The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
I also disagree with the law, I don't really understand why it was ever so difficult for the law to tell the difference between a child that is being abused and one that has just had a smacked bottom. I mean I get the parents were obviously trying to use the defence of "it was just a harmless smack to teach them a lesson", but again it should be easy enough to identify if that claim is true or not.
However, smacks were just there to offer a deterrent for bad behaviour. As a kid you knew not to do something because there would be consequences - a sore arse (of back of leg if you were the type to try and wiggle out the way ). So if consequence is the lesson that was being taught, surely there should be plenty of other ways to teach consequence without physical action? Yet still, it seems we are in a time where children get away with anything without knowing consequence. I guess that's just down to lazy parents who want an easy life where the kid just gets what they want to keep them quiet.
I am not really sure why I wrote all that now... just thinking out loud I guess.
It is against the law here too... however if you try to remove a teacher who constantly 'manages' the class by shouting/frightening the kids, you (and the kid) will have a very hard time... And that because shouting isn't described as hurting in the law (even most kids remember that much more than an occasional slap)...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
Well, it is a possibility. But then the statement itself disqualifies itself to be a fact because it mentions it is based on stereotypes. Nevertheless, this is an unending discussion so lets move and rant about VB6 or something.
Seriously: Is it really offensive to point out that different people do things differently? And that the way we do things are significantly affected by our cultural background?
And: If you point out that people's cultural background affect their behaviour, is that, by definition, racist? If I point out that people in Norway, do things in ways different from "Norwegians" in Minnesota and Iowa, is that in any way racism? They could be my second and third cousins; yet they behave as Americans, not as Norwegians. Does that mean that pointing out differences in behaviour is non-racist, but pointing out the same differences between people in Norway and "Germans" (of which there is a fair share in Minnesota and Iowa) is racist because they are not my second and third cousins?
One conclusion might be that social anthropologists, studying differences between cultures, are professional racists...
Up until five or ten years ago, Norwegian humour - including the ways people were teasing each other - could be so rough that you wouldn't believe it. Especially up north; the Sami population even have a particular term ("nárrideapmi") for training kids from an early age to handle insults, ridicule, teasing, offenses... The non-Sami Norwegians are much the same; some of the joking and teasing shouldn't be translated literally to other languages, it would be too harsh.
Then came the new wave of the n-word beeing forbidden. To describe the looks of my Indian colleagues, you couln't refer to the skin hue by color name but had to refer to the person as "afroamerican", even if he had never been neither to Africa nor America. We got the MeeToo wave, requiring a male to look in another direction when meeting a female, or he might be accused of "raping her with his eyes". (It isn't quite that bad, but close.) Especially when Internet is involved, we are getting completely crazy, like this guy who was sentenced to many years in prison for raping no less than 120 women - but technically, he was a virgin! He had never met any of these 120 women in person; he had seen their body on his PC screen. There are numerous other examples.
This is still so new in Norwegian culture that lots of people still remember the times when you wouldn't have to consider every single word you uttered against all the hangups of every person in the room. Times when you could use the name of a color to describe skin. When you could refer to a pronounced characteristic of a group of people without having to qualify it with "Most of the xxx, but there may be exceptions", every time you refer to them. So, Norwegian humour has displayed a number of parodic "National 'I am offended!' Championship" events, making great laughs of (real) complaints in media, from individuals, religious groups, religious/national populations etc. that claim to be offended, discriminated against, victims of hate etc., because of tiny little details that noone else would ever think of as negative in any sense. The adience laughs, too - we still remember the days when we could speak freely, make jokes and even raise critical voices to the foreign policy of other nations, without being accused of hatred or discrimination.
In another five or ten years, I guess we all have become so tender and sensitive that it will be considered offensive even to mention that once upon a time, we could speak more freely, without having to make excuses, explicitly open for exceptions, using all sorts of euphemisms when talking or writing.
I do not consider it offensive to point out that disciplining children varies a whole lot from one culture to another. I consider it a plain fact. We could of course try to bring up statistics showing e.g. how many perecent of the kids have experienced spanking in Norway, in the "Norwegian" population in the USA, in the Hispanic and the afro-american population. I would be very surprised if there were not significant differences. It would not in any way prove that "all/most" people in one population group have a specific behaviour, only that a given behaviour is significantly more prevalent in that group than in others.
How a given population group is identified (by nationality, race, geography, ...) really doesn't matter, if statistics for that group differ significantly from other groups. I may offend anyone from the US by pointing out that a significantly higher percentage of Americans have been spanked as a kid than Norwegians: Here, spanking was considered highly inappropriate from the 1960s, and forbidden by law since the 1970, so the percentage here is very close to zero. I have spoken with sufficiently many from the US to know that it is certainly not zero in the US.
I do not know whether the percentage would be higher if you focus on Afroamericans or Hispanics. That is not my point, but the super-sensitivity and vulnerability of lots of modern people: When some guy writes that the stereotypes are that so-and-so, and people are offended by his reference to the steretyping of population, not to the populations themselves, then those offended should really try to relax a little more.
One web shop (I believe it was The Onion) a few years back sold T-shirts with the text "Stereotypes are great time savers". That could be considered a general term covering all stereotypes, so that anyone who considers themselves covered by any stereotyp would have the right to feel offended by the text on the T-shirt ...
Of course not. But when you can't see a statment "The stereotypical so-and-so ..." without crying out about racism, then you are not that far away from being offended by that T-shirt.
Every minute she wakes up later than she should is 1€ (or whatever the currency you use) less for her week assignation.
That should help a bit.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Last Visit: 13-Jul-20 5:57 Last Update: 13-Jul-20 5:57