Marker: Get the fuck distant from the young

A twelve years ago, erstwhile I was a young and naive teenager, I had 1 of the first revelations about the quality of our public debate.

After reading 1 of the texts on the sins of “stressless upbringing”, I decided to read this concept more closely. Who introduced stress-free upbringing? Since erstwhile are they utilized in schools and homes? What books can we read about his assumptions?

I rapidly discovered that “stress-free education” is primarily a public category. Polish schools have never introduced anything like this. It was besides hard to find authors and authors who would compose books or even articles that commended “stressless upbringing.”

It turned out that “stress-free education” was a concept utilized by critics. Always the same way. erstwhile they encountered anything that they did not like in the modern planet – from the results of their advanced school diplomas to the kind of youth's outfit – they blamed it on “stressless education”.

Today, the word fell a bit out of fashion, but complaining about young people is fine. The favourite word of contemporary youth critics has become “narcism”.

Some time ago, I came across a meme that criticizes the spread of pseudopsychological language in public debate. 1 example was: “Not all individual whose behaviour annoys you is simply a narcissist.” Critics of modern youth should hang this on their wall.

Youth Sins

He made me think. text Dominika Tworek in “Electoral Newspaper” entitled Sensitive, afraid, as a victim. The cult of safety deprives young people of crucial life experiences. What's not there! Here is simply a brief list of the sins of young people (and sometimes their parents) arranged by the author with the aid of experts and experts with whom she spoke:

"The playgrounds are covered with rubber plates to cushion the fall".

"Every decision we get RCB alerts with warnings of dangerous anomalies that turn out to be average weather phenomena".

“Even “ecological” cyclists are disturbed by leaves and branches on bicycle paths,” the expert describes.

“I frequently talk to students about travelling. Many of them go to the same places, eat the same, have the same photographs."

"The motivation for isolation in their own bubbles is not only to defend themselves from physical harm, but besides to want others – for whatever reason – not to think sick of them."

"Today a kid should not be informed if he does anything wrong, or if he encounters any consequence of his bad behavior, due to the fact that it someway upsets them."

Forgive this enumeration, but I wanted to show its omnipotent span – from safety on playgrounds (worst!) to closing in online bubbles. At the same time – and paradoxically – you can see in these examples rather gross selectivity and inconsistency. Note: for the fact that young people are full of concern about “what people will think”, the people who thought badly about them are being tortured.

Who feels sorry for themselves?

Let us not forget that any of thesis in the text seems completely sucked off the finger.

For example, the fact that modern society does not "validate" features specified as courage. Really? Was the author of the text or the talker of this thesis Paweł Drozdziak in the last 20 years in the cinema? Or did they watch at least 1 of the countless series promoting heroes and heroines taking all kinds of risks?

Another example is the thesis that present children either brag or send them to therapy. Sorry, but what?! Who, where, how?

Even if we turn a blind eye to the invention of any examples, the main problem remains. The author behaves precisely like critics of “stressless upbringing” years ago. all thing that doesn't like her or the interviewer puts in a bag that says "sensitive, narcissistic youth."

Or possibly there's any value in the kid having little chance of smashing his head in the playground? I grew up in a country where we had quite a few dangerous fun. I could make legends about them, but I besides know that any ended in disability for life. And really, I don't see any connection between safe playgrounds and, for example, the usage of application recommendations during a tourist trip.

From modern experiments, we know that it is even hard to talk about the universal feature of “risk-taking” due to the fact that everything depends on what kind of hazard we are talking about. The same people who like utmost sports can avoid taking financial risks. And the another way around.

What is the point, then, of aligning as many life activities as playing in squares and travelling or closing in online bubbles?

At the same time, as I mentioned, this criticism is curiously selective in the selection of examples. respective times in the text thesis appears that young people make victims, adopt a "victimal attitude" and exaggerate any "imprettyness", and that their frustrations can "indefinitely terrorize the environment."

So I ask: why is the mythical “youth” with its “narcism” always an example of “sacrifice” in this kind of speech? Why not Polish drivers? You want an example of individual who exaggerates any inconvenience? It's hard to get better than them. any time ago, Luke Warzech complained that the law did not let him to drive his car on the sidewalk.

Or why are not those smokers who drink all time they can't smoke in a public place and hysterize about totalitarian law? Or journalists who run all over the media, but all criticism they receive as an effort to “cancel” them? The entrepreneurs you're harassing? Or, perhaps, many representatives of the Polish right hand, who are loudly telling the environment about their suffering erstwhile they cannot mix sexual minorities with mud or, contrary to science, insistently say that "there are 2 sexes”?

I have an unpleasant suspicion that the tendency to "be a victim" is simply a very smooth concept that people choose to be prejudiced by themselves. So is “narcism” or “stressless upbringing”.

What Is Missed

At the same time, there is no greater reflection in the text on the socio-economic problems of young people. The author complains about rubber safety on the squares. What about the problem that frequently specified squares are missing, and any of them are akin to the appearance of prison?

Young people are spoiled by their parents and they deficiency autonomy? possibly it would be easier for them to be independent if they could afford to buy an apartment.

Using the app during the tourist voyages? Would it not be worth considering the unlimited power of digital corporations that depend people on their products from an early age? They didn't screw up young people. On the contrary, this generation of politicians and political commentators present in their 1950 ’ s completely blew the problem.

The class and economical subject is almost completely absent. In fact, only Catherine Szumlewicz brings him up erstwhile he mentions that it is the parents of the higher social classes who frequently have problems with low grades of children.

These are besides very typical of this kind of texts. The more they complain about cultural and intellectual “faults” in raising children, the little reflection on what economical forces our society is creating.

A fewer days after the text in “Electoral” portal newspaper.pl published interview with 2 PAH activists. “There are students who faint at school due to malnutrition, asking if there is anything left to eat after lunch, or possibly there is simply a dry food to take him home,” says Marta Chojnacka.

This 1 conviction summarises everything that remains unspoken in the text of "Election" – hidden for complaining over spoiled young people.

I realize that for any it is convenient to redirect the subject. It is no wonder that, for example, in the United States, there is simply a variety of preservatives. And it is no coincidence that the author points out 1 of the favourite phrases of American conservatives: “Good times make weak people, and hard ones make them strong. It is simply a large cultural illusion that, in reality, specified a immense rivalry will be taken with us and felt sorry for us.”

Unfortunately, specified a point raises suspicion that the aim of these arguments is not so much to care about the welfare of young people, but to prepare them for the Darwinian imagination of society. A planet of large inequality; a planet where the stronger takes what he wants, due to the fact that he can; a planet where hierarchy and divisions are treated as the eternal law of nature.

It is worth remembering that what we utilized to call "the advancement of civilization" was to a large degree to make the planet more comfortable and safer for subsequent generations. Personally, I'm little afraid of rubber safety on the playgrounds than the fact that a Darwinist imagination of society will win, having late powerful representatives like Trump and the full entourage around him.