Posts by Tui Head
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Crud, we really need to be able to edit! (I wonder if they'd consider enabling basic HTML tags though?)
-
<b>Bart said</b>:
I think learning some things by making mistakes is good but to suggest that I might extend that idea to also think we shouldn't help those who've made serious fianacial mistakes and now need the communitys' (governments') help is a little harsh.
You're quite right, and I wasn't thinking of you specifically or, actually, anyone posting here. Even if I had been, it's a distraction from the point and was a sloppy paragraph; sorry! [FWIW, generally when talking about the nanny state that's the context I'm talking in, which was the reason I mentioned it.] I also thoroughly agree with your points about education and I think your coffee culture example is hilarious.
As for being less innovative... I think there's less immediate social pressure to be innovative, actually. Most people live in cities where on a daily basis problems have immediate and convenient solutions. Innovation is fostered by a need for a convenient solution that is not available, combined with creativity etc etc etc. The point is, what with the population drifiting citywards and progressive modernisation of... well everything, possibly discourages or makes irrelevant innovation. I don't really think it's a product of being nannied though - the connection between creative problemsolving and experiencing a lot of pain as a child seems a little dubious to me ;)
On the subject of collective punishment and teachers (and, wow, inappropriate grudges much?): it's undeniable that punishing the many for the crimes of the few is, you know, crappy. On the other hand, I think banning or restricting sale of x because of the stupid and dangerous stuff subset a of large group A does is less about punishing A by denying them access to x and more about protecting both a and A. Which could probably be achieved by better education, but nevertheless, I wouldn't interpret it as a punishment.
-
Pratchett quote for the win, Mr Judd!
Speaking as someone who has been known to express a deep affection for the nanny state (although usually as it applies to welfare; the same attitude which wants kids to learn through hurting themselves is IMO easily extracted to the mindset that wants people in financial difficulty to learn from financial hardship...) I think legislating for responsibility - because there are idiots and malicious people out there - is inevitable and sometimes necessary. But in the case of the hot-button issues - fireworks and drinking age - I'm tempted to disagree, and not just because I'd go from being able to buy alcohol and have a drink in a pub without my parents (who live in a different city!) to, well, not being able to. The problem is not that 18 year olds can't drink responsibly, because there are many countries where 18 year olds can and do; the problem is that they are encouraged to drink irresponsibly. The frequently-given examples of France and Germany and half a dozen other countries, where drinking is managed appropriately, remains relevant. Teenagers in New Zealand (And the States, and Australia, and elsewhere) are enamoured of heavy drinking because it's fun, not because the drinking age is too low. Acclimatising kids to drink responsibly is the only way to really address this problem - maybe fewer 20 year olds will seek to drink irresponsibly, but in my experience 20 year olds who choose not to drink heavily do it because they're sick of it, not because they have realised the error of their ways and are afraid of hurting themselves.
Frankly, the more society seeks to paint teenagers as irresponsible and divest them of the ability to make choices, the less responsible nineteen, I can get married or join the army, I might already have been in the workforce for a year or more, my parents no longer have legal guardian status for much (except of course student allowances). I am functioning as an adult in society and making a lot of decisions significantly more important than deciding whether or not to have a drink.
*shrug* But in other cases I totally buy into the nanny state, so who knows?
-
Why exclude British TV? Or, hell, why limit it to crime shows at all? It seems to me like there are multiple different categories represented here - procedural drama and dead body particularly, and action-adventure. Dead body is more crime-gore (CSI, NCIS, House); they're also intensely mystery focused - solving the crime and catching the person responsible. And they're popular for the same reason mystery and crime novels have always been popular; prurient interest in gore and the attraction of the whodunnit. (I like these kinds of shows myself, mind you.) Procedural drama is more involved with the characters and is about convicting the bad guy - er, sorta. It seems to involve either Beating the Evil System to Get Justice, or Upholding the Righteous System to get Justice. And action adventure involves crime because we're already fascinated with it or because, well, action heroes usually break a lot of laws anyway. ;) Prison Break is one of those.
They're funny things to lump together because CSI and Prison Break are dramatically different shows but Prison Break might not have been made before CSI popularised "the crime drama". Even more than they're morality plays they're fueled by a fascination with crime and violence that isn't limited to crime dramas; while the impetus to see the bad guy get his is definitely there, the prurient curiosity is just as strong - maybe more so, hence Criminal Minds and all the rest that purport to explain how the criminal mind works.