I wonder how our sense of personal property will change once population increases to the point that the current model becomes infeasable.
When exactly would that be? Tokyo has about 11,000 people per square kilometre. New York has 4600. America as a whole has 34. What's the breaking point?
When will the current model (you get what you can pay for/ what is handed down to you) ever become something that wouldn't work?
When the US collapses under the weight of the oligarchy that runs it, and a new constitution is drafted?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I wonder how our sense of personal property will change once population increases to the point that the current model becomes infeasable.
When exactly would that be? Tokyo has about 11,000 people per square kilometre. New York has 4600. America as a whole has 34. What's the breaking point?
When will the current model (you get what you can pay for/ what is handed down to you) ever become something that wouldn't work?
When the US collapses under the weight of the oligarchy that runs it, and a new constitution is drafted?
I'm gonna smack you through the internet.
It isn't just the US that runs property rights this way, this is how it works. And if you think people are going to change their minds about what's mine and what's yours I've got a bridge to sell you.
Like I said before, a small group of friends hanging out in a reasonable place is fine. None of the attributes I described are inherent to or universal among teenagers, but I see them very frequently when these large groups gather. Maybe a large group of elderly people or middle aged people in a parking lot or in front of a store would be just as bad, but, in my experience, they don't exist.
Teenagers often have large groups of friends. They have to either hang out somewhere, or split up the group. The latter is unreasonable to ask. The former can be accommodated by providing spaces for teenagers to hang out in. I suspect that large groups of teenagers hang out in parking lots because they have been chased out of everywhere else. (I wouldn't know, as when I was a teen my awesome group of 15-20 friends would hang out at school after hours, since most of us had evening activities there.)
Not with humans anyways. We're too much into ownership of things in general. Not sure how I'd feel about communal clothing. Or communal dildos, for instance.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited November 2012
Or communal females.
Wait, what.
Edit: I shouldn't actually post things like this. My wife reads these forums (and this thread in particular)
Not with humans anyways. We're too much into ownership of things in general. Not sure how I'd feel about communal clothing. Or communal dildos, for instance.
Yeah.
Like, I don't mind paying taxes and having a welfare system and getting UHC running, but I still like owning my farm and my books and stuff.
And people will always do that for the most part. You'll get some True Communists now and then, by they are by far and large the exception rather than the rule.
+2
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
In a strange coincidence, there's now a group of people hanging out in the carpark where a bunch of people from work park.
From the e-mail subject:
There is dodgy looking people hanging round the carpark.
Though, since it's the carpark right next to the Auckland Domain, I'm going to give them a pass.
You're weird to the point that you consider any avoidance of situations comparable to avoidance of racial groups jakeman. If I avoid apples because I don't necessarily like apples, I am fully expecting you to change my post about apples and substitute black people in there.
That's why people are having a hard time connecting with you.
That's not the point. People are not objects. An apple is an object. You can reasonably expect each apple to be more or less like every other apple. You cannot reasonably expect every person of [insert social class] to be the same unless you specifically organize them by a characteristic (their class). Treating all teenagers as though they're loud and obnoxious and obstructive in groups is the same as treating all poor people as if they're loud and obnoxious and likely to break into your house and steal stuff.
If you wanted a better analogy it's like you saying you avoid Mexican food because you ate a burrito at taco bell once and it disagreed with you.
I understand why people are having a hard time connecting. People are bundles of bias and prejudice who are convinced that they are not bundles of bias and prejudice.
Like I said, I would avoid a group of black people just as much as white people. I also explained why teenagers in particular earn my ire.
If it's out of place for the situation, I will avoid it. I can't avoid groups of people at the beach for instance (though I will still avoid specific groups congregating in one area if I can help it). Mobs are bad news in general. People do really shitty things in mobs. Like, crushing someone under the weight of the group because of sales in wal-mart.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
And that's totally cool, as long as you realize that you're rationalizing a personal prejudice when you do it. All groups of people are not the same, but you're treating them as though they are because you expect a certain kind of behavior from them.
It would help if you realized that normalization of that prejudice is the way that discrimination gets codified into law and spreads throughout society, but I don't expect you to do that based on an internet forum.
Generally, I agree with bowen and SKFM wrt avoiding groups of people. If it's night and there's a large (>10) people hanging out in the parking lot of a store I wanted to go to, I would park as far away as I could, or simply go somewhere else. I'm not really concerned about the demographics of the group. I would call it more of a risk management technique. Are they "up to no good"? Maybe, maybe not. Is it worth the risk? Probably not.
Also, if I'm reading into your posts correctly, Jakeman, you would consider a no loitering policy discrimination? I'm not sure I get it.
PSN: the-K-flash
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
And that's totally cool, as long as you realize that you're rationalizing a personal prejudice when you do it. All groups of people are not the same, but you're treating them as though they are because you expect a certain kind of behavior from them.
It would help if you realized that normalization of that prejudice is the way that discrimination gets codified into law and spreads throughout society, but I don't expect you to do that based on an internet forum.
Noone is saying all teenagers are terrible or that only teenagers are terrible in groups. Groups of people in inappropriate places are bad. Not many types of people other than teenagers stand around in groups in inappropriate places. People being loud and obnoxious in public are bad. Teens are often loud and obnoxious in public. I don't think this is that difficult to grasp, and the analogy to racism rings really hollow.
There it is again. This is a totally unsubstantiated claim. It's not even remotely true.
Women are often weepy and emotional in public.
Blacks are often aggressive and impulsive in public.
Rich people are often racist and incapable of connecting with lower classes.
These are not things you can just say about big broad sections of people. Teenagers aren't somehow the magical exception to this rule.
My experience bears out my claim. I am happy to narrow it to "in my experience, teens are often loud and obnoxious in public, particularly in groups.". Since I have no reason to interact with groups of teenagers, I prefer to avoid them. Furthermore, I prefer it when spaces not intended for groups to congregate (like parking lots or store fronts) are free of said groups, and endorse efforts to prevent them from forming, regardless of who makes up the groups.
Generally, I agree with bowen and SKFM wrt avoiding groups of people. If it's night and there's a large (>10) people hanging out in the parking lot of a store I wanted to go to, I would park as far away as I could, or simply go somewhere else. I'm not really concerned about the demographics of the group. I would call it more of a risk management technique. Are they "up to no good"? Maybe, maybe not. Is it worth the risk? Probably not.
Also, if I'm reading into your posts correctly, Jakeman, you would consider a no loitering policy discrimination? I'm not sure I get it.
"No Loitering on public property" laws are as much discrimination as "stop-and-frisk" laws. Loitering laws are pre-emptive laws that automatically assume guilt on the part of the loiterers. They disproportionately affect teenagers who are prone to doing that sort of thing for reasons explicated above and have no legal standing in this country. The laws exist because the general (non-teen) populace tends to agree with the arguments made above.
People's mistrust of other people shouldn't be a matter of public policy and really shouldn't be acceptable behavior in the first place. Mistrust breeds contempt and divisiveness.
Man, what am I even reading in this thread? The idea that you avoid places because there might be teenagers around is fucking baffling. Do you lock your car doors when you drive by a High School too? The average group of teenagers in my experiences want anything but attention drawn to themselves. SKFM, I'm guessing you don't have any siblings more than a year or two younger than you?
Generally, I agree with bowen and SKFM wrt avoiding groups of people. If it's night and there's a large (>10) people hanging out in the parking lot of a store I wanted to go to, I would park as far away as I could, or simply go somewhere else. I'm not really concerned about the demographics of the group. I would call it more of a risk management technique. Are they "up to no good"? Maybe, maybe not. Is it worth the risk? Probably not.
Also, if I'm reading into your posts correctly, Jakeman, you would consider a no loitering policy discrimination? I'm not sure I get it.
"No Loitering on public property" laws are as much discrimination as "stop-and-frisk" laws. Loitering laws are pre-emptive laws that automatically assume guilt on the part of the loiterers. They disproportionately affect teenagers who are prone to doing that sort of thing for reasons explicated above and have no legal standing in this country. The laws exist because the general (non-teen) populace tends to agree with the arguments made above.
People's mistrust of other people shouldn't be a matter of public policy and really shouldn't be acceptable behavior in the first place. Mistrust breeds contempt and divisiveness.
So a store owner shouldn't have the right to have people who are intimidating their customers removed?
Generally, I agree with bowen and SKFM wrt avoiding groups of people. If it's night and there's a large (>10) people hanging out in the parking lot of a store I wanted to go to, I would park as far away as I could, or simply go somewhere else. I'm not really concerned about the demographics of the group. I would call it more of a risk management technique. Are they "up to no good"? Maybe, maybe not. Is it worth the risk? Probably not.
Also, if I'm reading into your posts correctly, Jakeman, you would consider a no loitering policy discrimination? I'm not sure I get it.
"No Loitering on public property" laws are as much discrimination as "stop-and-frisk" laws. Loitering laws are pre-emptive laws that automatically assume guilt on the part of the loiterers. They disproportionately affect teenagers who are prone to doing that sort of thing for reasons explicated above and have no legal standing in this country. The laws exist because the general (non-teen) populace tends to agree with the arguments made above.
People's mistrust of other people shouldn't be a matter of public policy and really shouldn't be acceptable behavior in the first place. Mistrust breeds contempt and divisiveness.
So a store owner shouldn't have the right to have people who are intimidating their customers removed?
Define intimidating. Simply existing is not sufficient excuse.
Generally, I agree with bowen and SKFM wrt avoiding groups of people. If it's night and there's a large (>10) people hanging out in the parking lot of a store I wanted to go to, I would park as far away as I could, or simply go somewhere else. I'm not really concerned about the demographics of the group. I would call it more of a risk management technique. Are they "up to no good"? Maybe, maybe not. Is it worth the risk? Probably not.
Also, if I'm reading into your posts correctly, Jakeman, you would consider a no loitering policy discrimination? I'm not sure I get it.
"No Loitering on public property" laws are as much discrimination as "stop-and-frisk" laws. Loitering laws are pre-emptive laws that automatically assume guilt on the part of the loiterers. They disproportionately affect teenagers who are prone to doing that sort of thing for reasons explicated above and have no legal standing in this country. The laws exist because the general (non-teen) populace tends to agree with the arguments made above.
People's mistrust of other people shouldn't be a matter of public policy and really shouldn't be acceptable behavior in the first place. Mistrust breeds contempt and divisiveness.
So a store owner shouldn't have the right to have people who are intimidating their customers removed?
The simple presence of teenagers is only intimidating because of your assumptions and prejudices against them.
Maybe the teenagers should have the right to have you removed so that they can peaceably assemble?
Store property isn't public. It's in that nebulous semi-public sphere where legislation falls into black holes (see: anti-discrimination laws) but most store property is considered private. The biggest legal challenges to the civil rights act were whether or not the government could demand stores to serve blacks. The government more or less lost, which is why "right to refuse service to anyone" signs exist and de facto racism still exists in the south and places like Arizona and central valley California.
I'm with SKFM here. My lawn is my property and nobody gets to use it without my permission. And if you leave tracks, I'll cut you like tall fescue.
Yet I once saw two teenagers climb into a tree on my front lawn and make out. I let them and didn't say anything. Probably the only privacy they could get.
Parking lots with groups of youth are the same. If there's literally nowhere else for them to hang out, they adapt. It's ultimately the same reason why widespread homelessness leads to slums. The correct solution is of course to make spaces available to youth.
I also avoid all small- and medium-sized, homogeneous, out-of-place groups when out and about.
enc0re on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
i avoid groups of people in general when i'm out and it's possible.
but that's mainly because i simply don't like other people in large quantities and I prefer to not put myself into those situations.
but that's people in general, not a specific group of people.
i'm just not really a very social person. so groups of people who are being social make me feel alone and awkward and i decide to run away as quickly as feasibly possible.
I also don't like loud noise, like at all. so being anywhere near a group of people who are being loud, or even a person who is being loud, is also uncomfortable for me. hence i tend to avoid bars and sports themed restaurants, and concerts.
All of these things are great. I'm glad you've realized that teenagers are not the problem and your own fears are the problem. The first step to conquering a fear is acknowledging you have it in the first place.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
All of these things are great. I'm glad you've realized that teenagers are not the problem and your own fears are the problem. The first step to conquering a fear is acknowledging you have it in the first place.
I'm not sure who you're responding to here, but I don't think anybody claimed they have a phobio of teenagers.
There's nothing here to "conquer". When choosing between train car with a dozen teenagers, or a train car with no teenagers, I choose the one with no teenagers (I leave work at the sametime the schools come out)
It drastically increases my enjoyment of my trip, with almost no effort on my part. Same reason I lock my house and my car. Be a little proactive and prevent potential unpleasantness.
Generally, I agree with bowen and SKFM wrt avoiding groups of people. If it's night and there's a large (>10) people hanging out in the parking lot of a store I wanted to go to, I would park as far away as I could, or simply go somewhere else. I'm not really concerned about the demographics of the group. I would call it more of a risk management technique. Are they "up to no good"? Maybe, maybe not. Is it worth the risk? Probably not.
Also, if I'm reading into your posts correctly, Jakeman, you would consider a no loitering policy discrimination? I'm not sure I get it.
"No Loitering on public property" laws are as much discrimination as "stop-and-frisk" laws. Loitering laws are pre-emptive laws that automatically assume guilt on the part of the loiterers. They disproportionately affect teenagers who are prone to doing that sort of thing for reasons explicated above and have no legal standing in this country. The laws exist because the general (non-teen) populace tends to agree with the arguments made above.
People's mistrust of other people shouldn't be a matter of public policy and really shouldn't be acceptable behavior in the first place. Mistrust breeds contempt and divisiveness.
So a store owner shouldn't have the right to have people who are intimidating their customers removed?
Define intimidating. Simply existing is not sufficient excuse.
I would say that any crowd of people that is somewhere a crowd ought not to be us intimidating. A group of teenagers (or anyone else) standing around outside the entrance to a store so that you need to cut or push through the crowd is certainly off putting, as is a crowd of people in a parking lot, IMO. These are simply places that are not supposed to have crowds, and so there is a degree of unease when witnessing the "wrongness" of the gathering. It isn't that they are teenagers, it is that they are a misplaced group of people (quite possibly dressed in clothing that is outside the mainstream, like goth clothing). If the group is loud or engaged in some disruptive activity (like skate boarding in front of a store or running around rough housing) all the worse.
Like I said, I would avoid a group of black people just as much as white people. I also explained why teenagers in particular earn my ire.
If it's out of place for the situation, I will avoid it. I can't avoid groups of people at the beach for instance (though I will still avoid specific groups congregating in one area if I can help it). Mobs are bad news in general. People do really shitty things in mobs. Like, crushing someone under the weight of the group because of sales in wal-mart.
There it is again. This is a totally unsubstantiated claim. It's not even remotely true.
Women are often weepy and emotional in public.
Blacks are often aggressive and impulsive in public.
Rich people are often racist and incapable of connecting with lower classes.
These are not things you can just say about big broad sections of people. Teenagers aren't somehow the magical exception to this rule.
My experience bears out my claim. I am happy to narrow it to "in my experience, teens are often loud and obnoxious in public, particularly in groups.". Since I have no reason to interact with groups of teenagers, I prefer to avoid them. Furthermore, I prefer it when spaces not intended for groups to congregate (like parking lots or store fronts) are free of said groups, and endorse efforts to prevent them from forming, regardless of who makes up the groups.
You can't define everything by what you experience. No-one can experience everything. That's why it's important to get information and opinions from other sources. Not interacting with teenagers is reinforcing your incorrect opinion over the entire group, which is not good. Though avoiding them is fine, as long as you don't get paranoid about it. Why do you care what teenagers do in large spaces as long as its legal and they don't break any laws they're fine. They need to be somewhere.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Like I said, I would avoid a group of black people just as much as white people. I also explained why teenagers in particular earn my ire.
If it's out of place for the situation, I will avoid it. I can't avoid groups of people at the beach for instance (though I will still avoid specific groups congregating in one area if I can help it). Mobs are bad news in general. People do really shitty things in mobs. Like, crushing someone under the weight of the group because of sales in wal-mart.
There it is again. This is a totally unsubstantiated claim. It's not even remotely true.
Women are often weepy and emotional in public.
Blacks are often aggressive and impulsive in public.
Rich people are often racist and incapable of connecting with lower classes.
These are not things you can just say about big broad sections of people. Teenagers aren't somehow the magical exception to this rule.
My experience bears out my claim. I am happy to narrow it to "in my experience, teens are often loud and obnoxious in public, particularly in groups.". Since I have no reason to interact with groups of teenagers, I prefer to avoid them. Furthermore, I prefer it when spaces not intended for groups to congregate (like parking lots or store fronts) are free of said groups, and endorse efforts to prevent them from forming, regardless of who makes up the groups.
You can't define everything by what you experience. No-one can experience everything. That's why it's important to get information and opinions from other sources. Not interacting with teenagers is reinforcing your incorrect opinion over the entire group, which is not good. Though avoiding them is fine, as long as you don't get paranoid about it. Why do you care what teenagers do in large spaces as long as its legal and they don't break any laws they're fine. They need to be somewhere.
Well, they are generally loitering, so there goes the legal portion. See my above post for why I don't like them. Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that the places teens hang out are also the only places in the town where graffiti ever shows up, and that is reason alone to ban them from hanging out, IMO.
Like I said, I would avoid a group of black people just as much as white people. I also explained why teenagers in particular earn my ire.
If it's out of place for the situation, I will avoid it. I can't avoid groups of people at the beach for instance (though I will still avoid specific groups congregating in one area if I can help it). Mobs are bad news in general. People do really shitty things in mobs. Like, crushing someone under the weight of the group because of sales in wal-mart.
There it is again. This is a totally unsubstantiated claim. It's not even remotely true.
Women are often weepy and emotional in public.
Blacks are often aggressive and impulsive in public.
Rich people are often racist and incapable of connecting with lower classes.
These are not things you can just say about big broad sections of people. Teenagers aren't somehow the magical exception to this rule.
My experience bears out my claim. I am happy to narrow it to "in my experience, teens are often loud and obnoxious in public, particularly in groups.". Since I have no reason to interact with groups of teenagers, I prefer to avoid them. Furthermore, I prefer it when spaces not intended for groups to congregate (like parking lots or store fronts) are free of said groups, and endorse efforts to prevent them from forming, regardless of who makes up the groups.
You can't define everything by what you experience. No-one can experience everything. That's why it's important to get information and opinions from other sources. Not interacting with teenagers is reinforcing your incorrect opinion over the entire group, which is not good. Though avoiding them is fine, as long as you don't get paranoid about it. Why do you care what teenagers do in large spaces as long as its legal and they don't break any laws they're fine. They need to be somewhere.
Well, they are generally loitering, so there goes the legal portion. See my above post for why I don't like them. Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that the places teens hang out are also the only places in the town where graffiti ever shows up, and that is reason alone to ban them from hanging out, IMO.
That won't stop graffiti. So some teens do that, why punish them all?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Like I said, I would avoid a group of black people just as much as white people. I also explained why teenagers in particular earn my ire.
If it's out of place for the situation, I will avoid it. I can't avoid groups of people at the beach for instance (though I will still avoid specific groups congregating in one area if I can help it). Mobs are bad news in general. People do really shitty things in mobs. Like, crushing someone under the weight of the group because of sales in wal-mart.
There it is again. This is a totally unsubstantiated claim. It's not even remotely true.
Women are often weepy and emotional in public.
Blacks are often aggressive and impulsive in public.
Rich people are often racist and incapable of connecting with lower classes.
These are not things you can just say about big broad sections of people. Teenagers aren't somehow the magical exception to this rule.
My experience bears out my claim. I am happy to narrow it to "in my experience, teens are often loud and obnoxious in public, particularly in groups.". Since I have no reason to interact with groups of teenagers, I prefer to avoid them. Furthermore, I prefer it when spaces not intended for groups to congregate (like parking lots or store fronts) are free of said groups, and endorse efforts to prevent them from forming, regardless of who makes up the groups.
You can't define everything by what you experience. No-one can experience everything. That's why it's important to get information and opinions from other sources. Not interacting with teenagers is reinforcing your incorrect opinion over the entire group, which is not good. Though avoiding them is fine, as long as you don't get paranoid about it. Why do you care what teenagers do in large spaces as long as its legal and they don't break any laws they're fine. They need to be somewhere.
Well, they are generally loitering, so there goes the legal portion. See my above post for why I don't like them. Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that the places teens hang out are also the only places in the town where graffiti ever shows up, and that is reason alone to ban them from hanging out, IMO.
That won't stop graffiti. So some teens do that, why punish them all?
Preventing people from loitering on private property hardly seems like a "punishment." But I definitely value the right of the property owner not the have his property defaced over the "right" to hang out in a parking lot or in front of a store at night. I would gladly accept a curfew law for teens and children or nightly sweeps of areas if it would prevent property from being defaced. Once some local teens actually snuck into my community through the back gate and took some lounge chairs from the community pool over to a local parking lot, and the staff were stuck driving around to find them and then lugging them back. Should the freedom to hang out be a free license for this sort of behavior? How about kids that knock down mail boxes?
All of these things are great. I'm glad you've realized that teenagers are not the problem and your own fears are the problem. The first step to conquering a fear is acknowledging you have it in the first place.
I'm not sure who you're responding to here, but I don't think anybody claimed they have a phobio of teenagers.
There's nothing here to "conquer". When choosing between train car with a dozen teenagers, or a train car with no teenagers, I choose the one with no teenagers (I leave work at the sametime the schools come out)
It drastically increases my enjoyment of my trip, with almost no effort on my part. Same reason I lock my house and my car. Be a little proactive and prevent potential unpleasantness.
Well, I was speaking to the people who tell me that they're not just terrified of teenagers, but terrified of people in general, ergo they are not being prejudiced.
I'm glad that avoiding the people you hate makes you feel better. That doesn't somehow justify your hate.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
All of these things are great. I'm glad you've realized that teenagers are not the problem and your own fears are the problem. The first step to conquering a fear is acknowledging you have it in the first place.
I'm not sure who you're responding to here, but I don't think anybody claimed they have a phobio of teenagers.
There's nothing here to "conquer". When choosing between train car with a dozen teenagers, or a train car with no teenagers, I choose the one with no teenagers (I leave work at the sametime the schools come out)
It drastically increases my enjoyment of my trip, with almost no effort on my part. Same reason I lock my house and my car. Be a little proactive and prevent potential unpleasantness.
Well, I was speaking to the people who tell me that they're not just terrified of teenagers, but terrified of people in general, ergo they are not being prejudiced.
I'm glad that avoiding the people you hate makes you feel better. That doesn't somehow justify your hate.
I think you're reading too much into this. Nobody here is terrified of people, and I don't think anybody here hates teenagers (I certainly don't)
There's a world of difference between uncomfortable and terrified, ditto for dislike and hate.
Unless you mean 'hate' in the sense of 'you know what I hate? Raisins'
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
Man for real this is some weird old angry dude shit.
Like I am as nervy and judgmental as the next person but fucking christ making sure teens aren't up to mischief by... locking them inside? I don't even know.
Posts
When the US collapses under the weight of the oligarchy that runs it, and a new constitution is drafted?
I'm gonna smack you through the internet.
It isn't just the US that runs property rights this way, this is how it works. And if you think people are going to change their minds about what's mine and what's yours I've got a bridge to sell you.
Teenagers often have large groups of friends. They have to either hang out somewhere, or split up the group. The latter is unreasonable to ask. The former can be accommodated by providing spaces for teenagers to hang out in. I suspect that large groups of teenagers hang out in parking lots because they have been chased out of everywhere else. (I wouldn't know, as when I was a teen my awesome group of 15-20 friends would hang out at school after hours, since most of us had evening activities there.)
Not with humans anyways. We're too much into ownership of things in general. Not sure how I'd feel about communal clothing. Or communal dildos, for instance.
Wait, what.
Edit: I shouldn't actually post things like this. My wife reads these forums (and this thread in particular)
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Yeah.
Like, I don't mind paying taxes and having a welfare system and getting UHC running, but I still like owning my farm and my books and stuff.
And people will always do that for the most part. You'll get some True Communists now and then, by they are by far and large the exception rather than the rule.
From the e-mail subject:
Though, since it's the carpark right next to the Auckland Domain, I'm going to give them a pass.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
where do you work.
hire me.
i need a job.
(well i need my next visa first...)
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
One of the best posts in the last several pages )
What does your wife think of the discussion in this thread?
That's not the point. People are not objects. An apple is an object. You can reasonably expect each apple to be more or less like every other apple. You cannot reasonably expect every person of [insert social class] to be the same unless you specifically organize them by a characteristic (their class). Treating all teenagers as though they're loud and obnoxious and obstructive in groups is the same as treating all poor people as if they're loud and obnoxious and likely to break into your house and steal stuff.
If you wanted a better analogy it's like you saying you avoid Mexican food because you ate a burrito at taco bell once and it disagreed with you.
I understand why people are having a hard time connecting. People are bundles of bias and prejudice who are convinced that they are not bundles of bias and prejudice.
Similar reaction to me being surprised on how poor some people actually are, and how it affects them. but with more sympathy.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
If it's out of place for the situation, I will avoid it. I can't avoid groups of people at the beach for instance (though I will still avoid specific groups congregating in one area if I can help it). Mobs are bad news in general. People do really shitty things in mobs. Like, crushing someone under the weight of the group because of sales in wal-mart.
It would help if you realized that normalization of that prejudice is the way that discrimination gets codified into law and spreads throughout society, but I don't expect you to do that based on an internet forum.
Also, if I'm reading into your posts correctly, Jakeman, you would consider a no loitering policy discrimination? I'm not sure I get it.
Noone is saying all teenagers are terrible or that only teenagers are terrible in groups. Groups of people in inappropriate places are bad. Not many types of people other than teenagers stand around in groups in inappropriate places. People being loud and obnoxious in public are bad. Teens are often loud and obnoxious in public. I don't think this is that difficult to grasp, and the analogy to racism rings really hollow.
There it is again. This is a totally unsubstantiated claim. It's not even remotely true.
Women are often weepy and emotional in public.
Blacks are often aggressive and impulsive in public.
Rich people are often racist and incapable of connecting with lower classes.
These are not things you can just say about big broad sections of people. Teenagers aren't somehow the magical exception to this rule.
My experience bears out my claim. I am happy to narrow it to "in my experience, teens are often loud and obnoxious in public, particularly in groups.". Since I have no reason to interact with groups of teenagers, I prefer to avoid them. Furthermore, I prefer it when spaces not intended for groups to congregate (like parking lots or store fronts) are free of said groups, and endorse efforts to prevent them from forming, regardless of who makes up the groups.
"No Loitering on public property" laws are as much discrimination as "stop-and-frisk" laws. Loitering laws are pre-emptive laws that automatically assume guilt on the part of the loiterers. They disproportionately affect teenagers who are prone to doing that sort of thing for reasons explicated above and have no legal standing in this country. The laws exist because the general (non-teen) populace tends to agree with the arguments made above.
People's mistrust of other people shouldn't be a matter of public policy and really shouldn't be acceptable behavior in the first place. Mistrust breeds contempt and divisiveness.
So a store owner shouldn't have the right to have people who are intimidating their customers removed?
Define intimidating. Simply existing is not sufficient excuse.
The simple presence of teenagers is only intimidating because of your assumptions and prejudices against them.
Maybe the teenagers should have the right to have you removed so that they can peaceably assemble?
Yet I once saw two teenagers climb into a tree on my front lawn and make out. I let them and didn't say anything. Probably the only privacy they could get.
Parking lots with groups of youth are the same. If there's literally nowhere else for them to hang out, they adapt. It's ultimately the same reason why widespread homelessness leads to slums. The correct solution is of course to make spaces available to youth.
I also avoid all small- and medium-sized, homogeneous, out-of-place groups when out and about.
but that's mainly because i simply don't like other people in large quantities and I prefer to not put myself into those situations.
but that's people in general, not a specific group of people.
i'm just not really a very social person. so groups of people who are being social make me feel alone and awkward and i decide to run away as quickly as feasibly possible.
I also don't like loud noise, like at all. so being anywhere near a group of people who are being loud, or even a person who is being loud, is also uncomfortable for me. hence i tend to avoid bars and sports themed restaurants, and concerts.
noise is the enemy.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I'm not sure who you're responding to here, but I don't think anybody claimed they have a phobio of teenagers.
There's nothing here to "conquer". When choosing between train car with a dozen teenagers, or a train car with no teenagers, I choose the one with no teenagers (I leave work at the sametime the schools come out)
It drastically increases my enjoyment of my trip, with almost no effort on my part. Same reason I lock my house and my car. Be a little proactive and prevent potential unpleasantness.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I would say that any crowd of people that is somewhere a crowd ought not to be us intimidating. A group of teenagers (or anyone else) standing around outside the entrance to a store so that you need to cut or push through the crowd is certainly off putting, as is a crowd of people in a parking lot, IMO. These are simply places that are not supposed to have crowds, and so there is a degree of unease when witnessing the "wrongness" of the gathering. It isn't that they are teenagers, it is that they are a misplaced group of people (quite possibly dressed in clothing that is outside the mainstream, like goth clothing). If the group is loud or engaged in some disruptive activity (like skate boarding in front of a store or running around rough housing) all the worse.
Not all groups are mobs.
You can't define everything by what you experience. No-one can experience everything. That's why it's important to get information and opinions from other sources. Not interacting with teenagers is reinforcing your incorrect opinion over the entire group, which is not good. Though avoiding them is fine, as long as you don't get paranoid about it. Why do you care what teenagers do in large spaces as long as its legal and they don't break any laws they're fine. They need to be somewhere.
Well, they are generally loitering, so there goes the legal portion. See my above post for why I don't like them. Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that the places teens hang out are also the only places in the town where graffiti ever shows up, and that is reason alone to ban them from hanging out, IMO.
That won't stop graffiti. So some teens do that, why punish them all?
Preventing people from loitering on private property hardly seems like a "punishment." But I definitely value the right of the property owner not the have his property defaced over the "right" to hang out in a parking lot or in front of a store at night. I would gladly accept a curfew law for teens and children or nightly sweeps of areas if it would prevent property from being defaced. Once some local teens actually snuck into my community through the back gate and took some lounge chairs from the community pool over to a local parking lot, and the staff were stuck driving around to find them and then lugging them back. Should the freedom to hang out be a free license for this sort of behavior? How about kids that knock down mail boxes?
Well, I was speaking to the people who tell me that they're not just terrified of teenagers, but terrified of people in general, ergo they are not being prejudiced.
I'm glad that avoiding the people you hate makes you feel better. That doesn't somehow justify your hate.
I think you're reading too much into this. Nobody here is terrified of people, and I don't think anybody here hates teenagers (I certainly don't)
There's a world of difference between uncomfortable and terrified, ditto for dislike and hate.
Unless you mean 'hate' in the sense of 'you know what I hate? Raisins'
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
Like I am as nervy and judgmental as the next person but fucking christ making sure teens aren't up to mischief by... locking them inside? I don't even know.