one after age 5. In order to teach her that “daddy don’t bluff”, she got hosed off with a water hose in the backyard when she refused to take a shower. It was a bit chilly in the upper 50s. She was happy to jump in that warm shower.

    Now at 14 she has a black belt . Has straight A’s. Is able to make decisions and think for herself. And is a 3 sport athlete. She came cook, bake, and shoot. Is kind to animals and protects those weaker than she is.

    I don’t think I could have done any better raising her.

  168. @Twinkie

    I think you should stop projecting

    ….What?

    I already conceded that people of “my” community do it. I’m not hiding it, or engaging in denialist talk (like you) so I don’t see how that is a relevant rebuttal/comment.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  169. @dfordoom

    Are high-IQ parents more likely to have their kids drugged to the eyeballs to treat them for imaginary disorders like ADHD? Maybe their kids are just too zonked out to misbehave.

    It’s a real thing, if overdiagnosed. Adults find out they have it too, after a lifetime of feeling something’s wrong with them (this cartoonist did at 28), and drugs really improve their quality of life. Blanket dismissal of it just comes off as uncaring.

    Having struggled with insomnia all my life, I understand how a brain can be uncontrollably messed up on a physical level. And how drugs, not exercises in willpower and discipline, can miraculously shorten that dreadful process of falling asleep (I didn’t even have real sleeping pills, just melatonin and sometimes over-the-counter stuff with the “drowsiness” side effect) and bring a relief.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  170. Twinkie says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    I’m not hiding it, or engaging in denialist talk (like you)

    It’s an odd kind of denialism when I dislike and critique what I am supposedly defending.

    East Asia is not South Asia. There are no routine gang rapes in the former. Airports are higher-tech, cleaner, and more orderly than in the West. And young people there are very SWPL

    You should remove that chip on the shoulder and the racial inferiority complex, and try to understand reality as it exists, not as you’d like it to be.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
  171. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mark G.

    Some commenters on here bemoan the fact that there is no socially conservative socialist party. That party actually existed with the Democrats until the nineteen seventies when it became a socially liberal McGovernite party.

    Such parties existed pretty much everywhere up to the late 60s. The Democrats, the British Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party. Being a socially conservative moderate socialist put you right slap bang in the mainstream.

    Those parties are all gone now. The parties that still use those names bear no resemblance to the parties that existed in the 1960s. Those parties were all infiltrated by economically right-wing social radicals at the exact same moment in history and those parties were transformed beyond recognition.

    Which of course is just an amazing coincidence.

  172. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @iffen

    In retrospect, we could say that the smartest ones saw it for what it was: a vehicle for obtaining political power.

    At the risk of repeating myself: Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow offers an insight into this. Our cognitive pathways (yes, plural) divide into two main tracks (arbitrarily christened System 1 and System 2) where the latter is the high-energy-using deliberative or calculating system.

    Interestingly, this system also subdivides into “two separate minds.” (From p. 48-49)

    Keith Stanovich and his longtime collaborator Richard West […] have spent decades studying differences among individuals [and] asked one basic question in many different ways: What makes some people more susceptible than others to biases of judgment?

    He published his conclusions in a book titled Rationality and the Reflective Mind, which offers a bold and distinctive approach to the topic of this chapter. He draws a sharp distinction between two parts of System 2–indeed, the distinction is so sharp that he calls them separate “minds.” One of these minds (he calls it algorithmic) deals with slow thinking and demanding computation. Some people are better than others in these tasks of brain power–they are individuals who excel in intelligence tests and are able to switch from one task to another quickly and efficiently. However, Stanovich argues that high intelligence does not make people immune to biases. Another ability is involved, which he labels rationality. […] The core of his argument is that rationality should be distinguished from intelligence.

    A bat and a ball cost $1.10.
    The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.
    How much does the ball cost?

    Hint: most people get this wrong. Bright people are no exception to this.

    All roses are flowers.
    Some flowers fade quickly.
    Therefore some roses fade quickly.

    According to Kahneman, a large majority of college students endorse this syllogism as valid.

    A plausible answer comes to mind quickly (via System 1), and that’s the one accepted (and THEN DEFENDED if it’s attacked.)

    People of all IQ levels are prone to take the quick-and-easy answer to every question, and none is easier than when, in an area of uncertainty (e.g., “Is communism bad or good?” “Is Trump bad or good?” “Will stocks go up or down next week or next year?”) where obtaining an empirically-derived answer IN PERSON is impossible, our mind then simply looks around at our peers and uncritically accepts whatever the herd in which we crop grass believes. We then enlist our deliberative mind to find and parrot rationalizations that back the (often irrational or erroneous) answer we had previously adopted. This is herding behavior and everyone exhibits some degree of it, while others are immersed in it nearly all the time. (I use tattoos as a proxy for susceptibility to herding impulsion.)

    Irony alert: Stanovich (above) has a test of “rationality” where he labels “belief in Conspiracy Theories” a signal of irrationality. To me, this is tantamount to saying that anyone who doubts the Official Narrative provided by self-interested politicians and others is being irrational. I got a belly-laugh out of that one.

    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    , @iffen
  173. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @Toronto Russian

    If one accepts as I do that our brains have different cognitive pathways, resulting in our minds being more like a committee than a single voice (schizos hear all the voices simultaneously, perhaps), then I find this last tidbit useful:

    The System 1 (impulsive mind) that is always on tends to search for things to think about. It can pull things from your distant past, but it can’t think about the future.

    Why?

    Because, like emotion or phobias, it has no sense of time. When you drive a car and suddenly realize you cannot recall the last 10 minutes (or 10 miles) of the task, it was System 1 in charge of your actions. You have no sense of time because System 1 has no sense of time. In this respect, this is why if it chooses to ruminate about a long-past painful event, the event seems like it occurred just now. There is no sense of time’s passage, and no fading of the pain. When you notice suddenly that you’ve spent hours wasting time on Internet forums (chuckling) it was System 1 impulsiveness keeping you so engaged.

    Because System 1 can’t do time, it can’t process consequences. If it’s not occurring right now (or in the past) then it can’t occur at all. This is why a drunk will drink. The past harms are rationalized away, and there are no consequences to THIS installment of their drinking problem.

    I suspect that this is why there’s a huge difference in suicide rates between people of African and European/East-Asian ancestry: The former have System 1 cognition that is especially poor at predictive consequences and relatively less System 2 capability, but the latter use their System 1 to aggregate the calculated future given it by the System 2 deliberative mind. What happens then is that the White/Asian System 1 adds all of the future pain predicted by the System 2 analysis and it all lands in ONE BUCKET, in the perpetual present. It’s like saying, “Wow, my life sucks now, and it’ll suck next year, and the year after that, and the year after that…” and all that “life sucks” of the future is then added together and experienced right now. The result is existential agony so great that the person ends their life.

    I am currently of the belief that gaining conscious control over what we allow ourselves to think about is perhaps the most important task facing every person.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  174. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @dc.sunsets

    The ball costs 5 cents.

    The syllogism is obviously invalid.

  175. AE,

    Kids can be very annoying, and parents are excused the occasional exasperated swat, but a “good, hard spanking”? No. Totally wrong.

    I sense that you would agree, but there’s a taint associated with anything “the Jews” do.

    It’s pathetic to allow one’s dislike of an ethnic group to dictate one’s responses to values issues.

    WRT Israelis, they don’t spank.

    Parents who spank are undisciplined louts themselves.

    You’re welcome.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  176. iffen says:
    @dc.sunsets

    (I use tattoos as a proxy for susceptibility to herding impulsion.)

    When I was young, single, and irresponsible with regard to sexual behavior, I took an innocuous tattoo as a sign that said: “It might be worth your time to chat me up because I occasionly make wild and crazy decisions.”

    • LOL: dc.sunsets
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
  177. dc.sunsets [AKA "Astonished"] says:
    @iffen

    “It might be worth your time to chat me up because I occasionally make wild and crazy decisions.”

    Just add the magic ingredient: EtOH. It turns off the deliberative mind, leaving only surface impulses in charge of action. All you needed then was a little charisma, mixed with a hint of the taboo or danger. Women, it turns out, are even more simple-minded than are men…at least the masses are.

    Did you ever see a girl with an upside down tattoo on her shoulders below the neck that read, “My name is Shiela” or some such? That one would be a dead giveaway.

    • Replies: @iffen
  178. nebulafox says:

    Bit late to the thread, but I’ll post my two cents here.

    1) Yeah, I’ll echo other posters and say that this seems to be a cultural thing. I spent much of the last year in Singapore, where corporal punishment in the schools, in the homes, and even in the justice system is a mundane reality. They opt for rattan canes, though, not fists. Suppose that’s a British-ism?

    I only got whupped once as a kid-I was a pathologically shy, obedient, churchmouse type as a boy-but I, my brothers, and my peers took it as normal growing up. As far as I know, nobody was traumatized. It was only when I relocated to an SWPL suburb at 15 that I realized that wasn’t necessarily the case. But by that point, I passed the implicit threshold of appropriateness and we just sort of understood that physical discipline was no longer on the table.

    2) I don’t think I’d utilize it, but I don’t have any moral objections to it. It’s more a personality issue. My father had a very hot, explosive temper back in the day. It was all natural. I’m the polar opposite. My brand of anger is very cold, calculating, and more attuned to other forms of discipline and intimidation. Since I’m relatively young and can remember childhood enough to recall that most kids (I was clueless, but again, I had siblings who weren’t) can tell when something is visibly phony or forced, I’m going to roll with what I was given.

  179. nebulafox says:

    >For that matter, I was pretty scared of him until quite late into his (and my) life. I remember seeing him after a long stretch when he became afflicted with an end-stage cancer. My first thought was both shock and a deep sadness at seeing him, a man I thought of as an iron horse, so debilitated and frail. It’s a bit embarrassing to admit this, but my second thought was, “Wow. I think I can take this guy with one hand tied behind my back. THIS is the guy I’ve been so scared of all my life?”

    Had the exact same thoughts myself last year… thankfully, it’s not terminal, but man, it’s sobering stuff to see a man you grew up seeing as indomitable, physically and mentally, now emaciated and aged thanks to mutated cells. It’s gut-wrenchingly painful, but he’s still there and he’s getting better. That means I’ve still got time.

    I’m not at all proud of that second thought, BTW, but it does spur you, y’know? You know the scene from Book VI of the Iliad where Hector raises his infant son to the heavens and pray for him to be better than his father? Favorite scene in literature. I’m trying to get into the habit of rereading that scene on a daily basis to remind myself of what I need to do, not just to finally make my own father’s investment in me something he can look back on his deathbed with pride, but-outside shot, but you never know-to make crossing that bar something worth accomplishing for my own son someday. Right now, being a better man than me is a pretty damned low prize. Gotta get that bar up there.

    I think this is a very fitting post to leave on.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  180. @Twinkie

    More denialism from a proven liar I see. Great way to deflect from the fact that East Asians use corporal punishment. Keep trying to hide it I guess

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  181. iffen says:
    @dc.sunsets

    Can’t go with your two minds idea. I think that it is a bad idea to divide the force, especially if it is weak to begin with like mine.

  182. @Anonymous

    I seem to recall Molyneux saying in the last year or two that something like ten people he’d had contact with in the 15 years he’d done his show totally defooed that he is aware of. Perhaps none of them should have. Assuming his autobiographical account is accurate, though, he was one who should have–and eventually did–defoo.

    While I respect accuracy for accuracy’s sake, it’s not something I’m going to get hung up on in light of the enormous good he’s done in popularizing human biodiversity.

  183. @216

    Imagine being able to turn yourself into a shoo-in for tenure by registering Republican.

    Hey, I can dream can’t I?

  184. @iffen

    Came here to make sure this got posted.

  185. @Anonymous

    The Victorians were smarter than we are and corporal punishment was the norm back then.

    Yeah, and BDSM was called “the English vice” at the same time lol.

    When fighting for the abolition of corporal punishment in schools, prisons, the army and the navy, 19th century public figures often hinted at the connection between flogging and sexual arousal. The shame of flogging was not only the fact that schoolchildren were whipped with rods on bare buttocks (here we must also take into account it was indecent even to publish the word bottom in newspapers). Much worse was the likelihood that flogging would develop in children the beginnings of sexuality. And child sexuality in the Victorian era seemed like a nightmare – take, for example, the precocious children from Henry James’s novel The Turn of the Screw. So a conclusion was drawn about the inappropriateness of flogging schoolchildren. What if the rods will turn them into erotomaniacs? Or worse, they will begin to like spanking?
    (…)
    In the 19th century, English prostitutes who provided such services were called “governesses.” One of the most famous “governesses” was Mrs. Teresa Berkeley, who kept a brothel in London at 28 Charlotte Street. As contemporaries noted, no flogging tools were missing in her brothel: rods, lashes, nine-tails, some of them studded with needles, belts and canes, and in the summer there were bunches of nettles, beautifully arranged in Chinese vases. Humanity owes the same venerable lady the invention of the “Berkeley horse” (…) This intricate device, invented in 1828, by 1836 brought 10,000 pounds of income – a fabulous figure for those times!
    (…)
    Flagellant poetry was a separate genre. The English poet Algernon Charles Swinburne (1837 – 1909) was especially successful in this field. Until relatively recently, when asked about Swinburne’s sadomasochism, his biographers coughed embarrassedly and muttered indistinctly. As for his sadomasochistic poems, they are still published with the mark “attributed to A. Swinburn.” Not everyone will recognize his authorship. But Swinburne was a sadomasochist anyway, judging by his correspondence with friends, as well as his campaigns in flagellant brothels, where he spent a lot of money. It is believed that Swinburne became a flagellomaniac in Eton. There, he often watched the punishments of his classmates, and he himself was flogged.
    (…)
    Probably the most interesting sadomasochistic phenomenon in 19th-century England was correspondence in the press. It seems to me that even now the majority of online discussions on the topic of “To beat or not to beat?” are being started with the same goal – to amuse erotic fantasies. Alas, the Victorians could not afford the luxury of registering on an online forum. Therefore, they were content with little – magazines. There were frequent announcements in which whipping lovers covertly offered each other meetings. For example, on January 31, 1863, Punch magazine reprinted the following ad from the Liverpool Daily Post newspaper: “WANTED, a Young Lady, about 20, as Housekeeper to a Widower, and to take charge of three boys, the eldest ten years old. Must be of good appearance and address ; accomplishments not essential. Salary 25 pounds.-Address, stating age, and if willing to give severe corporal punishment, A. Z., Post Office, Chester.” The Punch journalists sincerely sympathized with the “modern Solomon.” If he lived a century ago, he could invite Mrs. Brownrigg to be his housekeeper – a sadist hanged for the murder of her pupil. But Algernon Swinburne considered changing into a woman’s dress and applying!

    Similar announcements were not uncommon, but even more noticeable was the correspondence of sadomasochists in family magazines such as Family Herald, The Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine, and Town Talk. These magazines gave advice on home economics and good manners, and among other things they discussed family matters. Like modern publications, magazines of those years published readers’ letters, which were then answered by other readers and so on. You could start a sadomasochistic flood, for example, with the following letter: “My husband loves to whip me. Otherwise, he is the most tender of husbands and does not refuse me anything. Ah, what am I to do? Perhaps someone will have advice?” And advice was found. The stories of corporal punishment in schools, especially in women’s boarding schools, were also popular: one letter was followed by others, in which correspondents added pictorial details to the issue of flogging girls. These letters were distinguished from ordinary conversations about corporal punishment by such an abundance of clichés as “trembling flesh”, etc. The result was a group erotic story. Interestingly, magazine editors calmly published these epistles, not suspecting correspondents of insincerity. Although it is possible they suspected, it was just that such vigorous correspondence raised the rating of the magazine. But readers who did not have a penchant for sadomasochism, were horrified and scribbled refutations. It got to the point that in 1870 Englishwoman’s Domestic Magazine began to issue sado-masochistic letters as a separate monthly supplement “in view of the extraordinary interest in this discussion.” The rest of the readers breathed a sigh of relief – at last they could leaf through the magazine, without bumping into juicy descriptions of flogging. And sadomasochists were not at a loss, because at least for a while they received a separate publication, even a mainstream one.
    https://b-a-n-s-h-e-e.livejournal.com/668363.html

  186. Twinkie says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude

    You need to grow up and learn to take a beating, even rhetorical ones, like a man… instead of calling everyone who bests your argument a liar.

    Great way to deflect from the fact that East Asians use corporal punishment.

    And improve your reading comprehension. I didn’t write that East Asians didn’t use corporal punishment. My comments are replete with examples of harsh discipline, including that I received, in East Asia. My point was that there has been a dramatic decline in the use of, and support for, it, especially among younger East Asians.

    Now there are complaints in South Korea, for example, that students are running wild due to the ban on corporal discipline:
    https://www.corpun.com/10archive/krs01012.htm#22845

  187. @dc.sunsets

    I think what you’re calling “System 1 cognition” is simply the right hemisphere thinking.

    But then again the right hemisphere is the high-IQ one, because it’s the one in charge of fast pattern recognition and complex mental models. (The left hemisphere does everything step-by-rote-step in a very plodding and inefficient fashion, exactly what you’re not supposed to do to ace an IQ test.)

  188. Feryl says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    If there’s anything to this idea that FDR is encouraging family estrangement, then shame on this “online community” and the person who started it (Molyneux). Outside of extreme financial, physical, or sexual abuse, a person should never be encouraged to deliberately cut off contact from a family member. This is indeed very cult-like philosophy/life “advice”, and you have to consider Molyneux’s own toxic family history before assuming that he (or his followers) are giving sound advice. It’s all the more bizarre that a “libertarian” like Molyneux would try and tear families apart, given that people often rely on their families, and if they didn’t have their family they’d be more likely to rely on the government.

    I don’t think there’s necessarily a class thing going on here, instead it’s vulnerable/gullible/over idealistic people buying into a bad idea. The same sort of people buy into cult-type crap, time and time again. No matter the era or the cult. Dominant people tend to start cults cynically, recessive people tend to become the true believers.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  189. @dfordoom

    Well said. Ie flat earth vs communism.

  190. @Jane Plain

    Mostly agree, though I wouldn’t call them lazy louts–at least not necessarily so. I reserve that description for the parents who do it out of anger or frustration.

  191. @nebulafox

    I h0pe the thought doesn’t even cross my sons’ minds. It has never crossed mine.

  192. @Feryl

    It’s a ridiculous caricature to argue that Molyneux regularly advises people to cut off contact with their families. It requires abuse/neglect and an unwillingness to address said abuse/neglect.

    And all sexual abuse is extreme. If anyone ever sexually abused me–no one ever did, for the record–he would not EVER get anywhere near my children.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  193. Feryl says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    It’s a ridiculous caricature to argue that Molyneux regularly advises people to cut off contact with their families. It requires abuse/neglect and an unwillingness to address said abuse/neglect.

    I didn’t even say with certainty that he was doing it at all, let alone regularly. What I mean is that neither he nor anyone else has any business telling someone how to interact with their family (it’s going to be hard to “read” a situation, especially when you’re only hearing one side of the story from someone who may not be telling every detail, and may not be self-aware of their own issues),beyond common sense advice of telling someone to seek refuge from or punishment of anyone who is clearly crossing the line into abuse and/or fraud.

    The Guardian article is correct to warn people that “de-familying” is not to be taken lightly and could be co-opted into a cult-like movement of gullible people being estranged from key allies (e.g., their family). Since Molyneux never had a positive relationship with his immediate family, he may be underestimating how well many parents and their children actually get along; certainly, most people born in the 1960’s often remember their parents being, if not really abusive, then at least emotionally and/or physically absent from their childhoods. But those born in the 1940’s or 1990’s had a much different upbringing. It’s important to not project your own experiences onto everyone else.

    Lastly, there are always going to be vulnerable and gullible people out there, and people who affect to be “advice gurus” need to realize this and not steer people in the wrong direction. The kind of people who won’t draw the wrong lessons from Molyneux’s “advice” are the sort of people who wouldn’t call into his show in the first place.

    BTW, I remember a show called Love Line with Adam Carolla and Drew Pinsky (a genuine professional). They gave advice to various callers, and the hosts usually had a good perspective on things. Molyneux’s sort of “therapy” call in shows are, IMO, quite a step down from the credibility (or safety) standards of Love Line.

  194. I didn’t mean to imply that you said that, but I’ve seen the types of accusations you were alluding to being made. I listen to nearly everything he puts out so I have a good handle on it.

    He dives very deeply before suggesting cutting off contact, and he only goes off what people have said to him. If you’ve not listened to a few of his long call-ins, it’s easy to misconstrue the interaction. This isn’t anything like a talk radio thirty second call in.

    Also, his approach is philosophical, not therapeutic. He says over and over and over again that he highly recommends people who call in get professional counseling.

  195. @red6020

    Yes, at Molyneux takes it to the extreme, claiming he has never demanded his daughter do anything past the age of two or so. He reasons with her–“You lied to me, sweetie. So is that how we are going to do things now? I told you I’d take you to Dairy Queen tonight, but I’m not going to. I lied. Is that okay?”

    He was a Randian Objectivist earlier in life. That seems a bridge too far for me, especially when there are siblings to contend with (the older sibling can simply use might is right and get what he wants as a consequence unless a parent intervenes in some way).

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS