Anti-Emo Pogroms in Mexico

[brianeyci]

You pulled the "did you really think I meant" bullshit on me, and you were the one who said this?

Of course a teenager can dress however he wants, within the limits of the law and what his parents allow, on his own time.

How about I invoke DR6 on you asshole, and ask you to show where I said a teenager can't dress how he wants, within the limits of the law? This discussion is not limited to a legal discussion but whether all fashion choices are equally meaningful. In other words, whether fashion choices have consequences. Your attempt to divorce my reply to Zac from the other debate is incredibly dishonest.

No doubt you are oh so proud of yourself coming in to slay the spamming beast, in the middle of an argument with somebody else. So great are you, that you appealed to your own experience with teenagers, then when countered by a claim said person was recently a teenager, you say that is worthless. So incredible, that you created three arbitrary categories which could be reduced to one. This is basically your problem:

You see, this is why every one of my long posts takes hours to compose and contains compound-complex sentences and paragraph-length parenthetical asides exhaustively listing every concievable circumstances--because when I don't, there's always somebody who brings up some pointless nitpick and thinks he's scored a point.

If you have that problem, I suggest you find other more obvious targets. You don't particularly like the culture of people saying something, then someone calling bullshit because the person making the claim wasn't careful enough. I admit, that is annoying too, but only from certain people who shall go unnamed who make one-liner posts to nitpick the meaning of a sentence.

In sum, piss off.

[RedImperator]

You pulled the "did you really think I meant" bullshit on me, and you were the one who said this?

Of course a teenager can dress however he wants, within the limits of the law and what his parents allow, on his own time.

How about I invoke DR6 on you asshole, and ask you to show where I said a teenager can't dress how he wants, within the limits of the law? This discussion is not limited to a legal discussion but whether all fashion choices are equally meaningful.

On his own time you stupid motherfucker. Jesus Christ, can you fucking read?

And you can stick DR6 up your ass, because I never accused you of arguing that and I dare you to quote where I did. Just one more dishonest strawman to throw on the huge pile of shit you've shoveled in this debate.

In other words, whether fashion choices have consequences. Your attempt to divorce my reply to Zac from the other debate is incredibly dishonest.

No, you fucking imbecile, the specific point I made was in regards to the proper way to tell teenagers how to dress appropriately. You've dishonestly tried to conflate my position with someone else's (probably imaginary) argument that clothing has no consequences. I don't know how you get from there to here barring some kind of profound head injury, but nevertheless, here you are.

No doubt you are oh so proud of yourself coming in to slay the spamming beast, in the middle of an argument with somebody else. So great are you, that you appealed to your own experience with teenagers, then when countered by a claim said person was recently a teenager, you say that is worthless.

I see we're in transition between Strident Brian and Affronted Brian now. Maybe if you spent less time on empty-headed pontificating and more time actually reading the posts to which you're replying, you'd look like less of a fool.

As for your experience as a teenager, there are three reasons I dismissed it:

1. I'm 26. I remember being a teenager myself, too, and I don't remember being so stupid I needed to be told I can't wear a jockstrap and a feather boa to the prom.
2. You cited your "experience" to make claims your experience doesn't actually entitle you to make ("too much self-esteem wanking" or however you put it).
3. You're a known imbecile. If you told me the sun rose in the east this morning, I'd demand a photograph and a compass reading.

So incredible, that you created three arbitrary categories which could be reduced to one.

I already explained why they couldn't be compressed, Brian. I'm not going to even bother quoting it again, because at this point, no more evidence of your ineptitude and dishonesty is necessary. I will ask if you think not being taught something makes someone an idiot. I look forward to your irrelevant, nonsensical, or nonexistent response.

This is basically your problem:

You see, this is why every one of my long posts takes hours to compose and contains compound-complex sentences and paragraph-length parenthetical asides exhaustively listing every concievable circumstances--because when I don't, there's always somebody who brings up some pointless nitpick and thinks he's scored a point.

If you have that problem, I suggest you find other more obvious targets.

Brian, if I parked a supertanker in Central Park, painted it neon orange, and set it on fire, it would be less obvious than your stupidity.

You don't particularly like the culture of people saying something, then someone calling bullshit because the person making the claim wasn't careful enough.

How in the hell is any of this even slightly relevant? Am I being psychoanalyzed by Professor Dumbfuck now?

I admit, that is annoying too, but only from certain people who shall go unnamed who make one-liner posts to nitpick the meaning of a sentence.

This sounds like you're referring to me, but since I made a multiple-paragraph post in response to an entire argument, I can't imagine even you accusing me of one-liner nitpicks. I'm sure I will be punished for giving you the benefit of the doubt in subsequent posts.

In sum, piss off.

How about I tilt your head sideways and shit in your ear instead? It's exactly equivalent to what you've been doing to me in this thread.

[brianeyci]

I'm sure I will be punished for giving you the benefit of the doubt in subsequent posts.

Yeah right: I particularly like how you extended an olive branch with "are we going to have another long unpleasant discussion where we call each other names" or along those lines, then in the very same post without giving me a chance to reply, you decide to call me a "pompous, illiterate, worthless waste of electrons" or along those lines. What a peace offering. More like a fucking ambush.

Either you mentioned a teenager can wear what he wants on his own time because you thought I didn't know, or it was a red herring. Did you ever consider that accusing someone of not knowing one of the fundamental rights in Western society, freedom of expression, was condescending as shit? You don't have to worry about a long unpleasant discussion: I am done here.

[Darth Wong]

Have you ever actually worked with teenagers? Almost all of them are perfectly capable of grapsing the "nuance" of "You can wear what you want sometimes, but not others". When a kid dresses inapproppriately for a job interview, almost always one of these:

1. He was never taught what constitutes approppriate dress at a job interview.
2. He was taught, but doesn't believe it actually matters.
3. He was taught, but he refuses to because "it's not fair", "I have a Constitutional right etc.", "Fuck you", or whatever other justification he's come up with for attempting to push at his boundaries (which is what every teenager who doesn't grow up into a hopelessly dependent mama's boy does; some are just better than others at figuring out which boundaries to push).

Of course a teenager can dress however he wants, within the limits of the law and what his parents allow, on his own time, and he's going to figure out the first half in about 20 minutes if he owns a television. What you have to teach is the second part, which really isn't that difficult, and even those that fall under 2 and 3 will get it after a few blown job interviews. If he really is so dumb you need to lie about this, what he needs to wear is a helmet.

I think you're underestimating the stupefying effect of youthful arrogance. There are a lot of young people who are so dumb that they don't get it. I've personally known kids who have actually been fired for ignoring dress codes at work, and who still don't get it. When you get fired for something, and your boss even tells you point-blank that it's the reason you got fired, and you still think you can continue doing that thing, you're an idiot. But it's really not that unusual; certainly not so unusual that you can write off such people as an irrelevant minority, which is what you seem to be doing. There was a period at my previous employer where most of the job applicants walked in looking "gangsta". It's a bigger problem than you're acknowledging.

The fact is that it's not a lie to tell kids that the way they dress matters. They know it themselves; they know perfectly well that they are deliberately sending a message to others with their style of dress. It's how they identify which social groups they belong to. They know this, but they suddenly pretend not to know it when their parents or other adults accuse them of trying to identify with these groups.

It also doesn't help that they have so much negative programming about jobs and business. So many teens walk into their first job already convinced that their race and youth are going to be used against them anyway; this chip on their shoulders results in all manner of low-level insubordination or deliberate failures to meet expectations. And then there's the "Uncle Tom" effect; young people often feel like sellouts if they try too hard to conform to the expectations of "the man".

[RedImperator]

I'm sure I will be punished for giving you the benefit of the doubt in subsequent posts.

Yeah right: I particularly like how you extended an olive branch with "are we going to have another long unpleasant discussion where we call each other names" or along those lines, then in the very same post without giving me a chance to reply, you decide to call me a "pompous, illiterate, worthless waste of electrons" or along those lines. What a peace offering. More like a fucking ambush.

The reason why I "ambushed" you is because you posted again before I was finished my reply. I was merely annoyed at your first response; when you started putting words in my mouth and conflating my position with some idiotic nonsense about dress not mattering at all, you got the olive branch stuck up your ass.

And Brian, this is SDN. If you haven't learned to expect people coming at you firing with both barrels, you're even more astoundingly stupid than I thought.

Either you mentioned a teenager can wear what he wants on his own time because you thought I didn't know, or it was a red herring. Did you ever consider that accusing someone of not knowing one of the fundamental rights in Western society, freedom of expression, was condescending as shit? You don't have to worry about a long unpleasant discussion: I am done here.

Or, you little twat, I was stating the obvious as a rhetorical device. You were the one advocating flatly telling teenagers "no" and then justifying it by saying, bizarrely, that teenagers react badly to being lied to.

And I don't believe for a second that you're done. You're like a turd that won't go down no matter how many times you flush.

[RedImperator]

Have you ever actually worked with teenagers? Almost all of them are perfectly capable of grapsing the "nuance" of "You can wear what you want sometimes, but not others". When a kid dresses inapproppriately for a job interview, almost always one of these:

1. He was never taught what constitutes approppriate dress at a job interview.
2. He was taught, but doesn't believe it actually matters.
3. He was taught, but he refuses to because "it's not fair", "I have a Constitutional right etc.", "Fuck you", or whatever other justification he's come up with for attempting to push at his boundaries (which is what every teenager who doesn't grow up into a hopelessly dependent mama's boy does; some are just better than others at figuring out which boundaries to push).

Of course a teenager can dress however he wants, within the limits of the law and what his parents allow, on his own time, and he's going to figure out the first half in about 20 minutes if he owns a television. What you have to teach is the second part, which really isn't that difficult, and even those that fall under 2 and 3 will get it after a few blown job interviews. If he really is so dumb you need to lie about this, what he needs to wear is a helmet.

I think you're underestimating the stupefying effect of youthful arrogance. There are a lot of young people who are so dumb that they don't get it. I've personally known kids who have actually been fired for ignoring dress codes at work, and who still don't get it. When you get fired for something, and your boss even tells you point-blank that it's the reason you got fired, and you still think you can continue doing that thing, you're an idiot. But it's really not that unusual; certainly not so unusual that you can write off such people as an irrelevant minority, which is what you seem to be doing. There was a period at my previous employer where most of the job applicants walked in looking "gangsta". It's a bigger problem than you're acknowledging.

I haven't sat on the other side of the hiring manager's desk, so the problem might well be bigger than I understood. I've seen successful efforts to get teenagers to wear school uniforms (after some disciplinary bludgeoning), but perhaps without the threat of having their parents called in to the vice-principal's office, they're more intransigent.

The fact is that it's not a lie to tell kids that the way they dress matters. They know it themselves; they know perfectly well that they are deliberately sending a message to others with their style of dress. It's how they identify which social groups they belong to. They know this, but they suddenly pretend not to know it when their parents or other adults accuse them of trying to identify with these groups.

It's never been my position to tell them anything otherwise. My whole objection was with Brian's approach.

It also doesn't help that they have so much negative programming about jobs and business. So many teens walk into their first job already convinced that their race and youth are going to be used against them anyway; this chip on their shoulders results in all manner of low-level insubordination or deliberate failures to meet expectations. And then there's the "Uncle Tom" effect; young people often feel like sellouts if they try too hard to conform to the expectations of "the man".

Which takes this discussion, once again, into the profoundly fucked-up mess of race and class in America (and presumably in Canada, to a lesser extent). You're right, uniting teenage rebelliousness with race and class grievances puts too many kids off the path that will get their lives anywhere. But now you're talking about a lot more than clothing. A great many poor kids are not being taught how to, for lack of a better expression, play the game. Clothing is just a part of that problem (and I think we've veered well away from emo kids at this point, since emos are almost universally members of the white middle class, and know full well how to act professionally if they wanted to).

[Darth Wong]

I haven't sat on the other side of the hiring manager's desk, so the problem might well be bigger than I understood. I've seen successful efforts to get teenagers to wear school uniforms (after some disciplinary bludgeoning), but perhaps without the threat of having their parents called in to the vice-principal's office, they're more intransigent.

The thing about schools is that they hold your hand while they explain to you exactly what you're doing wrong and why. Companies are a lot more gruff; if you don't know how to apply for a job they won't tell you what you're doing wrong, and if you get fired from a job you might think that the reason they give is just a smokescreen for the real reason anyway (and to be fair, this is often true). So kids trying to enter the workforce really are amazingly slow on the uptake a lot of times. And the kind of people who try to explain the situation to them are the kind of people they are least likely to listen to.

Which takes this discussion, once again, into the profoundly fucked-up mess of race and class in America (and presumably in Canada, to a lesser extent). You're right, uniting teenage rebelliousness with race and class grievances puts too many kids off the path that will get their lives anywhere. But now you're talking about a lot more than clothing. A great many poor kids are not being taught how to, for lack of a better expression, play the game. Clothing is just a part of that problem (and I think we've veered well away from emo kids at this point, since emos are almost universally members of the white middle class, and know full well how to act professionally if they wanted to).

True enough. In the case of emo kids, I believe that a lot of their outward behaviour is simply rebellion against their doting middle-class parents. How does a young girl rebel against a controlling fire-and-brimstone preacher dad? By becoming a slut. How does a young person rebel against a coddling parent who read too many "how to increase your child's self-esteem" books? By making the most garish possible public show of his emotional negativity.

[Warsie]

since emos are almost universally members of the white middle class, and know full well how to act professionally if they wanted to).

The Amount of African-American and hispanic "emos" are increasing. That stereotype is beginning to end.

[Darth Wong]

since emos are almost universally members of the white middle class, and know full well how to act professionally if they wanted to).

The Amount of African-American and hispanic "emos" are increasing. That stereotype is beginning to end.

The amount of middle-class blacks and hispanics are also increasing. If I am correct about the mechanism through which emos are spawned, then it all makes sense.

[RedImperator]

I haven't sat on the other side of the hiring manager's desk, so the problem might well be bigger than I understood. I've seen successful efforts to get teenagers to wear school uniforms (after some disciplinary bludgeoning), but perhaps without the threat of having their parents called in to the vice-principal's office, they're more intransigent.

The thing about schools is that they hold your hand while they explain to you exactly what you're doing wrong and why. Companies are a lot more gruff; if you don't know how to apply for a job they won't tell you what you're doing wrong, and if you get fired from a job you might think that the reason they give is just a smokescreen for the real reason anyway (and to be fair, this is often true). So kids trying to enter the workforce really are amazingly slow on the uptake a lot of times. And the kind of people who try to explain the situation to them are the kind of people they are least likely to listen to.

In the case of inner-city kids, another problem is that they may well have nobody at home to sit them down and explain this stuff. I learned how to conduct myself at a job interview, how to dress, how to address a potential employer, how to write a resume, even how to tie a tie and shave properly, from my dad, who learned all that from his dad. If you have no father around and your mother has been working minimum wage jobs since she had you at age 15, where do you learn all that?

Maybe every 16 year old ought to have to take a class on general life skills--maybe one semester of real home-ec (how to balance a checkbook, how to unclog a toilet, how to tell if a loan is predatory, etc.), and the other half basic professional skills. It would be a lot more useful than yet another NCLB cram-course.

True enough. In the case of emo kids, I believe that a lot of their outward behaviour is simply rebellion against their doting middle-class parents. How does a young girl rebel against a controlling fire-and-brimstone preacher dad? By becoming a slut. How does a young person rebel against a coddling parent who read too many "how to increase your child's self-esteem" books? By making the most garish possible public show of his emotional negativity.

Interesting hypothesis. I wonder if there's any published literature on the subject (doubtful, but possible).

[Edi]

In the case of inner-city kids, another problem is that they may well have nobody at home to sit them down and explain this stuff. I learned how to conduct myself at a job interview, how to dress, how to address a potential employer, how to write a resume, even how to tie a tie and shave properly, from my dad, who learned all that from his dad. If you have no father around and your mother has been working minimum wage jobs since she had you at age 15, where do you learn all that?

Maybe every 16 year old ought to have to take a class on general life skills--maybe one semester of real home-ec (how to balance a checkbook, how to unclog a toilet, how to tell if a loan is predatory, etc.), and the other half basic professional skills. It would be a lot more useful than yet another NCLB cram-course.

Wouldn't be a bad idea. We had that sort of classes mixed in at school at various points and resume building was part of the lessons in Finnish class, because we were supposed to learn how to do formal documents. That stuff was pretty desultory earlier, but in college they teach it to you well, and they also do the same in vocational school, because it's recognized as an important skill. I also got coaching from my parents, but not too much all told.

[Adrian Laguna]

A great many poor kids are not being taught how to, for lack of a better expression, play the game.

Aside from the lack of role models, especially parental ones, I think there is also a cultural problem of sorts. You often see in the lower classes a sort of resentment over their position which leads to the rejection of, and even hostility toward, everything associated with the middle and upper classes. Regardless of whether the resentment is justified or not, causes strategies needed to get ahead to be treated as betrayal, which in turn leads to a nasty vicious cycle.

[Darth Ruinus]

Goth developed later from punk and darkwave and has the general attitude of, "The world sucks and is ugly. But fuck that, we're going to take the ugliness and twist it around until it's beautiful in its own way."

I know you said you were oversimplifying but that sounds like a pretty decent outlook on life, based on that description you gave.

[Turin]

Maybe every 16 year old ought to have to take a class on general life skills--maybe one semester of real home-ec (how to balance a checkbook, how to unclog a toilet, how to tell if a loan is predatory, etc.), and the other half basic professional skills. It would be a lot more useful than yet another NCLB cram-course.

Not to pipe in from the peanut gallery, but it seems like these types of courses are exactly the sort of thing NCLB puts the pressure on to remove from the curriculum. I know my junior high-school did a Home Ec class like this when I was there (circa 1990). Some of the specific subjects I recall being taught included resume writing, job interviewing, basic sewing, and simple cooking (including cost-benefit analysis of purchasing foodstuffs in various forms). I'd be curious to see if these classes are still being taught today.

[Ohma]

Not to pipe in from the peanut gallery, but it seems like these types of courses are exactly the sort of thing NCLB puts the pressure on to remove from the curriculum. I know my junior high-school did a Home Ec class like this when I was there (circa 1990). Some of the specific subjects I recall being taught included resume writing, job interviewing, basic sewing, and simple cooking (including cost-benefit analysis of purchasing foodstuffs in various forms). I'd be curious to see if these classes are still being taught today.

I had a similar class in middle school too (c. 1998) but there weren't any more in-depth (as in how to create and balance a budget for yourself, do your taxes, etc.) classes to be found afterwards. I was however lucky enough to get enrolled in a summer school class that covered exactly that sort of thing.
There really should be some sort of blanket "life skills" class, because even assuming that most students have parents who can teach them how to balance a budget ect., it can be pretty easy for the subject to never come up until it's a problem just because nither side realizes that there's a lack of understanding on the kid's part.

[Darth Wong]

This is why people don't like emos:

[RedImperator]

Maybe every 16 year old ought to have to take a class on general life skills--maybe one semester of real home-ec (how to balance a checkbook, how to unclog a toilet, how to tell if a loan is predatory, etc.), and the other half basic professional skills. It would be a lot more useful than yet another NCLB cram-course.

Not to pipe in from the peanut gallery, but it seems like these types of courses are exactly the sort of thing NCLB puts the pressure on to remove from the curriculum. I know my junior high-school did a Home Ec class like this when I was there (circa 1990). Some of the specific subjects I recall being taught included resume writing, job interviewing, basic sewing, and simple cooking (including cost-benefit analysis of purchasing foodstuffs in various forms). I'd be curious to see if these classes are still being taught today.

They are. Vocational ed, home-ec, shop, art, music...they're already always one budget shortfall away from the chopping block, and when you add NCLB's intense time and resource demands, they're the first to go. Social studies programs are getting gutted in some districts to make room for NCLB classes; the only reason science has escaped is because it's now subject to NCLB too (a decidedly mixed blessing). If a school is cutting history classes to make room for cram courses, a life skills home-ec has no chance.

Once again, interlocking problems. This is why education reform is so fucking difficult.

[Elfdart]

This is why people don't like emos:

The whole emo thing reminds me of a bit by the late great Alan King:

Exhaustion? That's a rich man's disease! You don't see poor people walking into hospitals saying "I'm really tired. I want to lay down here for a while."

So parents of emo kids should be grateful that their bratty drama queen kids have the luxury of teen angst.