March 18, 2011
I really do feel sorry for these young people who screw up their internet reputation.
People, take a lesson from what you've seen on this blog in the last month. There have been 2 incidents of young men — relatively young men — writing on the internet, threatening me. If I post about it, even if I don't put their names in the post, but it comes out in the comments, anyone Googling their names is going to stumble into the ugly thing they wrote. Even if you have no human kindness at all and care only about yourself, how can a moment of passion be worth all the damage you do to your reputation? Do you think a potential employer who reads something like what we discussed here and here would consider hiring you? You may think you are really just a harmless guy with "good politics," having some fun, and you may not care at all whether you scare me or not, but you are hurting yourself. Out of self-interest alone, you need to stop.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
146 comments:
Which is why my 15 and 13 year olds are "the only ones in the school" not on Facebook, Twitter, and all that krep.
Let them make stupid mistakes when they're older.
On a somewhat related note, you should see what kind of junk emails kids circulate. (Why, yes, I do read all their email, don't you?)
-XC
Shankman never needs to look for a job. His mommy takes care of him. His rep is as worthless as he is. Smoke 'em if you got 'em, Jim boy - you are livin' large.
True for those seeking private employment. But those seeking work in academia couldn't pick a better resume builder.
Well-meaning though you are in your injunction, water running off a duck's back for most 20-somethings, Ann. You know that.
Perspective comes with age, and if the person is reasonably intelligent, wisdom follows.
Right now, these young men are in their productive, energetic phase where passion rules the head. Their mantra is "carpe diem", "audere est facere" (to dare is to do), and "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". Oh, happy days when life could be distilled into slogans. I remember them well.
What I don't remember is lacking a support structure around me, which includes loving parents, that told me to knock it off when I was being an idiot.
Perhaps that is the ingredient missing from Mr Shankman's life. It's sad to think Dean Shankman has time for all youngsters, except her own.
Cheers,
Victoria
I don't feel sorry for them in the least. Any negative consequences they suffer will serve as an object lesson for them that each individual must bear the responsibility for his or her actions.
Besides, unfortunately, it may well enhance the resume if one is seeking work as a community organizer or wants to work for NPR or one of its affiliates, or for any number of left-wing dominated foundations, investment banks or law firms.
I could even see Mr. Shankman adding urls describing the controversy to his resume.
These protests all about MEEEEE!
Marshal wrote:
True for those seeking private employment. But those seeking work in academia couldn't pick a better resume builder.
Bill Ayers is hiring, I hear.
Think about all those dumb girls raised during the age of 4th wave feminism who were raised to believe it was a good idea to take naked pictures of themselves with their cell phone cameras. They're all over the web and will NEVER go away.
A job in academia or as a union rep.
In Shankman's case, I strongly suspect he doesn't interview well. Are there any head shops left in Madison? If so, I recommend he apply there.
Rialby wrote...
... They're all over the web and will NEVER go away.
Neither will their pictures.
Somewhere, ironrailsironweights is weeping.
Garage - not surprising that a navel gazer like yourself would say that.
BINGO
Many young "adults" do not appreciate the potential for damage to career aspirations that can be wrought by intemperate posts on the internet. Fffing amazing -- maybe self destruction will cleanse the gene pool. Then again every organization has/needs its idiots--- Especially those on the left.
garage shankman pipes up, and as usual, sides with the thugs. What a surprise.
These protests all about MEEEEE!
Reading comprehension: FAIL.
Rialby wrote (hey, there!):
They're all over the web and will NEVER go away.
I was just about to reference my cousins' Facebook friends who upload the most unseemly videos of themselves. Girls who are not in the least lesbian in their sexual inclinations, tongue-kissing other girls due to being the rage amongst their set.
Sarah Palin was disqualified in the minds of many for wearing a t-shirt in her college dorm which referenced her generous bosoms. Can you IMAGINE what will happen to the Facebook generation when they run for high office?
And it's just not peer pressure that makes people do this.
The worst kind of pressure is that pressure we impose on ourselves about ourselves.
Cheers,
Victoria
OT but what is the deal with Mom & Dad being on Facebook and being in the kid's network? Isn't that kinda weird? Parents should be parents and not friends with their kids. Just yesterday, we were talking about how that leads to screwed up kids.
wv: humis (the hubris of thinking our hummus is best)
Althouse posts a warning to HER STALKERS on HER BLOG about threats against HER LIFE and Garage brings the snark. What an asshole.
This poor soul is obviously mentally ill. And whether it's an organic brain disease, a profound chemical imbalance, or the insanity that erupts when leftism is embraced by the young and unstable, he needs help before he hurts himself further or injures someone else.
I like that "liberals come in all flavors" line. Whatever. Do you mean like from Lenin to Trotsky? Or Mao to Che. They are all communists, and their flavor is most likely rancid.
phx wrote: He's a "liberal" but they come in all flavors.
Sure it was, and sure they do. I'll leave the tasting to you.
@AJ Lynch. My son had to signup for facebook during a class collaboration - but my basic requirement was that I be his "friend" so that I could see everything that was going on.
I agree with you that the other kind is creepy and silly.
-XC
I'd also advise young people to avoid tattoos. What might seem cool on your arm when you are 20 will make you scratch your head when you're 27.
I'm really glad tattoos weren't popular when I was 20. Otherwise my shoulder might say things such as:
"Fuck Nixon" and "Get out of Vietnam"
These were opinions I felt strongly about 40+ years ago, but I'm glad I don't have to see them when I'm standing in front of a mirror today.
Exapat(ish) wrote:
I agree with you that the other kind is creepy and silly.
My mother has my Twitter/Blogger passwords, and my principal email one, too. Some families just have that dynamic.
phx manages to miss the point entirely. The issue isn't whether one liberal is representative of them all. Where is the lefty criticism of these people? Lefties were falling over themselves to to attack Palin and others for their violent imagery. Now those same people are completely silent.
They claimed to be principled against violence in politics. The fact they are no longer speaking against violence proves they are principled only against Republicans in politics.
Do liberals ever suffer repercussions for their excesses? And, if they do, do they even know that they did?
lots of good comments and professor your post is spot on--Its rather like the Deb Fritsh thing a while back
when you post on the internet some 4 billion people will see who you are--they will see your tits, they will see your peckers, you political views, what you think of everyone else, and all the rest of the things that probably should be kept hidden
Oh well--its darwinian selection
stupid bastards
Google is powerful. The first thing I do as an employer is google the applicant and run a ccap. I have tossed many a resume just based on google results.
Actions >= consequences.
Roger - you are in business. You sell things. Publishing a pro-communist opinion, as you just have, is retarded. I, for one, will never purchase any of your products. Nicely done, you commie dupe/useful idiot.
He's practicing an American leftist form of jihad - it's reputation suicide bombing.
He only has now to wait for his 72 virgins, which I'm sure he's looking forward to, 'cause judging from his first threat, there aren't any virgins where he hangs and haven't been for some time now.
P.S.
Not all are completely silent. Many, including most of the lefties commenting here, are defending those who employ violent imagery and metaphors. By attacking the target of the threats they hope to weaken the target's response while allowing them to deny they're supporting the threats. See garage and Julius' comments for examples.
Pathetic.
G Joubert wrote:
Do liberals ever suffer repercussions for their excesses? And, if they do, do they even know that they did?
Liberals seem to have a more Asiatic sense of shame than Conservatives do. If they don't get caught, they don't have to feel sorry.
Hence, the trick is having a media structure that (due to professional ethics, as much as political bent) doesn't report on Progressives' excess.
If I ever did what Mr Shankman wrote that he would to Ann/Meade, say, to a liberal politician who I dislike intensely, I couldn't sleep at night.
It's kind of you, Ann, to think protectively about people who have threatened you -- but I'm afraid what we have here is a level of stupidity that can't be helped.
The most recent threatener seems to think he has somehow protected himself by changing his name on his Facebook account -- and yet at the same time it hasn't occurred to him to alter his privacy settings so that perfect strangers like me can't see who his friends are and what his wall postings say. Even I, a certified old geezer, understand FB better than that.
I don't think these folks have any worries at all. pbandj will hire them.
1. vitriol
2. ?
3. profit
WV: dogasta. The communista talking points for the day will smell like dogasta, just like they did yesterday.
VanderDouchen?
Is that you Trooper?
AJ, my sisters are friended with my daughter and their own kids...it's very common, and as Expat(ish) said, it allows you to keep an eye on their contacts.
"...how can a moment of passion be worth all the damage you do to your reputation?"
Sure, she was twice my age and weight, but I was drunk, and it was a long long time ago. So please stop bringing it up.
I like that "liberals come in all flavors" line.
So hard to keep track now isn't it? Union thugs. Hippie thugs. Hippie pacifist thugs. Professor thugs. Children thugs. And now teachers, cops, firefighters, steelworkers, steamfitters, electrical workers, etc etc have all joined in. Amazingly no one has been arrested through all this.
But it will get a ton of links, and perhaps another Fox appearance. So there's that.
approbation:
1. Approval or praise
phx, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Liberals have history of complaining about the mote in a conservative eye while ignoring the log in their eye. This lack of self discipline leads to their hate speech and violent rhetoric.
Meadhouse is doing them a favor to them by exposing their excesses. After a while they may learn.
Mrswhatsit wrote:
and yet at the same time it hasn't occurred to him to alter his privacy settings so that perfect strangers like me can't see who his friends are and what his wall postings say.
I was wondering about that!
So, the question is: is he an exhibitionist in the sense that he WANTS people to know who he is, his thoughts, his associations, his (so far pretty non-existent) accomplishments?
I know people like that. Heck, I am on Twitter. Like that's so different.
wv: ricadonc (-ulous!)
Garage, that was awful. You may be a Lefty, but that doesn't mean you have to be an unfeeling troll like Jay Retread.
Its rather like the Deb Fritsh thing a while back
Believe it or not, Frisch has continued to advance her way downhill ever since she first started her attack-dog ways. She's been in and out of jail a couple of times, has multiple restraining orders, including from state and federal courts(!), and even hours after her last court date (on Monday), she was back to harassing the locals in her area. These folks keep track of all (or most of) her antics, it just makes my head hurt to consider the whole mess: http://tehdailysqueak.blogspot.com/
She has become sort of a metaphor for leftish political activity of late; loud, violent, deeply offensive, and ineffective rage spewing out in an untargeted and ultimately counterproductive way.
But we miss the point, fellow travelers:
The entire liberal, Democratic, Obama agenda is about a life with NO consequences. How dare we impose such a reactionary idea on those seeking to entirely eliminate that notion from the conversation.
As I mentioned in the other thread, it's not only bad for them personally, but also affects every other person with that name. Jim Shankman, working actor and writer, got bumped down, and other Jim Shankmans around the country are also going to be affected. Very anti-community to slosh one's name through the internet mud.
phx: Tease my vocabulary, fair enough. But what about my arguments?
This is how we learn, in both cases. "Experience is the best schooland some will learn in no other."
Yes, some on both sides engage in the same finger-pointing only at the other side. If they didn't, then no one would, probably. but excusing such behavior BECAUSE the other side does it is just tu quoque.
And opprobrium is much better, for some values of better.
PaulV wrote:
Liberals have history of complaining about the mote in a conservative eye while ignoring the log in their eye. This lack of self discipline leads to their hate speech and violent rhetoric.
Meadhouse is doing them a favor to them by exposing their excesses. After a while they may learn.
What a brilliant little paragraph. However, I disagree that exposing them to ridicule for their actions/positions, as a teachable moment leading to wisdom, is why it should be done.
Clearly, it should be done to show neutral parties how crazy one side is.
Liberals are loudmouthed for a reason. There aren't that many of them, even in France.
For every Code Pinko, there are a million women who view wearing pink bras on the outside of their clothes as deranged.
One of the first things I do when I receive an application is search facebook. It's astounding how quickly I can weed out most applicants.
AJ Lynch:
OT but what is the deal with Mom & Dad being on Facebook and being in the kid's network? Isn't that kinda weird? Parents should be parents and not friends with their kids. Just yesterday, we were talking about how that leads to screwed up kids.
Yeah, I think a lot of parents are borderline voyeurs when it comes to their kids in the name of safety.
They spy on their emails, too. I wonder if they listen in on their phone calls. I wonder if *their* parents listened in on their phone calls.
phx:
You are still missing the point. You wrote "So in this case we get a lot of "So it's official, the civil discourse thing is dead, right?" snark, as if a big point is scored."
So you say these critics are not scoring a point. And yet we see they are, that the original leftist critics are not in fact for civil discourse. You are defending the original attack that those on the right are culpable for the Giffords attack by defending the attackers. And you're doing it by ignoring the actual criticism and pretending the criticism stems from believing all liberals guilty of one's violent imagery rather than the true basis. And you do this because the true basis of the criticism is irrefutable.
By all means, Althouse, let these idiots keep doing what they're doing. We need an easy way to identify idiots, so we can keep an eye on them, for their safety and ours.
I wonder if *their* parents listened in on their phone calls.
Mine did. Of course, this was back in the 60s, when we had one phone, a rotary dial model mounted on the kitchen wall, with my mother sitting two feet away while I was (briefly!) talking to someone on it.
I have always wondered why this was questioned. Aren't parents (and teachers/administrators en loco parentis) responsible for their children's actions? If they do not know what the little tykes are up to, because to monitor their activities is somehow "creepy," how can they be properly supervising and ultimately legally responsible for their actions?
I studied Evolution in school. You can't stop Natural Selection any more than you can gravity.
At a certain point, when America once again creates jobs and doesn't export them or give them to immigrants or B-1B visa workers - employers will not be able to be so picky as to scan Google and Facebook and blacklist any person who expresses a thought they disagree with.
Also, if large masses of otherwise qualified people are blacklisted on personal remarks or private affiliations not having anything to do with the job - expect those people to fighht the blacklists.
Hmmm--sixty grit--as robert deNero said--you talking to me?
I dont sell anything
I am retired
you got the wrong dude I think
Ahh--and sixty grit--I see there was another roger posting
apologies
@Roger von Oech
I couldn't agree more about the tattoos. They're all bright and beautiful now, but I can't help picturing them on a fifty-something body like mine, colors dull, flesh sagging-- yecch.
It reminds me of Bonnie and Clyde when the gang goes to the home of sidekick C.W.Moss (Michael J. Pollard). They've been out robbing banks and murdering people, but C.W.'s father beats him up for getting a tattoo.
phx,
Maybe that's what you prefer to be doing. What you're actually doing is defending those who claimed the right is culpable for Gifford's shooting because they engaged in or did not denounce violent metaphor. Those critics are the hypocrites the right is targeting with the statement you're attacking.
And not only are you defending their attack, you're doing it with a strawman argument.
"Think about all those dumb girls raised during the age of 4th wave feminism who were raised to believe it was a good idea to take naked pictures of themselves with their cell phone cameras. They're all over the web and will NEVER go away."
Oh, I dunno. I'm pretty sure Frank Marshall Davis is removing them as fast as he can download.
Professor;
I appreciate the sentiment, particularly when paired with the Riehl interview with Mr. Shankman above. To have compassion/empathy/sympathy with someone is not to condone their actions.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven...If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
I'm a big believer in redemption. Hopefully at some point Mr. Shankman has his "aha" moment, says "What the hell was I thinking!?" and is then able to move on and move forward.
When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ So he got up and went to his father.
I have always wondered why this was questioned. Aren't parents (and teachers/administrators en loco parentis) responsible for their children's actions? If they do not know what the little tykes are up to, because to monitor their activities is somehow "creepy,
Hopefully, you can teach your kids to make wise decisions based on real-world consequences. When the motivation not to do something is that mom and dad might read it in your email, you raise sneaky kids.
Garage, that was awful. You may be a Lefty, but that doesn't mean you have to be an unfeeling troll like Jay Retread.
Shankman is an obvious unstable loser. If it were me I owuld probably pay him a visit. If I thought it were more serious I would contact law enforcement. If I wanted to draw attention to myself I would write blog posts about it.
Shankman is an obvious unstable loser.
The shock of self-recognition.
Quite the nasty little epiphany, I'd wager.
"I like that "liberals come in all flavors" line."
But strangely they always vote for the tyrant.
Want to have hours of innocent fun. Go to the next lefty rally in your area.
Find the most normal looking person in the crowd, probably the mother pushing her kid in the stroller (actually as a shield against the cops and tear gas, just like in the 60's, man, but we'll overlook that.
Point out the raw, seething hate, anti-semitism and outright Reddery around her... the Jew haters with their Israel signs, the Spartacist League, etc.
Every time -- Every single time -- she will say they same two things: "I'm not with them" and "They don't speak for me."
Really.
You're in the same crowd.
You're marching in the same direction.
You're chanting the same slogans.
You seek the same objectives.
But you're not with them.
Riiiiiiiiight...
And Mr. Shankman is no more representative of "the Left" than Fred Phelps is of "the Religious Right". Mr. Shankman may spout some sentiments that are in sync with particular liberal/progressive ideologies but there's no coherent political philosophy in there.
But these "progressive" internet thugs don't see themselves as such. Far from it.
They've been raised on years of twisted propaganda and image-building. They've been taught that lefty-ness is next to godli-,uh, Gaia-ness; and that conservatives don't merely have different ideas, but are morally repugnant, intellectually limited products of religion and a poor education.
When you've been taught that you are a glorious, shining being, with superior intellect and boundless love for your fellow man, who is fighting the good figth against the forces of darkness and ignorance, then it's easy for you to justify thuggish, self-aggrandizing threats to "the enemy", such as were made against you and Meade.
The man who made the most recent threats saw himself as a courageous hero - a young Joe Hill, fearlessly standing atop the barricades and leading the forces of Truth and Justice to victory over those eeeeevil, feeeeelthy conservatives.
And he'll be treated as such by his tribe, who will fill the internet with how he's being "targeted".
Because they value winning far above truth.
There are many roles for which this incident counts as a "credential," rather than a "screw up:"
- Community Organizer
- Advocate/Activist for (pick your lefty cause du jour)
- Union Shop Steward
...etc.
AJ Lynch:
OT but what is the deal with Mom & Dad being on Facebook and being in the kid's network? Isn't that kinda weird?
Part of my deal with the kids for allowing them to join. I don't "friend" their contacts, and don't micro-manage, but the thought that I might review their postings keeps them on the civil side of things.
I don't "friend" their contacts, and don't micro-manage, but the thought that I might review their postings keeps them on the civil side of things.
Do you think your kids are uncivil when you aren't watching?
vb makes a good point about shame, as I think it was part of what Ann had in mind when she wrote the post:
"Liberals seem to have a more Asiatic sense of shame than Conservatives do. If they don't get caught, they don't have to feel sorry."
Ann was thinking more in terms of shonda (sp?), in a Jewish sense, a shame before God.
PS mrs whatsit, like Ann, you are good people.
Obviously, every parent has to make their own decisions. I've just been surprised by some of my friends choices. There's just no substitute for teaching kids to have integrity when nobody is watching.
If not already mentioned... ever posted to Usenet in the mid-90s? I did. I found a rather risque post I wrote in 1995! Google search.
Indeed, think twice. In 1995 Google was not a "threat"; to think that 16 years later I can cringe at the post because Google decided to index Usenet is downright worrisome for today's youth.
I can dismiss it as folly, but I'm not getting a security clearance with it. :)
Speaking of law.
So far it's:
Law 2
Walker 0
Judge issues TRO preventing implementation of "budget repair" bill. Bwahahahahaha
As for Facebook, husband and I are on our daughter's network -- and several of her friends too -- because they invited us.
As for Facebook, husband and I are on our daughter's network -- and several of her friends too -- because they invited us.
As it should be. :-)
@ Phil 3:14 -
"And Mr. Shankman is no more representative of "the Left" than Fred Phelps is of "the Religious Right".
Umm...Obviously you haven't done your homework. Fred Phelps is a DEMOCRAT. He's run for both governor and senator 5 times as a DEMOCRAT.
Why is it difficult for players on both sides to admit that UNcivil discourse is a problem for both sides
Moral equivalency will get you nowhere, especially in light of the absolute BS that was revealed after the post-Tucson calls for a new civility. Why is it difficult for the left to admit it's innate desire to coerce?
PROGRESSIVE IDEAS! SO GOOD, THEY HAVE TO BE MANDATORY!
Someone get a good silk screener on the phone...
phx,
So we're back to you missed the point. That comment is not saying liberals generally make threats. It's pointing out that when leftist nuts do so there is no outrage over the lack of civility.
I understand you want to make a different point. But you can't, because the comment you highlighted isn't about the point you want to make.
And Mr. Shankman is no more representative of "the Left" than Fred Phelps is of "the Religious Right".
No kidding, Phelps is a democrat.
@phx
Individuals don't speak for groups, unless they're officially chosen.
You mean like the MSM and the Dems "chose" to hang the Giffords shooting on the TEA party and Palin with zero evidence?
Phffftt. FAIL
Althouse, that's a very Christian attitude.
I'm not a Christian, so I don't quite understand it, but it's admirably selfless.
However: If they didn't out themselves, these people might still hold violent intentions -- it's just that you wouldn't know about it and you wouldn't see them coming.
Your attitude is right if these are all just blow-hards, making you the focus of their frustrations. I'm sure that's true in most cases. But I'll bet that one or two of these creeps is genuinely dangerous: Someone with very little to lose, who's accomplished nothing, for whom bringing harm to you would be the pinnacle of their existence.
Like this latest guy. Stay safe, be careful, yada yada yada.
Behold the differences between Progressive incivility, and the much-discussed incivility of the Tea Party movement ...
Tea Party incivility does not extend to the personal lives and liberty of those it opposes ... as we see not just here, but in the protests in front of homes, Progressives do not stop there.
Tea Party incivility is a response to the intellectual dishonesty of our leaders and cultural elites ... Progressive incivility is built upon that very intellectual dishonesty, sometimes even expanding upon it.
This is what you see, when only one side of the Left/Right divide pays at least lip service to objective truth/principle ... and the other views ends-justify-the-means/let-the-good-times-roll relativism as a feature, not a bug.
That, and the latter side feeling threatened about possibly not having someone around to give them "what they deserve" ... and/or possibly having their mellow harshed over their pet vice (whatever that is) even when the "right" to practice it is not being threatened, but the choice to practice it merely criticized.
If I wanted to draw attention to myself I would write blog posts about it.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
garage mahal said...
Speaking of law.
So far it's:
Law 2
Walker 0
Judge issues TRO preventing implementation of "budget repair" bill. Bwahahahahaha
Of course, Walker can ignore decisions he doesn't like, just like The Zero.
But that is the Lefty way. If something goes against you, find a Lefty judge who will see it your way and will rule in your favor, regardless of the law. That's what Gore tried in FL in '00.
Too bad a TRO is just that - temporary, as a lot of dead women could attest.
Once it goes through the courts, that is when the violence may begin - when the courts start going against the Lefties
Maybee, you don't have kids, I'm guessing. If and when you do, I suspect your ideas on this point will abruptly change. Yes, of course there's no substitute for teaching kids to have integrity when no one is looking -- in addition to common sense about self-protection. That is where parents hope to end up, but they aren't lessons learned overnight. Meanwhile, kids are vulnerable to accidentally damaging themselves through lack of judgment and also, of course, to the other dangers of being loose on the web. No sensible parent ignores that --any more than you'd expect them to be capable of driving safely simply because you told them once that it's necessary to do so, without taking the time to supervise and help them as they learned how.
Here's how we did it: when our kids were in middle school/early high school (which was before the advent of FB, twitter, cell phone cameras and such, thank goodness) they had email accounts to which we did not have the passwords -- but they were limited to the use of a family computer in a downstairs room where anyone could see what they were doing at any time (and we controlled the history settings so could always check where they had been, or would know if they had cleared it and ask why.) Had FB existed at that time, we would certainly have insisted on being friended as a condition of allowing accounts.
As they got older and proved themselves trustworthy, they got more privacy as they earned it -- but never had computers in their own rooms until they went to college. Then, of course, what they did was their own business. One by one as they entered adulthood they "friended" us on FB.
The whole thing with kids is to allow them to earn their privileges by demonstrating that they are ready to handle them. This is how you end up with responsible kids who understand concepts like integrity and judgment -- not by treating them as if they are already entitled to everything just because they exist.
Very derivative here, I know, but RitchietheRiveter pretty much sums up the state of play and RobertL up-thread gets to what is truly the heart of the matter..
Maybee, you don't have kids, I'm guessing. If and when you do, I suspect your ideas on this point will abruptly change.
What an assumption!
No, you're wrong. I do have kids, and that's why I feel so strongly that the idea of e-spying a) doesn't work and b) is borderline voyeuristic.
And we, too, had the rule in place where the kids could only use computers in a family spot or with their doors open.
But people who convince themselves they need to read all their kids' emails or that they know what is going on in their lives by watching them on facebook are going about it the wrong way, imho. Even on Facebook, there's private messaging, there's chat...unless you are willing to really delve into their accounts, you are fooling yourselves if you think publicly "friending" them is the best way to make sure they are behaving.
Sneaky kids learn how to be really sneaky. Rather than convince yourselves you have to get ever more involved in watching/reading/listening to their every communication, it's better to raise non-sneaky kids.
Now, people will go about that in the way they see fit. But I see a lot of people convincing themselves that they "have" to get involved in a way their parents never would have done to them.
"phx said...
Marshal: I'm only saying that libtards and Rethuglicans are both guilty as sin of uncivility."
This may be what you wanted to say. In fact though you criticized people pointing out that the emphasis on civility exists only when it supports the leftist agenda. Your desire to make some other point doesn't justify your criticism of them.
None of this would have happened if you had only been posting about American Idol and more arty photos of dogs urinating.
Plus these are all empty threats. Especially the part about waiters spitting in your food. I have seen you interact with waiters in real life. You must know that they are spitting in your food already. What's the big deal. Just sayn'
Sorry about the wrong assumption -- I based it on something you said about watching friends raise their kids that made me think you hadn't done it yourself. I should, of course, have asked rather than assuming. Also, I certainly agree that there are plenty of "helicopter parents" out there who are way over-involved in their kids' lives to what sometimes seems a creepy extent.
Of course different parents will do things different ways, and of course you're right that kids who really want to be sneaky will find a way, no matter how much parents try to prevent it. To me, though, it's only spying if the parent surreptitiously watches kids when the kids think they're in privacy, by stealing their passwords or whatever. That would certainly backfire, since the parent is modeling sneaky behavior for the kids to imitate. TELLING your kids that they won't have privacy until they earn it and that what they do on the computer is not private is not spying. Our kids did not like this, of course, but quickly understood that the way to get the privacy they wanted was to earn it by showing themselves not to be sneaky. They did so and have turned into non-sneaky adults.
None of my kids ever WAS sneaky, though; not that they didn't ever get in trouble, of course, but when they did they were forthcoming and frank about it within reasonable limits. If I'd had a child I already knew I couldn't trust, I probably would have had to come up with a different, more stringent strategy for managing the internet. I don't know exactly what it would have been, but what works on one child won't necessarily work on another, even when they're both born to the same parents. I do come back to the fundamental point, though, that with almost any child, earning privileges will work better than having them handed out unconditionally.
"...people on all sides do or say these kinds of horrible things, and when they do they should be seen as speaking for themselves, not for others that adhere to their cause."
Damn, I've been looking and looking, and I just can't find a true Scotsman anywhere.
MayBee wrote:
They spy on their emails, too. I wonder if they listen in on their phone calls. I wonder if *their* parents listened in on their phone calls.
This is OT, and personal, but do you people really do that? That's incredible to me. I am an only child, and close to my folks. I also was (embarrased sigh) a good girl; you have NO IDEA the leeway good children get from their parents, unless you yourself were one, or have one.
I've often laughed at rebellious kids whose parents turn into James Bond, cyberstalking them and occasionally, asking them to pee in a cup for drugs.
I hope my kids turn out to be good kids and not Shankmans, because rifling through their belongings isn't for me...
Shankman is not a "young person".
He is a grown up. An adult. A male (Beta to be sure) in America.
He needs to take everything that he deserves, like a man for once in his pathetic life.
Shankman should be charged and arrested.
As far as Internet reputation, I see a vast difference in the future employment opportunities for Harriet (the Capitol organizer) versus Shankman (the anarcho-socialist agitator). She seems remarkably aware that actions have consequences.
Mary Beth wrote:
And Mr. Shankman is no more representative of "the Left" than Fred Phelps is of "the Religious Right".
No kidding, Phelps is a democrat.
I've won many a coffeehouse argument with this line, Mary Beth. Especially galling to Lefties: Phelps was a Gore delegate.
And Sarah Palin didn't first support Dubya for President in 2000. She was for Steve Forbes, that noted social conservative.
I mean when you split a burger and a beer you gotz to expect a goober in the guacamole. Just sayn'
If I'd had a child I already knew I couldn't trust, I probably would have had to come up with a different, more stringent strategy for managing the internet. I don't know exactly what it would have been, but what works on one child won't necessarily work on another, even when they're both born to the same parents. I do come back to the fundamental point, though, that with almost any child, earning privileges will work better than having them handed out unconditionally.
I agree with a lot of this.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that kids need to "earn" privileges by letting you read their communications. I think it's completely fair to give your kids the privilege of you believing they are people of integrity, and roll back privileges if they prove you wrong. I think it's important to teach kids the reason to do the right thing is the benefit they'll get as a person, not to earn the privilege of getting their parents out of their email accounts.
vbspurs:This is OT, and personal, but do you people really do that? That's incredible to me. I am an only child, and close to my folks. I also was (embarrased sigh) a good girl; you have NO IDEA the leeway good children get from their parents, unless you yourself were one, or have one.
I've often laughed at rebellious kids whose parents turn into James Bond, cyberstalking them and occasionally, asking them to pee in a cup for drugs.
I hope my kids turn out to be good kids and not Shankmans, because rifling through their belongings isn't for me...
I love this comment!
Yes! My kids and I have long talks about the friends they have who they see making their own lives miserable by making stupid choices. In their opinion (and mine), if you just live within the rules, life is so good.
MayBee, you sound like a terrific mom. Promise to let me crib your notes when I reproduce. ;)
wv: ingliz (the future language of America)
Thanks, victoria! But you are not going to need me when you become a parent. You will be amazing.
MayBee: "if you just live within the rules, life is so good."
Truer words were never written. It is really pretty simple.
I was in Tokyo , walking in the Ginza at 5 in the morning, one of two pedestrians on the street. The light changed (there was no traffic by the way) and the red hand went up on the crosswalk and the Japanese walker stopped and waited for the light to change. Now an American would have noted that the red hand did not apply to him given the time and the place. But the Japanese guy waited for the walk signal. That year Japan had seven handgun murders.
Damn, I've been looking and looking, and I just can't find a true Scotsman anywhere.
Guilty as charged, but alas, my bonnie wife has already claimed me. There's actually still a holdfast in Scotland with our name on it.
paul a'barge -
Shankman is not a "young person".
...
Shankman should be charged and arrested.
Bingo. I despise the current concept that people in their twenties (many times with their own kids) are children. That view is just an attempt by parents who wish to keep control long after they aren't needed so much any more. It's pathetic.
I care not one whit what punishments this grown man brings upon himself.
Or they can move to Europe:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/8388033/Online-right-to-be-forgotten-confirmed-by-EU.html
"There's just no substitute for teaching kids to have integrity when nobody is watching."
Yes, and by watching our children and holding them accountable when they are young, we teach them to watch themselves and hold themselves accountable when they are older and on their own.
I watch my children all the time and slowly increase the width and breadth of things that I hold them accountable for. They take it like champs and are coming along very nicely.
"Do you think your kids are uncivil when you aren't watching?"
It's not so much about civil or uncivil, so much as it is about a child getting in over his or her head in social dynamics they may very well not understand.
If another parent thinks that a brief discussion with their child is enough to caution them against the 'social dynamics' they are going to be subject to on the Internet, then my hat is off to them.
Me, I'll be keeping the training wheels on for a while, thanks!
As for the phone, when I was a kid it was right there in the kitchen, so my side of the conversation was always perfectly audible to my parents and siblings.
Did this in any way cause me to reconsider some of my social interactions on that phone?
You betcha!
Was I yearning to be uncivil? No. But I was as prone to mistakes and shenanigans as any other kid, and knowing that other ears were around was a big part of learning to gauge my own behavior.
All that said, my kids aren't teens yet, so I have yet to encounter some of the more complex situations like email and facebook.
They do choose shows to watch from Netflix on the Roku, and I do monitor that constantly, and freely put the kabosh on anything I don't want them to watch.
They quickly get a feel for what Daddy doesn't like and are already filtering their choices pretty well on their own! Funny.
Parenthood rules.
http://biggovernment.com/driehl/2011/03/18/exclusive-interview-with-jim-shankman-the-man-behind-the-ann-althouse-threat/
The Instapundit is 100% right
Jim and Mary Beth;
Umm...Obviously you haven't done your homework. Fred Phelps is a DEMOCRAT. He's run for both governor and senator 5 times as a DEMOCRAT.
And that reinforces my point. Maybe I should elaborate, some on the Left use Fred Phelps as an example of the horrible religious right AND Mr. Phelps is not a representative of the Religious Right. Case in point, he is a registered democrat.
(PS And Fred Phelps is not representative of Democrats either.)
One other thing to note on the parenting front, is that the telephone most of us grew up with as our prime 'chat' and communications channel was a 1 to 1 communications device.
Email, tweets and facebook are 1 to Many. 1 to the "Entire World", in fact (as well as Many Strangers to 1 in return).
The danger greater and the potential fallout and consequences from errors in judgement is huge.
No way am I just going to give a pep talk and say, "Good luck, kid. Be nice and do the right thing!"
That's how it will start, and then, over time, the width and breadth of the areas of privacy allowed to them will grow, and before long the training wheels will be off.
See me in ten or so years to hear how it all worked out! ; )
One of the first things I do when I receive an application is search facebook. It's astounding how quickly I can weed out most applicants.
You are probably doing well by weeding out people who haven't yet realized how easy it is to change your Facebook settings so that you're not searchable on the Web. I'm sure it's not 100% foolproof, but the only thing I found of my own FB account from a Google search was when I "liked" something on a public page.
Ha. I was actually thinking of putting up a post on my blog called "Thinking of Hiring Jim Shankman?" with links to the relevant material.
I used to be involved in the hiring process at a company. I feel for any employer who accidentally hires someone like that. Not the sort of person you want anywhere near your workplace.
Redistributing sexual diseases around Madison isn't a crime, but is gross, and is something you'd think Shankman would be ashamed about at the very least. Meanwhile, he argues that because Mead and Ann are a closed couple and love each other deeply they are somehow to be scorned. It's weird how the left has everything backwards.
Phil 3:14 wrote:
(PS And Fred Phelps is not representative of Democrats either.)
That's for sure. And I've never seen any conservative reference Phelps' politics outside of an attack about his being a "typical wingnut Christian". It's not like we go around saying, "Oh, Phelps -- Democrat!".
Dopes like Shankman and the rest of those who are 'radicalized collective anarchists' (or whatever they fantasize themselves to be) are the result of enabling our children to remain childish well into their adulthood.
In a normal society, before we decided that people can be classified as children well into their 20's, people became adults at a much earlier age.
In many societies worldwide today and in almost all historically, by the age of 15 you were an adult,had married, had a family, had to work, had responsibilities.
People are biologically geared to be 'adult' at that age.
Give them some jobs, some responsibilities. Make them face reality.
Biologically and psychologically they NEED to have these challenges and responsibilities. The lack of such creates these useless and dangerous creatures. I blame their parents and I blame our ever leftward moving society. To retard their natural development by making them irresponsible children when they are in all aspects adults didn’t do them any favors. You need to have struggle and pain to appreciate life
All this crap started in the 60's when our parents and grandparents back from the horrors of WWII tried to prevent their own children from ever having to face that pain. This is also why the Boomers have been such a destructive force in history and even now, since they are the first wave of perpetual children.
GROW THE HELL UP.
Kirby Olson wrote (hey, there!):
It's weird how the left has everything backwards.
It's because they believe that only mindless drones go along with the majority. It takes intellectual depth to challenge the status quo.
The incongruity of their philosophy is plain for all to see -- they purport to champion the common man, at the same time, shunning their mindset; in fact, actively making fun of how they think.
I point this out to my left-leaning dad all the time.
Sorry to drop the ball on an interesting conversation, Maybee -- I had to go do something in real actual life, if you can imagine such an outrage. It seems to me that we agree on much more than we disagree about. You make an interesting point here: "I think it's important to teach kids the reason to do the right thing is the benefit they'll get as a person, not to earn the privilege of getting their parents out of their email accounts." Of course I agree (I do want to add, though, that as I said before, we never did demand access to their email accounts -- we simply didn't let them have email at all until we judged they were ready to handle it sensibly on their own.)
Anyway, your comment reminds me of a book I read when my kids were very small, about stages of moral development. I can't remember the title or the details any more but the general thrust was that kids take time to develop mature, responsible ethics and conscience, and work their way through various levels of moral reasoning as they grow, just as they take time to grow physically to their full adult heights. As I recall, the book laid out stages of development beginning with the preschooler, who might tell you with crumbs all over her face that she didn't take a cookie, but isn't actually "lying" in the sense applicable to an adult. At that age, the child may still believe that she can magically make things come true simply by saying them. There was a later stage where the child behaves well, not because of any internalized morality or wish to be a good person, but because the child has learned that there are painful consequences to being caught in misbehavior. I don't remember the details of the rest but the point was that it takes a while for most people to get to the final stage you postulate as an ideal -- that is, the person who behaves according to an internalized moral code because of the benefit to herself and to society, and as a result, is able to handle freedom responsibly. Some kids might get there very quickly, while others may never get there -- it isn't hard to come up with plenty of examples of adults who clearly think the only problem with being bad is getting caught -- and perhaps this Jim Shankman who triggered this conversation is one of them.
Ha. I was actually thinking of putting up a post on my blog called "Thinking of Hiring Jim Shankman?" with links to the relevant material.
Please, PLEASE do this. ;)
Oh,yes, be careful about your reputation. Other things could hurt it too. Like joining a church with a lunatic bigoted preacher or maybe working with a domestic terrorist. And whatever you do, don't lie about it afterward. That would really do you in.
"Think about all those dumb girls raised during the age of 4th wave feminism who were raised to believe it was a good idea to take naked pictures of themselves with their cell phone cameras. They're all over the web and will NEVER go away."
I don't know about you, but I'm of an age I would be cheered up considerably thinking about a few pics of my 16 year old self in dishabille floating around the net.
Don't you think that most foolishness kids report on themselves will be even less concerning than a divorce is today? They will have all done such and won't hold it against each other. Think what a divorce did to reputations in the 1930s.
Stupid is a whole other issue.
The Onion has a recurring character who was separated at birth from this Shankman character. http://homepages.theonion.com/PersonalPages/jAnchower/
I also was (embarrased sigh) a good girl; you have NO IDEA the leeway good children get from their parents, unless you yourself were one, or have one.
Vouch! Although my brother was on the sneaky side and managed to get away with a bunch of stuff too (I think that had something to do with being a boy, though. Parents, well, at least my parents, seem to be more concerned where their daughters are in the wee hours of the night).
Waste no time feeling sorry for who have no clue. What goes around comes around even faster in the digital age.
garage mahal said...
These protests all about MEEEEE!
No, they were about you and your ilk acting like the smallest minded children occupying the bodies of adults. You are a fucking child. You act like a fucking child, you talk like a fucking child, and you think like a fucking child. The entire temper tantrum in Madison is a result of a mass collective of giant babies like you that didn't get their way and were told "NO!"
Man, one day I hope I get to meet you. I really, really do.
Internets: SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS.
Thought Experiment: go to random fora on dailykos, atrios, balloonjuice, etc. ... then to freerepublic, foxnews, hotair, etc. - compare for yourself & see whose comments are really more vicious.
Odd indeed that nobody on the left in America is defending their "soverieign citizen" status by shooting cops, putting pipe-bombs in mailboxes or gunning anyone down in their churches. Surely this can only mean that those nefarious DFHs are patiently biding their time, awaiting the super-secret signal to initiate the Patchoulinacht of slaughter & devastation that they all yearn for. Also, Fred Phelps is a Democrat, but Ted Bundy wasn't really a Republican, because CRYING EAGLE FOUNDING FATHERS FREEDOM!
I just read this exchange between
Dan Riehl at Big Government and Jim Shankman: http://biggovernment.com/driehl/2011/03/18/shankman-warns-of-serious-wi-actions-to-come-denies-issuing-death-threat/
My feeling is that Mr. Shankman is a prototypical leftist,"whackjob" and a forensic psychologist's disection of his writing will show that he is a disturbed person.
These are the thugs of the leftist-Marxist movement in the union movement in the USA.
Shankman really ruined a potentially lucrative dishwashing career with this stunt.
Post a Comment