February 7, 2011

Or, You Could Just Nuke The Bitch

kid-soccer-dangerous.jpg
no, i was just giving him a boost


This is how it happened.

She's zippering the coat of her 6 year old son after soccer practice.  Two other mothers are talking nearby, one of them animatedly, about how some bastard kid punched her son.  "No one hits my son.   If I find that mother, I'm going to let her have it."

She finishes zippering, gets up, and they walk to the door, but she hears Angry Mom yell to her.  "Hey!" she says, coming towards them.  "I want to talk to you."

"Me?"

"Yeah, you.  Your son punched my son."  She is very angry.  And loud.

"He did?"

The background noise in the gym goes down as all the mothers stare openly at the confrontation.

"Yes, "says Angry Mom, "he did.  Scratched him right in the face."

She looks down at her own son.  "Is this true?"

He looks up at her.  "No, I didn't hit him."

She looks back at Angry Mom, tentatively.  "I'm sorry, there must be some kind of mistake, are you sure it was him?  He doesn't hit people, he's not that kind of a person."

"Are you calling me a liar?"

"No! no, I'm just saying that--"

Angry Mom calls over her shoulder to her own son.  "Did this boy punch you?  Don't be afraid, you tell me."

"Ummm, yes."

"I'm very sorry if he did," and then turns to her son, "are you telling me the truth?  Are sure you didn't hit him?"

"No, really, I didn't."

"I'm sorry, I don't know what else to do, he says he didn't do it and I know him, he's not that kind of boy."

Angry Mom cuts her off.  "The coaches are going to hear about this.  I won't tolerate violence."

"I'm sorry--"

END SCENE.



The mom walks away shaken, for two days she can't get past it.  That kind of emotional hysteresis happens to all of us, and if the reason for it isn't actual guilt then it's repeatedly  trying to force an incorrect interpretation onto a situation.  For the right one, you have to look at it from the outside.

Re-imagine this as a scene in a movie.  What is the setting,  why is it there and not, e.g.,  over the phone or in a private meeting with the coaches?   Who is (singular, not plural) the main character?   Who are the supporting cast?  Who are extras, and what are they for? 

Dialogue like this is exposition.   What does it tell us about the characters?

II.

It may seem that Angry Mom is angry because her kid got punched, but she was actually Angry before that.  Allow me to explain.

In this scene, she's yelling at the mom for two reasons, both of them bad.

First, because in America you NEVER yell at another person's kid-- or praise them, or hug them, or ask them what their favorite Harry Potter movie is; every adult-child interaction is immediately interpreted on a continuum of pedophilia or abuse.  (Why are we so worried about child abuse nowadays?  Because the truth is deliberately obfuscated.  CNN will tell you how many pedophile priests there are, but not emphasize that they molested 20+ years ago, and that the incidence of priest-abusers now is tiny.  Nor do they let on that they know that the person who molested you almost certainly has the same last name as you, BORING, here's a modified narrative about a girl we'll call Elizabeth Smart.  See?  It was a crazy person, and they're everywhere.  The state encourages the media promotion of boogeymen-- in the 1970s serial killers, today pedophiles and etc-- because it makes the populace demand increased state control in their private lives, which is the precisely the natural single goal of any state.  The state and the media effect this encouragement by pretending not to know of the boogeyman's nonexistence.   Says a Congressman: "you mean there's an epidemic of baby rapers out there?  Wait-- did you say rapers or rappers?  The hell you say!  Elect me, I'll make sure we buy thousands of cameras from my supporters at Nikon to monitor our streets, we're going to need tech support so let's bring in Google...."  None of this is consciously planned in advance, it doesn't have to be, it is in the nature of things: individual selfishness always finds a way, and that way leads to indoor recess for all of us.)

But she really doesn't want to yell at the kid, the point is to yell at the mom, that's the whole reason for this exchange.  The kid isn't a person, he's an extension of the mom, in the exact same way that Sarah Palin isn't a Republican but an extension of the Republican Party, which is the only reason you're yelling at her.

Second, she's conveying to the audience that she's the kind of mom who defends her kid, who is tough, who will stand up to anyone.  That's the reason she was telling the other mom about it and why the confrontation is so public.  Does this exchange say, "don't mess with her kid?"  No. It says, "don't mess with her."

III.

What about the puncher's mom?  Surely she is not at fault? 

Well... her mistake, a crucial one, is she allowed herself to get blindsided by the Angry Mom's Cognitive Kill Switch-- hijacking a discussion and making it a criticism of the person's identity instead of the actual issue.  Rather than repeated I'm sorrys and he's not that kind of boy what she should have said is, "why are you yelling at me?  I didn't punch your kid."

That changes the whole movie, now we have a different main character.  Now Angry Mom is put on notice: back off and let's talk rationally, or confirm to me you are a nut and face the consequences.

But her reflex-- a product of the generational forces to which she was exposed--  was to square off and get defensive: my kid wouldn't do that, my kid wouldn't lie.  She accepted Angry Mom's premise-- the premise of Gen N-- that the kid is only her, and so she took the Angry Mom's attack as an attack on her directly, which it was, because that's the premise.  If the kid is truly an individual, he has to answer for his own behaviors; and not just explicitly, but implicitly: if the mom's reflex is defensiveness then the reflex isn't towards individuality.

This is a kid who has a brain and does stuff, yes, a lot of it involving boogers and punching but still he is the one doing it.  But the two moms are treating it like a fender bender: you lost control of your kid and drove him into my kid because you were too busy texting, and that makes you a bad person.


IV.

But why isn't this just a case of a mom reacting angrily to her son getting hurt?  Why can't it just be that she wants to protect her son?  Because the prepositional phrase is absent: protecting him from what?

I said this was a scene manufactured by Angry Mom to display her identity, and as incorrect as that analysis might initially feel you should consider it very seriously.  If the purpose of the confrontation is to prevent her kid from getting punched, it failed.  Will it prevent another kid from punching him?  Will it prevent even that boy from punching him some other day?

It is completely impossible to expect that boys are never going to come into violent contact with each other.  It is simply unnatural.  I'm not talking about bullying, but any two kids who are otherwise friendly are eventually going to punch each other in the nuts.  And then go right back to playing Madden.  God made them that way.  Sure, break it up, sure, reprimand them, but if kid A hits kid B, then the situation is kid A hit kid B, not "I don't allow violence in my home."   Zero tolerance is impossible and counter to the education of children: it teaches that violence is the sole privilege of the state and the people who run it.

V.

Does it seem like we are hypersensitive to kid on kid crime?

Call it PTSD By Proxy:  a bully of your kid is a flashback to being bullied yourself, and what you wish you could have done had you been bigger and more powerful and, hey, wait a second, you are bigger and more powerful.  But as much as you'd like to travel back in time 30 years and be an adult kid again so you could punch your son's bully in the face, you can't because he wasn't alive then and he didn't bully you, he bullied your son, and he's a kid and you're not.  So all you can do with that rage in a Tardis is yell at the other parent, or bully the bullies using the weapons you have, like laws and rules and social norms, and if you cross the line I am going to make you regret it.   And if that logic seems highly convoluted, well, Seroquel isn't a blockbuster for nothing.


VI.

So if a crazy parent rolls up on you, what can you do without resorting to a tire jack or 20oz Dunkin Donuts stun grenade?

You don't let it be about you.

The first step is to make the other person feel important, that she has been heard. She's upset, so you assure her that you're going to take on her level of intensity to handle the situation, you will make it as much of a priority for you as it obviously is for her:   "Listen: I'm going to get to the bottom of this.  If my kid actually did this, then don't worry, I will go old school on him, and he'll come in tomorrow with an apology and an offering of Junior Mints."  You don't have to accept any blame, but you can't just deny it and trivialize the other person's complaint.  No parent wants to feel stonewalled.  Even crazy people want justice. 

Simultaneously, you have to declare the limits of your deference, that the only reason you are not going Defcon 2 on her is that you are reasonable.  "...but, if it turns out that he didn't do anything, well, we're just going to have to let that be the end of it.  Right?"

Finally, in every conflict, the ones you can win and the ones you can't, unless you really want to fight you must always give the other person a saving-face way to back down.   No one, especially nowadays, wants to walk away in shame, they'd rather die, or kill you.  Angry Mom stupidly made this public, and so she has no way to back down unless you, as the more powerful person, the one with understanding, give her one.

You take the conflict out of the interpersonal and move it to the realm of fairness and justice promising to abide by whatever comes about.

And yes, I am talking about Iran.  Bet you didn't see that coming.


---

You might also enjoy:

Why Parents Hate Parenting

When Was The Last Time You Got Your Ass Kicked?








Comments

First, because in Americ... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 10:03 AM | Posted by Reader: | Reply

First, because in America you NEVER yell at another person's kid
Fuck that. This should have been the point - not how to short-circuit the crazy machine, but that we live in a culture so FUBAR'd that we can't yell at some juvenile ass-wipe when Mommy (and/or Daddy) are too busy lounging in the sun to notice Little Timmy just threw sand in our kid's eyes. If the incubator and sperm-donor are going to abdicate responsibility of their children to the ether, they'd better be ready for actual parents to step in and mete out correction.

God forbid, in the above mentioned situation, you say, "Hey, no throwing sand." Modern-mom will flip a lid when Timmy runs back crying that some mean lady yelled at him. Now you can place blame solidly where it belongs: on the crazy woman who goes into mama-bear mode at the thought of someone daring to correct her pwecious baby. "How dare you speak to my child that way!" "Watch your kid, and I won't have to."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 36 (42 votes cast)
"And yes, I am talking abou... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 10:12 AM | Posted by pall: | Reply

"And yes, I am talking about Iran. Bet you didn't see that coming."

The only thing I didn't see coming was the lack of *crazy* on display this week. Nothing in this post about everyone *resisting* Last Psych's narcissistic brilliance, since Last Psych has all the answers and everyone secretly agrees with him, if only in their secret subconscious soul.

In other words, good post.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (26 votes cast)
"The kid isn't a person, he... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 10:35 AM | Posted by Guy Fox: | Reply

"The kid isn't a person, he's an extension of the mom, in the exact same way that Sarah Palin isn't a Republican but an extension of the Republican Party, which is the only reason you're yelling at her."

Alone, you often speak as if it's only individuals that matter and the only show worth seeing is the one going on inside our (individual) heads. This quote shows that there's more going on (and you know it). The Republican Party is more than the sum of republicans, and even if it's just a symbol, it's a symbol that couldn't exist without hundreds or thousands of people working to construct and maintain it, just like Angry Mom's idea of justice/proper child-rearing are impossible for her as an individual to sustain Alone. Sure, all choices are binary and up to individuals to make, but the terms in which those choices are apprehended are the product of big numbers of people setting the boundaries of what's necessary/clever/foolish/insane.

And yes, now I'm talking about the State and its claims to authority, but you probably saw that one coming.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (13 votes cast)
"The only thing I didn't se... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 10:37 AM | Posted, in reply to pall's comment, by Guy Fox: | Reply

"The only thing I didn't see coming was the lack of *crazy* on display this week. Nothing in this post about everyone *resisting* Last Psych's narcissistic brilliance, since Last Psych has all the answers and everyone secretly agrees with him, if only in their secret subconscious soul."

-Hey Pall, if you're reading it...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 13 (17 votes cast)
"The first step is to make ... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 10:42 AM | Posted by Dan Dravot: | Reply

"The first step is to make the other person feel important"

You know what they say about street crime (not Angry Moms, but people who really will hurt you and take your stuff): Somebody walks up to you and asks for a cigarette or whatever. He's a bit overbearing. Offensively confident. He actively pushes boundaries. Do you let him take charge? Do you comply, or do you calmly and confidently disengage?

If you let him take charge, you're somebody who can be pushed around. You've identified yourself as an easy mark (I've been mugged twice, and that really is how it works).

Don't let aggressive people take charge. Don't comply.

But don't challenge them right back either, unless you can back it up with action: What I "saw coming" wasn't Iran, but the link to the Louis CK post from a while back. You badly dropped the ball on that one when you recommended an angry, threatening response to an aggressive challenge. Don't put on a fake tough-guy act. That's an explicit bluff that he'll recognize, and he'll call it. That response will always fail: You're handing him a chance to look even bigger, at your expense, with no danger to himself. He'll probably take it.

And I'll tell you a secret: The real tough guys, who aren't bluffing? It's not like the movies. They end up getting hurt, spending a lot of time in jail, and getting killed over petty bullshit. They don't just call your bluff; they call each other's bluffs, which turn out not to be bluffs. Acting like a tough guy gets you hurt even if you ARE a real tough guy. Faking it is insane.

Here's the thing: The Angry Mom is testing you for compliance. If you comply, she will instantly come up with more grievances, because somebody is treating her anger as something reasonable, that must be respected. Suddenly she feels important. She's in charge, she's powerful, and it feels good. She'll want to keep that feeling going. If instead you get back in her face, she will escalate, and you'll be in a screaming match with a lunatic.

First find out if her kid was genuinely hurt. You have to give her that much, because kids actually getting hurt gets you out of the realm of petty social bullshit and into the realm of real responsibility.

If he wasn't hurt, tell her boys hit each other by nature, it's no big thing, and she's overreacting, and leave. Stay calm. Don't let her control how you feel or what you do. Don't let her control what the encounter means. Disengage. Be a teflon wall: She can't budge you, her shit can't stick to you. Don't let her feel like she has, or ever will have, a single molecule of power over you. Of course she'll lose face. She's used to it. She does this a lot, but she doesn't always win.

If her kid is hurt, this petty social interaction is the least of your problems. That's a different post.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 56 (58 votes cast)
I was going to write someth... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 10:58 AM | Posted by Lauri: | Reply

I was going to write something this week called "Late to the Party Again, or Things I Discovered Too Goddamn Late." On the list were my beloved Achewood (which appears to be dying by inches), a few other favorite sites that have either disappeared or seem to be winding down (The Edge of the American West, for example), and you, The Last Psychiatrist, whom I discovered only recently, read voraciously, and then began to preemptively mourn, because it seemed as though you were withdrawing. I have no idea why I thought that--it's something to do with the "nooooo, don't go away, not when I've just found you" experience the Internet is so good at providing. Just reflex, I guess. The appearance of a guest post last Sunday only served to confirm my grief. But here you are, and I'm hoping here you will continue to be for a long time yet.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
"any two kids who are other... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 11:01 AM | Posted by CC: | Reply

"any two kids who are otherwise friendly are eventually going to punch each other in the nuts"

What's with getting hit in the nuts lo these last 10-20 years? I grew up in the 70's and got in fights _all the time_ --with friends, with acquaintances, with bullies, by accident, and no one ever went for the nuts. Well, actually, one guy did in 10th grade, but he missed and ended up in the hospital for his trouble. What happened to fair fights? Rules?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 16 (16 votes cast)
"Simultaneously, you... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 12:20 PM | Posted by Superconnected: | Reply


"Simultaneously, you have to declare the limits of your deference, that the only reason you are not going Defcon 2 on her is that you are reasonable. "...but, if it turns out that he didn't do anything, well, we're just going to have to let that be the end of it. Right?""

The problem is, in the case of Iran we can be pretty damn sure our kid punched their kid, and that our son has every intention of doing as much punching as it takes. The demand for rationality is pretty meaningless because it is impossible to come up with irrefutable evidence proving either scenario.

I have to wonder: What's so wrong with letting Angry Mom know that her son deserved it?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
Sarah Palin isn't a Republi... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 12:21 PM | Posted by G: | Reply

Sarah Palin isn't a Republican but an extension of the Republican Party, which is the only reason you're yelling at her."

No, and 'Hell No' too! I yell at her because she is a deceitful attention whore who will do anything to promote her greed and self regard. She lies and then lies about her lies.

Now, it is true that all of the above applies equality to the Republican Party, in general, but that does not mean that I am unable to distinguish between the corrupt Mrs. Palin and her party.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -21 (43 votes cast)
The sad part about it is, m... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 2:38 PM | Posted by Whatever: | Reply

The sad part about it is, most of us know how exactly to treat Iran but not the next door neighbor.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
Actually I did kind of see ... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 3:03 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Actually I did kind of see the twist at the end coming. The moment you mentioned making the other person feel heard and important it resonated with basic conflict resolution techniques. The kind of stuff they train from the the call center to the law firm to the state department.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
Anyone notice the kids in t... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 3:35 PM | Posted by Lee: | Reply

Anyone notice the kids in the picture are on the same team?

Anyone else hate soccer moms?

Where are the kid's dads in this story? Plugged into the Matrix?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
Hang on, wait a minute, <em... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 3:36 PM | Posted by Dan Dravot: | Reply

Hang on, wait a minute, Iran? You're talking about Iran?

No, you're not. "Iran", or what you mean when you say "Iran", is actually the people who control Iran's government. They're not neurotic soccer moms. They're hard old men who play hardball and know which end is up, and they are pursuing their interests. What are their interests?

People in power like to scare their supporters with bugbears; ask Mencken. Maybe that's Iran's problem with us. How do you plan to sweet-talk them out of that? Maybe it's something else, but if so, it's substantive, and you're going to have to get into the details of what they want, what they can threaten you with, and what you can afford to give them. Maybe it's easy, maybe it's insoluble, who knows? You haven't addressed it yet.

It's preposterous to imagine that all anybody wants is to be listened to and taken seriously. It's satisfying to imagine that all anybody is missing in this life is to bask in the sound of your warm, soothing, syrupy voice and to experience your precious validation of their selfhood, but it's not true. Nobody but your kids wants that cheap crap. Angry Mom and Iran are not your kids. Crazy people like Angry Mom will stay crazy when you listen to them; sane people's interests (assuming Iran's leadership is sane, which is the most reasonable assumption) will still conflict with yours the way they always did.

It's an interesting post, but Iran? No.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 20 (22 votes cast)
<a href="http://www.youtube... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 3:37 PM | Posted by acute_mania: | Reply

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBLDBDFRp6E

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
Interesting post. I like ho... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 5:35 PM | Posted by David: | Reply

Interesting post. I like how you point out that the main characters need to be identified/changed. Where I'd disagree just a bit is the best way to make sure the government is involved in every aspect of our life, can ignore habeas corpus and the entire concept of privacy is by invoking national security. That trumps everything, including common sense.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
The boogerman:<a hre... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 7:24 PM | Posted by Zombiechimp: | Reply

The boogerman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qkH0e1VJR8

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
nice one.... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 10:14 PM | Posted by marcus: | Reply

nice one.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
... but every good writer w... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 11:00 PM | Posted, in reply to pall's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

... but every good writer writes from a place of self-confidence, which has nothing to do with the person writing and everything to do with Voice. Writing is the introvert's performance, if you will, developing a Voice is but becoming a pro.

I don't understand all the personal offense taken, here ... unless, of course, it's a reaction to the testosterone that wafts of the page. Yes, wafts.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (6 votes cast)
... but every good writer w... (Below threshold)

February 7, 2011 11:02 PM | Posted, in reply to pall's comment, by Zo: | Reply

... but every good writer writes from a place of self-confidence, which has nothing to do with the person writing and everything to do with Voice. Writing is the introvert's performance, if you will, developing a Voice is but becoming a pro.

I don't understand all the personal offense taken, here ... unless, of course, it's a reaction to the testosterone that wafts of the page. Yes, wafts.

Good stuff, TLP!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
Dammit shrink, will ... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2011 1:58 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply


Dammit shrink, will you cut it out? How am I supposed to feel superior if you teach everybody how not to be an idiot?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Hint: It's because you iden... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2011 2:28 AM | Posted, in reply to pall's comment, by Sean: | Reply

Hint: It's because you identified with non-angry mom. No resistance to be had. If he was addressing angry mom, then all of that stuff that makes you feel so uncomfortable that you need to raise it when it's suddenly absent would certainly be in this post.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
wut is an iran... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2011 3:28 AM | Posted by justbieber4ever: | Reply

wut is an iran

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
dd... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2011 3:50 AM | Posted by a: | Reply

dd

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
...but the link to the L... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2011 5:04 AM | Posted, in reply to Dan Dravot's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

...but the link to the Louis CK post from a while back. You badly dropped the ball on that one when you recommended an angry, threatening response to an aggressive challenge. Don't put on a fake tough-guy act. That's an explicit bluff that he'll recognize, and he'll call it. That response will always fail: You're handing him a chance to look even bigger, at your expense, with no danger to himself. He'll probably take it.

I too thought of that post, but I disagree with this comment though. He did a decent job of explaining that the payoff matrix is perceived differently depending on what's in your pants. What I'm saying is that to a man, there is a belief that regardless of his actual capacity to fight, he can control her perception of his capabilities as he's never called on it. So, in this case, there is a big difference between fighting and losing and backing down. From his perspective:

.......D...B
..A -10 -2
..B +10 /

A = Kid attacking
D = Defending/ Standing up
B = Backdown

But hopefully any girl you'd date is breathing and too smart for that. She'll know your capability and, given the fact she's still with you, it doesn't much matter that you're not Randy Savage. To her, the payoff matrix looks much more like:

.......D...B
..A -2 -10
..B +10 /

Yeah, it suck to see your boyfriend get his shit pushed in, but she kinda expected it. If you roll-the-dice and stand-up, the kid might back-down; in which case it's basically like winning the lottery. Better strap yourself in that night. And if you just leave her stranded... not only are you physically weak, which she knew and was OK with, but you walked away from her.


If you're just stumbling out of a bar alone one night and someone says something... well that's different, minimax that shit. That's french for run, btw. -V

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
I've got to agree with Dan ... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2011 9:05 AM | Posted, in reply to Dan Dravot's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I've got to agree with Dan D. on both counts: Very interesting blog, but really, too complex an issue to cast on the geopolitical issue.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Holy mental lapse...<... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2011 9:07 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Holy mental lapse...

I mean: the geopolitical political issue too complex to be addressed in this way.

Again, very interesting post, though.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
And yes, I am talking ab... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2011 10:38 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

And yes, I am talking about Iran. Bet you didn't see that coming

Ok, perhaps I missed something. How exactly does Israel give Iran a face-saving means of backing down on that "slay all the Jews" thing the Iranian's God commands?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
Come on, we're all friends ... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2011 2:21 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Come on, we're all friends here. Take a step back and breathe. It's gonna be okay.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
"(assuming Iran's leadershi... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2011 5:47 PM | Posted, in reply to Dan Dravot's comment, by another anonymous: | Reply

"(assuming Iran's leadership is sane, which is the most reasonable assumption)"

Ayatollah Khomeini said:

"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
"But don't challenge them r... (Below threshold)

February 8, 2011 8:37 PM | Posted by sglover: | Reply

"But don't challenge them right back either, unless you can back it up with action: What I "saw coming" wasn't Iran, but the link to the Louis CK post from a while back. You badly dropped the ball on that one when you recommended an angry, threatening response to an aggressive challenge."

Agreed, although I think the qualifier "that one" is over-generous. I dunno, I only became aware of this site in the last few weeks, but this post, combined with the (practically diametrically opposed) Louis CK "insight", finally clinched my rising suspicion that there's a lot less here than meets the eye. Kinda like the mental health trade generally -- "last psychiatrist" indeed.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
"No, and 'Hell No' too! I y... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2011 10:06 AM | Posted, in reply to G's comment, by Liz: | Reply

"No, and 'Hell No' too! I yell at her because she is a deceitful attention whore who will do anything to promote her greed and self regard. She lies and then lies about her lies.

"Now, it is true that all of the above applies equality to the Republican Party, in general, but that does not mean that I am unable to distinguish between the corrupt Mrs. Palin and her party."

Grow up. Firstly, no, she doesn't lie. Secondly, there is something disturbing about someone investing this much in a politician (an ex-politician, no less!), and then trying to claim the high ground.

Yes, I'm a Republican, but if you can't either challenge us on policy, or explain the Democrat's equal/greater curruption, you're just shouting on the interwebs to gain a sense of power.

I'm not an Obama fan - in fact, I hold his policies in very low regard - but I have the ability to not shout at him and invest emotionally in my opposition opposition as a shorthand.

Your emotional reaction suggests that you're using your hatred of Palin as a shorthand for being, say, soopa doopa smart and not a liar, instead of actually doing something that would support your self image.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (17 votes cast)
What's with getting hit ... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2011 12:50 PM | Posted, in reply to CC's comment, by Jack Coupal: | Reply

What's with getting hit in the nuts lo these last 10-20 years?

A Feminist fantasy through proxy?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
That's a fight, my man. </p... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2011 1:03 PM | Posted, in reply to Jack Coupal's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

That's a fight, my man.

This "back in the day we didn't hit in the nuts" is silly. People have been kicking n the nuts, excepting periods of "gentleman's fights" and all that crap, for centuries. Check out Bruce Lee's "Tao of Jeet Kune Do".

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Well, sure, if you change t... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2011 5:35 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by CC: | Reply

Well, sure, if you change the premise from 'kids' to 'people,' I agree striking exposed genetalia is a time honored and useful martial tactic.

My point was to challenge LP's side comment and I stand by my factual assertion.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
I've dealt with Angry Mom f... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2011 10:54 PM | Posted by RedCarolina: | Reply

I've dealt with Angry Mom from Hell. You don't shake off Angry Mom. She keeps coming back. I only succeeded when I advised her I was documenting her behavior and the next time she harrassed me or my kids, I'd file harassment charges. And I wasn't faking. Be ready, document everything and have the cajones to take action.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
I think I agree with that a... (Below threshold)

February 9, 2011 11:53 PM | Posted, in reply to CC's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I think I agree with that assertion if you mean that nut-shots entering the realm of horseplay being a new phenomena. Yes, I think that's true.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I meant an increase in nut ... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2011 12:01 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by CC: | Reply

I meant an increase in nut shots as an inevitable part of being a kid along the lines indicated by LP, i.e. being a kid = occasionally getting into conflict = occasionally those conflicts, due to the kid-level lack of and learning of self-control and/or reasoned conflict resolution, escalating into physical resolution = inevitable nut-shot as part of any kid-level fighting. My argument is that while I agree with the kid=conflict=fight part, I disagree with the =nut-shot part. For whatever reason, when and where I grew up, the nut-shot was the aberrant exception, not the rule. It was the aberrant exception for horseplay too. Being the aberrant exception, it was punished accordingly. If you fought that way, even if you won, you lost.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
In my 1987 High School clas... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2011 1:18 PM | Posted, in reply to CC's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

In my 1987 High School class, you heard someone walking by saying "Covering your man", that meant but your hand over your balls.

1983, at my Catholic Middle School, I saw fight where two of the tougher kids in the area got tangled up and one kid bit the other kid down there.

A boot to the nuts was ALWAYS what you did.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
LOL. The spelling and gram... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2011 5:00 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by CC: | Reply

LOL. The spelling and grammatical errors in your comment indicate you went to an inner-city crap cultural stabilization center instead of an actual school; no surprise you fought like savages.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (11 votes cast)
Or that I sent it while sca... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2011 5:12 PM | Posted, in reply to CC's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Or that I sent it while scarfing down my lunch...

A very good high school, by the way. But not a great place to be a pussy, my man.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Grow up. Firstly, no, she d... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2011 9:31 PM | Posted, in reply to Liz's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Grow up. Firstly, no, she doesn't lie. Secondly, there is something disturbing about someone investing this much in a politician (an ex-politician, no less!), and then trying to claim the high ground.

So she doesn't lie right? How do you explain this:

After the Tucson shootings Mrs. Palin claimed that "We never intended for those X's (surveyor's marks?) on the map to look like crosshairs."

Remember? Then it came to light, that she had bragged about the efficacy, of what she had described, on Twitter, as bull's eyes on the map she posted on her website.

She said "Remember months ago "bullseye" icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)

SeeIt@ http://twitter.com/sarahpalinusa/status/29677744457

I can see that, as a self confessed republican, you would like to minimize her role in your TeaBagging politics; - she has really trashed your party - but being a grownup and all, tell me did she lie?

"Ex Politician" Yeah, Right!

G

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
more interestingly is how y... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2011 10:47 PM | Posted, in reply to Reader's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

more interestingly is how you wouldn't teach your kid to tell others kids not to throw sand in his face

you still don't see the children as their own person, at the very least your child is as much of a person as the sand thrower child right?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
more interestingly is how y... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2011 10:54 PM | Posted by val: | Reply

more interestingly is how you wouldn't teach your kid to tell others kids not to throw sand in his face

you still don't see the children as their own person, at the very least your child is as much of a person as the sand thrower child right?

My mother always allowed me to get in a fight if it was in defense and the last resort. She let us all know that. My little brother was 10 when he would come home without the change my mother would give him for a snack and also without a snack. Obviously some other boy was taking it and she let him know "You don't let another kid take your money, if the teachers won't do anything you still don't allow it. If he tries to hurt you you can hurt him back but you don't let anyone take stuff from you, defend yourself.". I'm not sure whatever happened but he stopped losing money, I don't think he even needed to fight, I think just being able to say "NO" was a big accomplishment most children don't get. "MY MOM WILL TELL YOUR MOM!" is a whine I don't want to hear on the playground.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Your policies…what policies... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2011 11:07 PM | Posted, in reply to Liz's comment, by G: | Reply

Your policies…what policies?

I assume you refer to:

The ‘Defending American Families from the Menace of Affordable Health-care policy?

The Defense of Insurers, Cherry Picking Health-care Policy?

The Defending Corporate Profits from Sane Regulation policy?

The Don’t Trust Government, Trust Corporations Policy?

The Don’t Create Jobs, Attack Obama Policy?

The Bachman Cut Military Benefits Policy?

The Redefine Victims as Accusers Policy:

The Redefine Rape as Sort of Rape Policy?

Makes you proud to be an "Adult" American, right?

G

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
Angry Mom may be drunk (or ... (Below threshold)

February 10, 2011 11:19 PM | Posted by retriever: | Reply

Angry Mom may be drunk (or just wish she was) or may be angry at Dad or projecting her own hostility towards her own kid (perhaps her kid is a wimp and she wishes he weren't, or perhaps her own kid is just a lying little weasel and the other kid never hit him at all. News Flash. Kids lie. To deflect attention away form something else they don't want their moms focussing on. )

Having taught Sunday School and been a youth minister for years before I had my own kids, I tended to go on auto pilot in such situations and mainly just make sure that no fights got to the point of gushing blood or broken bones or disgusting enough language to gross out passersby. In short, I'd tell the kids themselves to cut that out this instant if anything truly dangerous or vicious was going on, but otherwise practice benign neglect. And I wouldn't be ratting out a kid to another kid's parent. I'd say to the kid if I saw it "Run around the field if you're so full of it."

I found with my own rambunctious boy (on the autism spectrum) that there would inevitably be times when he would say or do things that might make the other mommies freak out.A certain Elizabethan flavor to his insults when opposed...Or mulish stubbornishness.

As a mom, one learns to placate the Angry Moms of this world by dramatically scolding one's own children in front of them, or saying how there will be Consequences. Angry Mom doesn't have to know that you and kiddies will be snickering about her red face and temper tantrum all the way to the ice cream store...

One also has to deal with a similar dynamic as a dog owner. I have a rescue dog who thinks she is an Al Qaeida detecting sentry who barks at and chases away wimpy small dogs and unsavory humans. Of course, I yell at her and threaten Dire Punishments so as to placate the people she thereby offends...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
Looks like how the Iraq war... (Below threshold)

February 12, 2011 1:18 PM | Posted by Kill Dr. Pill: | Reply

Looks like how the Iraq war started. Violence is intolerable.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Alone, have you seen Greenb... (Below threshold)

February 13, 2011 11:53 PM | Posted by Roger Up: | Reply

Alone, have you seen Greenberg? What's your take on the movie?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"The state encourages th... (Below threshold)

February 14, 2011 2:10 AM | Posted by Dave : | Reply

"The state encourages the media promotion of boogeymen-- in the 1970s serial killers, today pedophiles and etc-- because it makes the populace demand increased state control in their private lives, which is the precisely the natural single goal of any state."

Michael Crichton made a similar point in his didactic novel State of Fear. A character in that novel noted that it wasn't coincidental that concerns about global warming started revving up shortly after the Berlin Wall came down: they replaced the fear of nuclear winter.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
I haven't heard back from y... (Below threshold)

February 14, 2011 2:18 PM | Posted by Kate Seldman: | Reply

I haven't heard back from you and wanted to reach out one last time. We're actively building up our health section, and I believe that our audience would be interested in what you have to say.

We're not selling you (or anyone) anything, we'd simply like to publish your content.

So please let me know if you have (or don't have) an interest in becoming a contributor on Opposing Views.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Kate Wharmby Seldman
Health and Entertainment Editor
Opposing Views

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (6 votes cast)
I find that the best way to... (Below threshold)

February 14, 2011 7:01 PM | Posted by ANinnyMoose: | Reply

I find that the best way to deal with overly excited, mindless animals to take a page from Cesar Millan's teachings. You have to stun them a little bit to clear the mind and then take them down another path of thought redirecting their thoughts away from their obsession.
"Wow that's horrible. Did he deserve it?" Is always a nice starter. I might also go with "Oh my God, did he, did he break his nose... or... or is it supposed to be like that." The last part should be said while scrunching your face and tilting your head quizzically.
Just generally changing the subject and never quite getting the point is my go to methodology. Best case they completely lose the point of the whole thing and you can break contact and leave. Worst case, they go completely ballistic and all you have to do is act scared and confused till someone else restrains them.
Unfortunately, there are some really tenacious pit bull types out there that you have to really go nuclear on to stop the jabbering "Oh he looks very smart, boy with a cranium like that he must have destroyed you on the way... wow, my sympathies to your... uh... babies daddy?"

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
What should of happened..ma... (Below threshold)

February 17, 2011 2:06 PM | Posted by Catahoula Leopard: | Reply

What should of happened..mace the woman and you are in 10 mins.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
"Barak Obama isn't a Democr... (Below threshold)

February 20, 2011 8:01 PM | Posted, in reply to G's comment, by Geoffrey Britain: | Reply

"Barak Obama isn't a Democrat but an extension of the Democrat Party, which is the only reason you're yelling at him."

"No, and 'Hell No' too! I yell at him because he is a deceitful attention whore who will do anything to promote his greed and self regard. He lies and then lies about his lies.

Now, it is true that all of the above applies equally to the Democrat Party, in general, but that does not mean that I am unable to distinguish between the corrupt Mr. Obama and his party."

Sounds just as crazy when I merely change the gender and affiliation, doesn't it?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
they go completely ballisti... (Below threshold)

March 6, 2011 10:44 PM | Posted by DC Hats: | Reply

they go completely ballistic and all you have to do is act scared and confused till someone else restrains them.Monster Energy Hats

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
leather bomber jackets and ... (Below threshold)

May 26, 2013 2:23 PM | Posted by Nadia: | Reply

leather bomber jackets and flight jackets made in the USA,Nylon Bomber Jacket fit the bill quite nicely.
However, it had an ancestor, a forefather so to speak ---the Military B10 and B15 Canvas Service Jacket.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Post a Comment


Live Comment Preview

October 31, 2014 10:10 AM | Posted by Anonymous: