"Child Programming"

[anthony]

When I was a child I spent three years in kindergarten. I think that might be longer than usual. My handlers decided to err on the side of caution because they didn't know what to make of my nature. Maybe I appeared possibly retarded, or was not hitting their milestones or standards.

I spent a lot of time there, and also seem to have much stronger memories of my early life than most people I speak to. My memories become consistent around the age of 3. I remember a lot from then onwards. And I believe I was 3 when I went into kindergarten.

I was prompted to create this thread after seeing some typical internet woman piety over Elsagate's alleged influence over children in its heyday, those children now being old enough to post on reddit.



Roastie internet police on the case. It was the "screens" you see. The screens "were not good for them." "The affect" you know?



I believe you. I definitely really believe you.



"The way it has effected me now-"

This person is definitely effected, or is it affected? Hard to tell now. But by Elsagate? I believe the forum user who brought this tweet to my attention had the right of it.

These comments are false, regurgitations, impositions from above. These are mental children repeating back at you what their parasocial "parents" online said. If the Amarna Forum ruled the world, they would be gravely warning against listening to rap due to hair loss.

There's a common thread between Aaron Bushnell torching himself for a cause that doesn't matter and these mental children taking on a dour tone to warn you about the dangers of too much screen time like a sixty year old. A sort of false piety. An empty gesture to a dead religion.

I agree that there is probably very little specific damage done by these videos, if any. Perhaps just some more generalised problems of being raised without a mind towards any kind of cultivation or purpose. Elsagate is just a giant lack of standards and taste. "RW" or adjacent Longhouse Commissar jumps on this for a chance to push already held axioms and biases. But between her and the linked reddit posts try to find a clear explanation of what's actually happening.


Watch Elsagate -> .... -> Become an Asexuality

This is the story which 'Nua Peasant' is going to use to justify closing the internet.

This isn't a thread about that though. We could have one, but what would be the point? This is going to lead back into where I started. People online like the idea that specific experiences and exposures can somehow mess you up or do damage. Maybe extreme cases can in some subtle ways, but I lean towards these effects being overblown for the most part.

But this did get me thinking about the phenomena in general. Both the ideas of mass exposure of weird experiences to masses of children, and the idea of being messed up, or in more extreme cases, perhaps "programmed". That word makes for a more fun title so we're using it.

Looking into the Missing Children on milk cartons thing (real thing in America) I found a reddit thread, that went from here to a bit of a more general discussion on bizarre threats presented to children.



I want to address both of these comments. First the kidnapping epidemic. Yeah, maybe that was a thing. A general lowering of trust towards strangers. But I don't believe proposed cause and effect line up here. There was a general collapse in social trust and engagement all over the first world during this period. In the USA the far more obvious social breakdown instigator was the civil rights movement and the internal rearrangements of America's populations and communities, largely by violence. First there was the violence itself, second effect being the destruction of more natural settlements of populations and relations for a new uprooting and replanting along far more historically unusual lines. Related thought to our current thread against conspiracy, wouldn't it be convenient if the milk cartons made Americans start bowling alone. Just kind of a stupid mistake. Between the destruction of population demographics and social arrangements people were naturally happy with, the rise of tv as the mass time-eater, and the slow collapse of civil order due to racial chaos and creeping anarcho tyranny, it seems rather natural that people would start closing off. Children are going to learn from how they're raised. I find other comments in this thread on how crazy it is that they were still allowed out to do whatever considering all the kidnapping news in the air.

Second comment also interests me. Quick sand. Quick sand is something I remember being scared of as a kid. I feel like it was everywhere in cartoons and stuff, Mario falls into it and dies in Super Mario 64. If you learn about the world through pop media (it seemed weirdly prominent in things for children) one might get the impression that falling into quicksand and dying is a real and serious risk. Other similar examples like piranhas and killer bees are brought up in this thread.

I was aware of the idea of quick sand. But I was never really having any strong reactions to the idea. I never thought I was going to die because of contact with sand that could have been quick. People remember a vague childish fear of these things, but we all know we're fine now. Nua is not telling you that "this is so sad" that generations of children were taught to fear sand. It made just enough of an impression for us to remember it was there.

I give time to this thought because I can actually think of someone who was so strongly impacted by the idea of video game environmental hazards that he genuinely believed he was going to be killed by contact with mundane nature.

From the Ullillillia wiki




The same contact with a mundane and silly idea we all met had an extraordinary effect on this particular person, who is very clearly wired differently to the rest of us. This is what a programmed human looks like. Taught by exposure despite layers of abstraction and unreality.

It seems to me that the nua "Elsagate turned me asexual" angle relies on the idea that many people are in some way fundamentally like Ullillillia and will pick extreme relations between concepts through exposure that will stick with them for life. I believe that this is a rather stupid idea. But if you disagree feel free to argue your case in this thread. If you do want to make that case, let me leave you with this before we move on.



SKIBIDI BOP BOP YEEEEEEEEEEEEEES YES

---

Back to me, I can think of several particular experiences in my early life that were in retrospect rather bizarre. At least they strike me that way. And I feel like I could probably spin out some narrative of "programming" based on them. But I don't believe that I was. They just seem odd to think about now. Strange and ineffectual ideas from incompetent adults who didn't really know what they were doing but felt like doing something.

I want to share these and ask if anybody remembers these or similar experiences. And whether or not you feel "programmed" by anything.

I remember three programmings from when I was in kindergarten. Things that felt like rather serious teaching campaigns that were initiated by people with some responsibility, but which I can't imagine sensible people coming to agreement over at all.

First, I remember my kindergarten was very determined to teach us all about pregnancy. Chicken eggs were brought in to sit in incubators. And we were told over and over again how amazing it would be when they would hatch. I vaguely remember a chick dying one year, possibly even before it hatched. Memory gets murky on this point. Did someone step on one? Did one die in egg and they told us? Did they crack an egg and show us the dead chick? Did I kill a chick? I don't remember too much beyond the fixation upon chicks (on the part of the teachers/handlers, not me. I couldn't give a shit but in my memories these are very pushy women). These possibilities might sound very weird on paper here, but I feel nothing about any of it. It just sounds like a really stupid idea to force chicken eggs and the miracle of hatching on children.

What goes from weird to proto-NAMBLA MKULTRA watching us through the one way mirror stuff is, I vividly remember these women teaching us about human pregnancy too. They put a lego man inside a balloon full of water and told us that women carry babies in their bellies. And then I think they told us the baby comes out the bellybutton, but I couldn't be certain on that. This one seems very weird to me, just the fact that it happened.  I don't remember being afraid of confused and I have no lego man or balloon fetish today. I just can't imagine how this came to be something done for a kindergarten. Are these people just very naive and weird about the nature of children? I don't think anybody got messed up. But I can't think of any good positive reason to do this. It just seems like a pretentious waste of time concocted by bored retarded hicklibs who wanted to play inspiring science for a day with 4 year olds as their captive audience.

These only really became weird when I linked the two in my mind as connected lessons on a greater curriculum of pregnancy and reproduction. Why were they doing that? Weird, weird stuff if you ask me. If this was happening in every kindergarten in the world and I'm just being retarded and autistic, please tell me so. I'd like to get this clarified if possible.

Secondly, I remember warnings about fire. Housefires specifically. I remember Ronald McDonald on tv telling us to 'Get Down Low, and Go Go Go!", I remember visiting a fire station, and I remember being asked to ask my parents what our "plan" was for if the house caught fire. I think I also remember us four year olds being told that we could throw our mattresses out our windows and jump onto them if we were on a second floor. My windows didn't open. Pretty sure I just had to eat shit on that because the lesson was escaping out windows when our houses caught fire.

Were they laughing at us? Does my mind concoct memories like this for fun? Or did the Australian government order kindergartens to teach children how to escape housefires? The latter sounds completely plausible to me. One could say this scared us, maybe it did. But if so, no lasting damage. I'm not "messed up". But between this and some other things I believe I could construct a solid narrative of fearmongering in Australian childrearing. Probably with good justification. Reason why the point of this thread is on whether or not such things actually have adverse effects, not whether or not they happen.

Third, I remember Australia around the early 2000s shaming everybody for domestic water usage. Short showers. Less time washing your hands. Have to sing songs about the importance of rain and water in kindergarten. Australia didn't get notably wetter since this period. But our moment of draught awareness and the accompanying public shaming campaign seem to have gone away and been memoryholed in favour of the now dominant environmental meme of climate change. Telling toddlers they wash their hands too much might be a fun powertrip, but it's nothing compared to telling that to a government (or feeling like you are).

One could make a plausible case that perhaps there was an element of messed up here in that people were primed for a sense of responsibility and guilt towards the world, which then evolved into or was picked up by the climate change movement. But all of Australia got this meme, and in my memory it basically passed away as soon as the programming was changed and they stopped spamming us about it in tv commercials.

Again, there could have been an effect. This may be the most plausible example, but again, I personally felt nothing for the cause. And I believe that most people didn't. The channel was on drought. Then it wasn't. And now it's on climate change. Climate change I believe it would be harder to flip the program on, some believers would be lost and hurt without it, but maybe not as hard as many would think.

Melbourne does lots of things one could take as strange social experiments. We were also the most locked down city in the world in response to Brandon Flu. That one did get flipped hard, people were turned on, and then off.

Was the drought meme about experimentally priming us for climate change action, or was it perhaps just a poorly thought out and lazy state mandated program because someone suggested that 'environmental consciousness' would be a milestone to hit early in the lives of Australian youth to create responsible Australian adults?

But then, why did the program feel so explicitly like shaming? In the informal discussion that preceded the creation of this thread I believe the answer came up quite succinctly.

Shaming is just the default woman way of interacting with boys to me

All of my handlers in kindergarten were women. Australia is a country run by women. I believe that all of these strange experiences I had in kindergarten (there were a couple more in addition to these) can be explain by bureaucratic distance and laziness and the natural teaching style of women. I grew up with a bunch of bizarre and incoherent morally tinged "lessons" because my country is run by stupid women. And all it amounted to to me was a giant waste of time.

Do you remember anything like this, and do you think any of it amounted to anything?

Now you may be thinking that I talk a lot about how children are betrayed and messed up by the world, and I believe that they are. But I believe that exposure to particular images or taught ideas does very little, and that the medium is the message. I believe that boys being raised and taught by women does terrible damage. From more of the above conversation.

I was never held against any kind of defined standard, more just attacks out of nowhere that hurt because I couldn't comprehend them

Shame hurts. Not seeing skibidi toilet. 

Attempting to build a working moral model of the world in response to arbitrary exercises of authority (tyranny) you will just get mutilated for your trouble. And of course only the smarter and better boys will do this if constantly lectured at. Because they're the ones who could be the best. I could go into more particulars about what I believe went wrong in my own life, but this won't be a thread for that I don't think. Right now I'm interested in this idea of damage by exposure to specific ideas and concepts.

I'll leave you with this last idea to think about. This ought to stoke if nothing else.

[ourokouros]

I too was afraid of (quick)sand, funny that you mention that. 
Another fear/rage response I still have from childhood would be rodents - We had a mouse problem and my father insisted on showing me how he was killing the trapped mice. Most times I have nightmares, they revolve around rats specifically, and pretty much all rodents (hamsters, guinea pigs too) except rabbits trigger a violent disgust/murderous rage in me. 
Outside of that, there was the standard Balkan practice of my parents threatening to sell me to the gypsies if I misbehaved, but I don't know how much that affected anything seeing as hatred for gyppos is a normal consequence of interacting with them. 

As for woman shaming, my mother was, unfortunately, widowed and tried as hard as possible to stamp out any violence in me, every time I got into a fight at school - almost none of which I started anyway - she'd ground me for a week or so and pretty much stop me from doing anything fun. Luckily my grandfathers and uncles put a stop to that. 

P.S. On the skibidi toilet issue: I don't know why people pretend it's some new terrible thing, I distinctly remember watching a lot of absolutely retarded SFM creations as a kid

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Second comment also interests me. Quick sand. Quick sand is something I remember being scared of as a kid. I feel like it was everywhere in cartoons and stuff, Mario falls into it and dies in Super Mario 64. If you learn about the world through pop media (it seemed weirdly prominent in things for children) one might get the impression that falling into quicksand and dying is a real and serious risk. Other similar examples like piranhas and killer bees are brought up in this thread.

Quicksand programming continues to this day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-qTbR9Z6qE

---

My early childhood memories are faint so I can't comment on much of this thread, other than specifically about the "screens are unhealthy" refrain. I was raised by a neurotic mother who followed this dogma. She also believed violent video games were harmful, so I never had any game consoles and was restricted in what I could do during the brief periods of time I was allowed to spend on the family computer. She sold the television when I was young, and I wasn't allowed to have a smartphone until after I left high school.

School was boring and restrictive, home life was a little less restrictive but more isolating. I was oft-instructed to "go outside or read a book or something", but there was nowhere to go and no one to go with, and I'd already read every book we owned and couldn't go to the library often enough to get more. When I finally got my own computer in high school (with spyware that limited how long I could use it for), I transformed from a kid who knew almost nothing about computers to teaching myself programming. It felt like a new world had opened up for me. I posted a lot on forums, and now school was more of a drag than being at home. I wish that, at that time, I had a smartphone which I could surreptitiously use in class. I was not having trouble learning and it would have helped me grow both intellectually and socially. I think it's neutral if kids watch stupid videos on their phones, it's not like gazing out the window during class or fighting each other during break were much more fruitful.

Not only is this anti-screen sentiment another arbitrary tyranny conjured from the paranoid female mind and contagiously amplified by our feminized society, but the internet offers boys a reprieve from the stifling nature of modern society. There might be a lot of things online that can hurt a young mind, and I do think that pornography in particular is harmful, but having the power to make decisions (even bad ones) is important for a man's development. Society works to deprive us of such power IRL at every turn, but female kvetching falls on deaf ears in the digital world.

[Edge]

My early childhood memories are faint so I can't comment on much of this thread, other than specifically about the "screens are unhealthy" refrain. I was raised by a neurotic mother who followed this dogma. She also believed violent video games were harmful, so I never had any game consoles and was restricted in what I could do during the brief periods of time I was allowed to spend on the family computer. She sold the television when I was young, and I wasn't allowed to have a smartphone until after I left high school.

School was boring and restrictive, home life was a little less restrictive but more isolating. I was oft-instructed to "go outside or read a book or something", but there was nowhere to go and no one to go with

It seems as though no one who went through childhood prior to the 2000s understands that "outside" no longer exists. There's no roving gangs of children aimlessly playing that you can join, no "hang-out spots" full of peers waiting to make new friends. It's just empty front lawns and side streets. "Screens" are likely one of the only forms of stimulation a child has access to at this point, especially with the trend of making sure every waking moment out of school is carefully contained in scheduled, supervised activities. It's cruel in ways these petty tyrants might not even realize.

[MassGraveGroyper88]

Very thought provoking.

I recall some of these strange childhood humiliation rituals too. One that stands out was about dental hygeine. It involved some sort of dye that highlighted bacteria on your teeth, if I recall correctly, so the mode of instruction was explicitly shame (for having dirty teeth).

Your thesis here strikes me as rather mystical, in an appealing way. The specific manifestation has no effect, only the "principle" behind it. After some contemplation, I can't come up with any counterexamples where an exposure is inherently damaging divorced from its context, so I'm inclined to think you're right, despite an instinctual objection. I'll ponder it more.

One thing I'll note: while "screens" may not be inherently damaging to children, they do provide exposure to damaging principles. You've definitely given me some things to think about.

[synesth]

Violence. Never hit someone first. Always defend. I was in a christian private school. Never, ever start a conflict, be it through word or fist. Even if you know that the conflict is unavoidable, even if your enemy is charging towards you - if you hit first, the teacher will blame and shame you. My grandfather blew this apart when he heard of it, took me out on the balcony and said "If you hit someone, you better hit them so hard that they can't hit back." It took me a long time to learn that yes, you need to say no sometimes. Sometimes an attack is also an act of defense.

Video games. Mom hated video games. My dad liked them and I remember him playing the RTS games with his brother. It was a tension in their marriage which solved itself when good video games became harder to find. Certain people, like my mom, treat video games as something akin to porn, something fake and reprehensible. "No blood!" This was the rule when playing on the school pc's. We always turned it on when the teacher turned away. But the shaming of people who enjoyed any digital medium other than movies are still out there, one day an Andrew Tate fan, the next an old schoolmarm.

Climbing trees. Two of my teachers, both female, emphasized this greatly, and I was stunted by this. I never climbed a tree before I was maybe 8 years old. You could fall down and die! You don't want that, do you?

Going fast on a bike was shamed too, on some level even from the government. I learned to love this, and also the previously mentioned things. In this regard I was lucky. But since I am still in education, there is one thing that has bothered me a lot since I started school:

Reading, or rather the way in which to read. I was always, from day one, the fastest reader in my class. In fifth grade everybody was reading the sort of books you find today at the airport, while I quitly absorbed Silmarillion, old scandinavian myths retold (Erik Menneskesøn), being completely immersed. I could cry and laugh at the story, reading them at nighttime. As the subject of danish proceded, we were told to analyse these stories with tools. We were given small words and weapons. Dissect the stories, put them under a microscope - this was what it felt like. The teacher of course just claimed that this was just how to interpret a story and understand it, I hated every bit of it. It was boring. And worse: It ruined the story. It no longer played as a movie before you, aiding your fantasy to paint a world more exciting than the one around you. Instead, the next time I got home and in bed and began to read, my brain started spitting out these words, ruining the story. I of course intuitively understood it perfectly before, this jargon made it more dull. "Ah so this is the point of no return." "He is the main character" So I turned to drawing. I drawed illustrations on the first blank pages of books I owned. And I got the ability back. But I see many people like this in the humanities, who know nothing more than how to dissect a story, never how to enjoy it or truly understand it. These people hence can't write either.

@MassGraveGroyper88 I remember that about dental hygiene too. We had books read to us about little demons eating your teeth until they were all gone and bleeding gums was left.

[MassGraveGroyper88]

Not only is this anti-screen sentiment another arbitrary tyranny conjured from the paranoid female mind and contagiously amplified by our feminized society, but the internet offers boys a reprieve from the stifling nature of modern society. There might be a lot of things online that can hurt a young mind, and I do think that pornography in particular is harmful, but having the power to make decisions (even bad ones) is important for a man's development. Society works to deprive us of such power IRL at every turn, but female kvetching falls on deaf ears in the digital world.

While I think phones/"screens" are detrimental to most children, this is best interpreted through a more general aristocratic worldview. Those who are superior to something, let them indulge in it freely and they'll be all the better for it. Those to whom the thing is superior would be better off having it restricted from them. The presence of the inferior unfortunately profanes the thing in question, to an extent. Imagine how great the internet would be without them.

[isotope]

I want to share these and ask if anybody remembers these or similar experiences. And whether or not you feel "programmed" by anything.

I used to be an altar server when I was a child, and the parish would organize trips for us. During one of them, a friend of mine showed me caricaturally explicit comic book (If I remember correctly it was about Lobo). We were both 9 years old. This event completely desensitised me to all gore. I don't want to imagine what would have happened if the priests had found out, lol. To this day I fail to understand normalfags' reactions to gore. In high school one of my classmates said that he is scared of his own blood. I thought that it was completely subhuman.

I was raised by a neurotic mother who followed this dogma. She also believed violent video games were harmful, so I never had any game consoles and was restricted in what I could do during the brief periods of time I was allowed to spend on the family computer. She sold the television when I was young, and I wasn't allowed to have a smartphone until after I left high school.

Certain people, like my mom, treat video games as something akin to porn, something fake and reprehensible. "No blood!" This was the rule when playing on the school pc's.

Can't imagine living with such people. I used to watch documentaries about people with horrible genetic diseases (e.g. progeria, ichthyosis, Lewandowsky-Lutz dysplasia, dwarfism, parasitic heads and so on) with my mother. We would then search the internet for more pictures of them, as TV documentaries were always censored and never graphic enough. I was about 8 years old at the time.

[calico]

When you're young the idea of being "held back" sounds like the most humiliating shame of all.

When you're older you realize your life would've been better in every way if you graduated high school a year later.

When you get even older you realize a college education is wasted on the youth.

[JohnTrent]

There are some examples of "programming" that didn't take or were too incompetently practiced. The main essential one in my experience was isolation from other students: I was frequently taken out from class and put into windowless rooms, either being handed various puzzles or just being left to my own devices. The tasks given to me varied as the years continued, and one year involved memorizing progressively longer stories overtime; they never informed me about the results and wordlessly left the room. Sometimes I would read in this setting but the boredom was so distracting that I became frustrated at the lack of human contact. When I found myself around other students, usually around lunchtime or recess, I was again taken out at random, with the same result. Though socializing is usually prohibited on a subtle level in most elementary schools, I was explicitly denied the opportunity on multiple occasions — speaking to others in class was punished by having me read out paragraphs written about my apparent moral failings, defects, etc. If this sounds like Stalinist show-trial antics, you would probably be correct, but this was a mostly ordinary public school. 

My understanding, in hindsight, was that they were trying to practice some idiosyncratic (and retarded) version of Rousseau's Emile: isolating the child for the chance of a better developed character. However, these people were stupid and couldn't think beyond that premise. I never had any behavioral problems or learning difficulties, so this is the best explanation I can muster. Anyways, all it did was increase my hatred of schools.

There are two things I experienced that could be considered programming in the same way as quicksand, warning others about problems that were overplayed.

The Internet

There were multiple cases over the years where students were gathered together to watch a public speaker discuss "The Web": almost always, it was portrayed as a place of immense danger and with little benefit. These speakers were off-brand versions of Chris Hansen and would candidly discuss pedophilia and child pornography, not-so-subtly suggesting that using the Internet outside of school grounds was an easy gateway into kidnapping and life in a sex dungeon. Essentially they were warning the students that they'd undergo the plot of that bad horror movie Megan is Missing. There'd also be PSAs involving "digital footprints" and depressive teenage girls taking their lives because a photo of them in a bra was posted online (???). In a lot of ways, the kidnapping epidemic programming was unchanged and adapted over to this subject.

Now for the implications. This was the first stage of convincing young pupils that learning computer skills was a good endeavor, but the Internet itself should be avoided. Because this was the first retaliation against mass digital connection, there were still kinks to be ironed out. For one thing, since elementary school hammered down using Microsoft Windows XP and its software (Word specifically) properly, it introduces the question why we should be reliant on computers at all, if mass communication is some lawless environment of frequent kidnappings and brutality. What the school suggests about using a computer and using the Internet cannot soundly coexist together.

I think that, in the case of "Gen Z" remorseful idiots, they are repeating the same statements that they heard in these assemblies, though a different meaning is in mind. It seems more vindictive than a passive regret of their childhood internet history, more a way of goading people back into ZOGWorld social dynamics. Nobody is truly concerned about "digital footprints" in the original sense, even though that phrase has surely increased in use over recent years. Everything about the phrase itself implies that outside actors are conspiring to influence your life based on what you post, and unlike those assemblies mentioned above, this has no sexual meaning. Before it was clandestine kidnappers; now it is libtards trying to contact your employer. It seems now that this, paired with parental concerns about "screen time", will be the new version of my experience for Gen Alpha kids — a Norwooded public speaker warning young boys not to be too chuddy on the internet lest they be punished.

Acts of Terror

This one might not require so much explanation, since it has to be mandated nationwide at this point. This started happening in the late 2000s - early 2010s but the actual subject was never clear: depending on the lockdown, the rehearsal subject could be Al Qaeda or a Columbine event. I remember specifically that they stressed the former in elementary school, even though this was highly implausible. This also wasn't built on anything rational because they would mention bombs, leading me to wonder why we would remain inside in the first place. It became more prominent as the years went by, centered more around mass shootings this time around, but it seems a desired effect was to decrease trust among the students. If everyone inside was aware of the rehearsal plans, then anyone planning to pull off a mass shooting could achieve their wish. Intentional or unintentional, the result was students taking tasks into their own hands and determining who was most likely to do it, and naturally the choices are the sensitive and/or the asocial. This was bolstered through bad rehearsal ideas, one including "throw classroom objects at the shooter". Defeating Adam Lanza with a barrage of mechanical pencils, what could go wrong? The school staff may or may not have realized just how bad these ideas really were, but it certainly inspires a response from the students, which is to fear one another and hope to single out the bad apple ASAP. Tie this in with the fear of incels, and you have a perfect recipe for turning intelligent White male teenagers into pariahs.

---

I cannot comment at length on this one, but did anyone else have to witness a simulated car crash? This happened in high school and was supposed to be a warning about driver's safety. It could be a regional occurrence since multiple people witnessing that later died (or were imprisoned for) drunk driving accidents. I guess that's yet another Mission Failed example.

[synesth]

[...]

It is not the content that I've consumed that hurts, it's the medium. The computer, or phone or whatever, as a device, trains you in a certain way in order to use it.

This was the first stage of convincing young pupils that learning computer skills was a good endeavor, but the Internet itself should be avoided.

It's almost impressive how it's the exact opposite. I was tought the same sentiment too btw. Computer skills are something you learn because it is forced on you, and shitposting is the ultimate form of trying to reedem that. We are literally incapable of going offline forever, it's like a fundamental rule of western society to have access to at least a computer. The content is what makes it even close to worthwile, the gay part is learning how to interface with these things.

So why the panic about content? Why is it certain forms? The attack on anonymity, or honest internet culture, or games, even extending to more rightful condemnations of porn? It's simple. They're women or longhoused.

They can't tell reality from video games - I think garfieldbot said that but I don't remember. Either way its true: It's the tale of a modern disenchanted lonely confused woman lashing out not really knowing what to do, trying to claim some form of perverted authority and not being able to direct it in any meaningful sense.

[Albicacore]

Reading, or rather the way in which to read. I was always, from day one, the fastest reader in my class. In fifth grade everybody was reading the sort of books you find today at the airport, while I quitly absorbed Silmarillion, old scandinavian myths retold (Erik Menneskesøn), being completely immersed. I could cry and laugh at the story, reading them at nighttime. As the subject of danish proceded, we were told to analyse these stories with tools. We were given small words and weapons. Dissect the stories, put them under a microscope - this was what it felt like. The teacher of course just claimed that this was just how to interpret a story and understand it, I hated every bit of it. It was boring. And worse: It ruined the story. It no longer played as a movie before you, aiding your fantasy to paint a world more exciting than the one around you. Instead, the next time I got home and in bed and began to read, my brain started spitting out these words, ruining the story. I of course intuitively understood it perfectly before, this jargon made it more dull. "Ah so this is the point of no return." "He is the main character" So I turned to drawing. I drawed illustrations on the first blank pages of books I owned. And I got the ability back. But I see many people like this in the humanities, who know nothing more than how to dissect a story, never how to enjoy it or truly understand it. These people hence can't write either.

A similar thing happened to me in high school. Most of the books they made us read were about how wholesome Africa was before muh colonization and gay Mexicans. Dracula was the first book I actually enjoyed reading for school. I was excited to go home and read it every day but I hated having to go to class and listen to what all the girls and the old hag of a teacher had to say about it. When I read it on my own I felt enraptured by it but in class I was forced to sit and listen to them strip away all the magic and beauty of it. I think @august is right about segregating schools.

[BillyONare]

Anyone else remember Gen Xers earnestly believing that playing Nintendo Wii games would increase their level of fitness?

[ourokouros]

Anyone else remember Gen Xers earnestly believing that playing Nintendo Wii games would increase their level of fitness?

I'm pretty sure that was just another way of trying to weasel out of actually exercising

[First time poster]

watching us through the one way mirror stuff

I remember my preschool had a one-way mirror into the school's common room (during a study by child psychologists I got to go to the room on the other side of it, it was a pretty normal room and typical tests such as the marshmallow test for long-term thinking were conducted there). I assumed that the behavior of myself and other students was part of a more passive observational study after learning it was a window on the other side. But what's really strange is that the bathroom had no stalls at all, and unlike the one-way mirror I never received an explanation for it, I just thought that was what bathrooms were like until I moved to kindergarten. I looked it up, and this seems to be not unheard of, but still there are no answers:

https://www.bakersfield.com/archives/sho...35e18.html#
https://forums.thebump.com/discussion/70...-bathrooms
https://community.whattoexpect.com/forum...tml?page=2
At least some of the bathrooms in these examples had dividers. This was in the civilized first world, so it's not like they couldn't afford dividers.
I looked up the one-way mirror thing after realizing how strange it was, and it seems common for preschools to have an observation room for parents, but it is still very unsettling and adds evidence to the theory of parents living vicariously (is there a non-norwood version of the word vicariously?) through their children.

Is it time to coin a new -house, the schoolhouse, or is all of education from the beginning part of the longhouse already?

[Guest]

One more thing: read the wikipedia article for "circle time" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_time). The description is peak longhouse and reveals a lot about the non-educational characteristics of preschool, examples below:

    Quote:

    It is a special time to share fingerplays, chants and rhymes, songs, play rhythm instruments, read a story, and participate in movement games and relaxation activities. Circle time provides a time for listening, developing attention span, promoting oral communication, and learning new concepts and skills. It is a time for auditory memory, sensory experiences, socialization, and a time for fun. Circle time can be a complex, dynamic interaction among adults, children, and resources used. Teachers have the power to make group time more effective and enjoyable for all involved. It also has roots in social group work and in solution focused therapeutic approaches.

Note the language used

    Quote:
   

During this time, the children sit in a circle (usually on a rug) and the teacher may read a book aloud, lead a sing-along, or engage the children in a discussion. Circle times may start with an analysis of the weather and a correlation between the type of clothing that the children are wearing.

Sing-alongs and mandatory contributions are just some of the soul-crushing longhouse tools forced on those who would later become sensitive young men.

    Quote:
   

An open circle is made of chairs or cushions, allowing everyone to face each other clearly.

Enforcement and training of the artificial and arbitrary concept of eye contact, also requiring children to sit next to others


    Quote:
    [Without adequate training, the process can become diluted and ineffectual or misused by teachers to try and shame children publicly and coerce them into 'behaving'. Children can become cynical and apathetic towards the process, detecting a divide between values and action and may come to see it as little more than another control mechanism.

TRVTHNVKE

[GraphWalkWithMe]

Anyone else remember Gen Xers earnestly believing that playing Nintendo Wii games would increase their level of fitness?

^ Family time fitness fun device initiated.

[a system is failing]

One more thing: read the wikipedia article for "circle time" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_time). The description is peak longhouse and reveals a lot about the non-educational characteristics of preschool, examples below

    It is a special time to share fingerplays, chants and rhymes, songs, play rhythm instruments, read a story, and participate in movement games and relaxation activities. Circle time provides a time for listening, developing attention span, promoting oral communication, and learning new concepts and skills. It is a time for auditory memory, sensory experiences, socialization, and a time for fun. Circle time can be a complex, dynamic interaction among adults, children, and resources used. Teachers have the power to make group time more effective and enjoyable for all involved. It also has roots in social group work and in solution focused therapeutic approaches.

I've occasionally seen the disclaimer on pages such as the one for the Postal Inspection service that says "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement." Could really use one here. "It is a special time" doesn't seem like the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia.