Pre-school bans kids from using term "Best Friend"

[Andrew NDB]

http://assets.readbrightly.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Food-Books-For-Preschoolers-Feature.jpg

http://abc7ny.com/3367237/

Shesus...

[newfan]

I know, some want to stop children having a best friend. This is something most children innately do (as we know). I support inclusion, it isn't nice for a child to be left out because they have more difficulty making friends, encouraging children to have a whole group of friends and inviting others to play is a good thing, from my own memories it could sometimes be a problem if you chose to play with a child other than your 'best friend' so working on that too is a good thing, but stopping them from having that closest friend? no, a lot of them are going to have someone they bond with most.. . Course this article is about banning the term not having that closest friend.

[Sumac]

http://abc7ny.com/3367237/

Shesus...
Modern progressives remind so much of early Bolsheviks.

They ban words and change their meanings, while reality obviously stays the same and then they are pretending that they made "a meaningful change" and made society "better".

Gladly, reality usually win over those morons, but not before a lot of people suffer for their stupidity and ignorance.

[TurtleWA]

I don’t see a problem with not encouraging the terms use. As long as a replacement term is offered such as “good friend.” We don’t need to be making it more difficult for children to express themselves by banning words and not offering replacements. Also I would hope the teachers would have discussions about what makes someone a good friend.

[Andrew NDB]

I don’t see a problem with not encouraging the terms use.

"Not encouraging" is different than saying, "Timmy, you can NOT call John your 'best friend' in this classroom!"

Which is crazy.

[TurtleWA]

"Not encouraging" is different than saying, "Timmy, you can NOT call John your 'best friend' in this classroom!"

Which is crazy.

Yeah it doesn’t teach the kids much of anything to be saying “no” all the time. Except maybe that school has lots of strange rules.

It’s hard to believe that a teacher would straight up say “Timmy your not allowed to say that.” I would think the teacher would be more like “Timmy remember we say ‘good friend’ when we see someone treating us nicely.”

One way seems like teaching while the other seems like just code enforcement.

Agreed, encouraging things and banning things are different. Hhhmmmmm, also what do they want them to say instead? I can't see favourite friend going down any better along with other ways for a child to describe the one they are closest to, other than closest friend, but would that be a problem if someone thought it suggested others were not close?

Maybe “good friend?” Perhaps the kid could describe what makes the friend “best” or “closest.” That way if someone else is interested in being friends they know what to do and the door is open. Like Ted might say “Timmy is my good friend because he eats lunch with me and we talk about video games.” So other kids might know if I go eat lunch with Ted and we talk then I can be a good friend too.

[newfan]

Yeah it doesn’t teach the kids much of anything to be saying “no” all the time. Except maybe that school has lots of strange rules.

It’s hard to believe that a teacher would straight up say “Timmy your not allowed to say that.” I would think the teacher would be more like “Timmy remember we say ‘good friend’ when we see someone treating us nicely.”

One way seems like teaching while the other seems like just code enforcement.



Maybe “good friend?” Perhaps the kid could describe what makes the friend “best” or “closest.” That way if someone else is interested in being friends they know what to do and the door is open. Like Ted might say “Timmy is my good friend because he eats lunch with me and we talk about video games.” So other kids might know if I go eat lunch with Ted and we talk then I can be a good friend too.

Yes but could 'good friend' imply that those who aren't the closest friend are bad? I think it could be difficult for a young child to describe their favourite friend in a way that doesn't make them stand out from the rest.

[TurtleWA]

Yes but could 'good friend' imply that those who aren't the closest friend are bad?

No. They are just not as good. :lol:

[plastroncafe]

I'm old enough to remember grown-ass adults being buttmad at Livejournal for not having a "subscribe" feature separate from the "friends" feature.

Then again, I also remember elementary school where girls would make entire notebooks of hate for other girls, and then give it to them telling them they should die.

So you know, the internet before there was the internet.
Why wouldn't we want to nip that kind of thing in the bud early?

[Sumac]

I don’t see a problem with not encouraging the terms use. As long as a replacement term is offered such as “good friend.” We don’t need to be making it more difficult for children to express themselves by banning words and not offering replacements. Also I would hope the teachers would have discussions about what makes someone a good friend.
I don't understand what is wrong with "the best friend"?
People always will have "best friends", so I absolutely don't see why people need to deny reality again.

Using any other word will be the same thing - if you call cat a fish, it still will be a cat. No matter how it hurts your feelings.

Why wouldn't we want to nip that kind of thing in the bud early?
And what banning "best friend" from use has to do with it?

According to your logic people should have stop using words "friends" altogether, because, that the only way you can stop humans being exclusionary towards some people. But that is hilarious and never will work out - as long as humans exist, they will socialize and get close with like-minded people.
No amount of hand-wringing and crying about hurt feelings won't change that. Denying it basically denying humanity, but on the other hand it's not the first time, when ideological zealots deny reality.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Why wouldn't we want to nip that kind of thing in the bud early?

I would legitimately be concerned about the mental health and stability of someone who thinks that the concept of having best friends is bigoted and children must be socially conditioned to reject it.

[TurtleWA]

I don't understand what is wrong with "the best friend"? People always will have "best friends", so I absolutely don't see why people need to deny reality again.

I really have no idea. Maybe some may take it as “best” means ranking order. Like “best” is the supreme and most excellent above all others. I would then wonder why keep subpar friendships? Shouldn’t you want all your friends to be “best?” If not they are just acquaintances.

Using any other word will be the same thing - if you call cat a fish, it still will be a cat. No matter how it hurts your feelings.

Obviously you have never heard of a catfish. :trazz:

[Sumac]

I really have no idea. Maybe some may take it as “best” means ranking order. Like “best” is the supreme and most excellent above all others. I would then wonder why keep subpar friendships? Shouldn’t you want all your friends to be “best?” If not they are just acquaintances.
Apparently, if I understood it right, the logic behind this decision, is that kids might use "best friend" card to bully others ("You are not my best friend and won't invite you to the birthday party") and to make that all kids are "best friends" for everyone.

Apparently people who brought this idiotic idea forward, have a very lousy idea of how humans actually work.

Children still will socialize, they still will pick up most liked people amongst others. It's inevitable, it's like humanity works - you always have 1-2 special people who are above all others, so to speak. Trying to break this cycle, is basically denying children first steps in socialization.

Concentrating only negatives is hilarious and inept idiocy, which will lead towards more infantilizing children and making them even less prepared for the real world, where most don't give a **** about your personal feelings and not everyone want to be your friend.

Obviously you have never heard of a catfish. :trazz:
Still a fish. :trazz:

[TurtleWA]

Apparently, if I understood it right, the logic behind this decision, is that kids might use "best friend" card to bully others ("You are not my best friend and won't invite you to the birthday party") and to make that all kids are "best friends" for everyone.

Apparently people who brought this idiotic idea forward, have a very lousy idea of how humans actually work.

Children still will socialize, they still will pick up most liked people amongst others. It's inevitable, it's like humanity works - you always have 1-2 special people who are above all others, so to speak. Trying to break this cycle, is basically denying children first steps in socialization.

Concentrating only negatives is hilarious and inept idiocy, which will lead towards more infantilizing children and making them even less prepared for the real world, where most don't give a **** about your personal feelings and not everyone want to be your friend.

I think it also could be about balance and not shutting people out. Refining those social skills. How often do those “1-2 special people” from childhood stay with you throughout your life. Often people can shelter themselves in a few close relationships and lose out by not being open to others.

I think it’s important to help kids recognize the traits that they find important in a friend. No matter what the term is. Although some terms facilitate the exploring better than others.

[The Deadman]

Banning kids from saying "best friend" wont change how they act towards others. Next thing you know, they'll try to prevent kids from hanging out with their supposed best friends because of the whole "leaving other kids out" thing.

[Sumac]

I think it also could be about balance and not shutting people out. Refining those social skills. How often do those “1-2 special people” from childhood stay with you throughout your life. Often people can shelter themselves in a few close relationships and lose out by not being open to others.
Children still would do it, no matter how you call it. They still will pick up special people and so on. You or anyone else can't stop it.

The only way you can prevent this, is to physically stop kids interacting with each other and those who they think are special for them, and this is obviously an outright abhorrent idea.

Also, "losing your special people" - so what? Everyone going through this. Stop infatilizing kids. You can't soft cushioning them for the rest of their lives and give them insurance that nothing bad will happen. In a manner of speaking, bad things are good for developing character and strength of will.

Trying to get rid of this will turn kids into weak infantile idiots incapable interacting with the rest of the world. Unless you want to turn the whole world into one big Demolition Man type "Utopia", where even cursing is prohibited and people are treated with soft gloves, like brain damaged children 24/7, which wouldn't work, because, of human nature to resist any type of dictatorship.

I think it’s important to help kids recognize the traits that they find important in a friend. No matter what the term is. Although some terms facilitate the exploring better than others.
It won't stop them from having best friends.

Banning kids from saying "best friend" wont change how they act towards others. Next thing you know, they'll try to prevent kids from hanging out with their supposed best friends because of the whole "leaving other kids out" thing.
Precisely.

An attempt to make everyone equal won't work.
People are not equal. Never were and never will be, unless humanity will start tampering with Eugenics.

Some people are smarter than others, some are more talented, some better at singing, others better at dancing. You can't do nothing about it and denying that is to deny reality itself and treat everyone like they don't have any identifiable traits, since this is the only way to achieve "complete equality".

And even if government will try to do enforce such "equality" they will fail. Actually Soviet Union attempted to facilitate it, by literally purging and ostracizing people who were not fit to be the part of the system (too smart, too talented and as a resulted demands too much and so on).

The result, ironically, was opposite: due to the forced "equality of everyone" USSR technology and science ended up in the shitter, because, all truly talented people were either removed from position where they could bring meaningful changes and those positions were occupied by professional dumb asslickers or escaped from USSR to the other countries. As a result country ended up in trashbin.

So, this is where your "equality of everyone" inevitably leads to: stagnation, death of imagination and individuality. And as a result death of society.

[TurtleWA]

Children still would do it, no matter how you call it. They still will pick up special people and so on. You or anyone else can't stop it.

The only way you can prevent this, is to physically stop kids interacting with each other and those who they think are special for them, and this is obviously an outright abhorrent idea.

Also, "losing your special people" - so what? Everyone going through this. Stop infatilizing kids. You can't soft cushioning them for the rest of their lives and give them insurance that nothing bad will happen. In a manner of speaking, bad things are good for developing character and strength of will.

Trying to get rid of this will turn kids into weak infantile idiots incapable interacting with the rest of the world. Unless you want to turn the whole world into one big Demolition Man type "Utopia", where even cursing is prohibited and people are treated with soft gloves, like brain damaged children 24/7, which wouldn't work, because, of human nature to resist any type of dictatorship.


It won't stop them from having best friends.

If your under the impression that folks are trying to take friends away, stopping kids from making friends or forming close bonds. Then you have missed the point. No one is wanting to do any of that.

[oldmanwinters]

Can't have one kid feeling privileged and another kid feeling inferior now...

[Cure]

This is retarded.

[plastroncafe]

The good news is that this is a private, nonprofit preschool for about 30 children. So y'all are welcome to not send whatever spawnings you happen to have to this one school.

The parents in question decided to not send their child there anymore. No harm no foul.

[ssjup81]

Hm, 2 steps forward, 100 steps back. This is so stupid. It's like people don't want kids to learn how to deal with disappointment or loss or any of that other stuff you have to learn to deal with as kids so you can deal with it as adults. People move away, people grow apart, it's a part of life. The generations coming WILL be nothing but delicate little snowflakes who can't handle any type of negativity or finding healthy ways to deal with that negativity.

Anyway, I doubt kids will actually go by this, though. They'll probably still have a best friend regardless. It's only natural.

[newfan]

While I get what some mean by 'Best', when used here it doesn't mean someone is better than someone else, for I don't know how long it has just meant a child's/persons closest friend, most see it that way.
TrutleWA, agreed on inclusion and encouraging a wider number of friends, this is being done is schools (I assume across the board) and is a good thing, preventing close friendships is different (I know you didn't say it wasn't btw, I'm just continuing on), this is natural to all of us, but as pointed out, that isn't what the article was about.

... I got into 2012's trutles and I end up here taking about best friends ....LOL

[plastroncafe]

... I got into 2012's trutles and I end up here taking about best friends ....LOL

The folks around here have a lot of feelings.

[newfan]

The folks around here have a lot of feelings.

Oh, that post wasn't meant as complaint, I just found it funny getting into some conversations and then remembering why I came here to start :)

[Sumac]

If your under the impression that folks are trying to take friends away, stopping kids from making friends or forming close bonds. Then you have missed the point. No one is wanting to do any of that.
Then what exactly it will achieve? Alright, you banned the word, but kids still will make best friends with someone. So what's the point?

Why rising generation of fragile hypocrites who will say one thing, but do the other?

Can't have one kid feeling privileged and another kid feeling inferior now...
Seems some people definitely operate on this logic, no matter how little sense it does.

[Casey]

You guys get offended by every clickbait article the media posts. “They can’t say best friends!? This is because they started letting boys wear pink! I knew this would happen!” But then someone is like “Hey, you’re using the wrong pronouns and it really sucks so...” and you scream “Stop being offended!!!”

[TurtleWA]

The folks around here have a lot of feelings.
And opinions. I think that is a good thing btw imo. I like the folks around here bc of that.

Then what exactly it will achieve? Alright, you banned the word, but kids still will make best friends with someone. So what's the point?

Read the article in OP and it may offer insights into what the school is hoping to achieve. I can’t help you beyond that.

[Wesley]

Political correctness gone mad.

[plastroncafe]

You guys get offended by every clickbait article the media posts. “They can’t say best friends!? This is because they started letting boys wear pink! I knew this would happen!” But then someone is like “Hey, you’re using the wrong pronouns and it really sucks so...” and you scream “Stop being offended!!!”

Funny how this works, right?

[Utrommaniac]

My mother is the director of a pre-school. And if I know anything about my mother, she would call great b-s on this :lol: .

[FredWolfLeonardo]

You guys get offended by every clickbait article the media posts. “They can’t say best friends!? This is because they started letting boys wear pink! I knew this would happen!” But then someone is like “Hey, you’re using the wrong pronouns and it really sucks so...” and you scream “Stop being offended!!!”

Dissaproving of something does not equal to being offended.

[Utrommaniac]

Yeah, there's a big difference between what "best friend" means to a nine year old and a four year old.

I'd surmount the whole issue in this particular school being from someone higher up in staff being sick of "best friend" being "weaponized" as described earlier. It's a dumb reason, but it's the best I can think of.

Right around Duckling's age, I would guess that kids start to scale back on that "Bestie Warfare".

(Though, I'm not really one to talk, as I didn't exactly have a "best friend" in school, on account of being the weird kid with a double whammy of being very early bloomer)

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Yeah, there's a big difference between what "best friend" means to a nine year old and a four year old.

I'd surmount the whole issue in this particular school being from someone higher up in staff being sick of "best friend" being "weaponized" as described earlier. It's a dumb reason, but it's the best I can think of.

Right around Duckling's age, I would guess that kids start to scale back on that "Bestie Warfare".

(Though, I'm not really one to talk, as I didn't exactly have a "best friend" in school, on account of being the weird kid with a double whammy of being very early bloomer)

I'm not sure the difference is so much what it means as how they deal with it at those ages. A nine (10 in her case) year old realizes that people have different interests and tastes, so they don't internalize it as much, where the 4 year old see it as one person getting more attention from the friend even though they are friends with both. That makes a difference, I think. It's all in the maturity level of the friendship.

[Machias Banshee]

Enough of the Personal sniping/attacks... you can debate this stuff, but stop it with getting PERSONAL.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Apologies, Machias. That might have been a bit over the line. I do feel however that certain behavior has been going on too long, mainly concerning belittling the opinions and beliefs of others here, and especially treating anyone with differing views as "leftie snowflakes". That is a violation of rules, isn't it?

[newfan]

Yeah, there's a big difference between what "best friend" means to a nine year old and a four year old.

I'd surmount the whole issue in this particular school being from someone higher up in staff being sick of "best friend" being "weaponized" as described earlier. It's a dumb reason, but it's the best I can think of.

Right around Duckling's age, I would guess that kids start to scale back on that "Bestie Warfare".

(Though, I'm not really one to talk, as I didn't exactly have a "best friend" in school, on account of being the weird kid with a double whammy of being very early bloomer)

I can relate a little to the last part of that only I was fortunate to have had a few close friends.
I found that 'best friend' issues came as an older child rather than a younger one, you spend time with another child (without the best friend) and you are called out by class members, that mindset had gone by the teens years but I still had a close friend who I was with most of the time besides having other friends. (she's remained a good friend)

I don't think it's the description or that a child has a close friend that is an issue, it's the taunting 'nah, you aren't my best friend, he is' or pairing and not playing with others also, that's what I meant earlier about encouraging inclusion and friendships instead.

[Utrommaniac]

That's actually a good point...and probably part of why "best friend" can be weaponized. Especially when they want to deliberately isolate other children. Which does happen in preschools.


Of course, the big problem is, what preschooler is going to abide by this "rule"?
If anything, they would probably have made the problem worse.

[Andrew NDB]

Enough of the Personal sniping/attacks... you can debate this stuff, but stop it with getting PERSONAL.

That's fair.

[newfan]

That's actually a good point...and probably part of why "best friend" can be weaponized. Especially when they want to deliberately isolate other children. Which does happen in preschools.


Of course, the big problem is, what preschooler is going to abide by this "rule"?
If anything, they would probably have made the problem worse.

Yes there is a difference in what you can expect an older child to understand. We have people who are closer to than others but obviously think differently, we wouldn't turn to a colleague at work and say 'I like you but ,<whatever name> is my favourite person here, I like you 2nd best, :)

[Sumac]

That's actually a good point...and probably part of why "best friend" can be weaponized. Especially when they want to deliberately isolate other children. Which does happen in preschools.
Who can weaponize it?
Little kids?

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

As long as there are children having fun, tyring to create their own conditions for playing, there will be adult people there to interfer.

35 years ago, all Kindergarten teachers did was complaining over the violent content of series like Heman and the Transformers.

[Utrommaniac]

All in all, the whole situation is just
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/731/143/3e3.jpg


"Weaponizing" means "you're not my best friend anymore" to try to take back power in a fight or disagreement, or "you can't be here, you're not my best friend" to isolate. As others have stated before.

[Sumac]

"Weaponizing" means "you're not my best friend anymore" to try to take back power in a fight or disagreement, or "you can't be here, you're not my best friend" to isolate. As others have stated before.
So? I don't see nothing bad about this. It's natural process.

[TurtleWA]

So? I don't see nothing bad about this. It's natural process.

Some people believe the classroom is helping prepare kids for later in life when they have jobs. Your not always going to be able to work with your first (or best) choice of colleague in the future. Or work one on one with someone. So kids need to learn how to deal with these thing a little better. How to work in groups and how to communicate that they need time with a specific person and not a group. Or be okay in accepting many people into a group to work. It’s not all about play it’s about preparation for future work skills.

[Utrommaniac]

Pretty much.

My original thought process was some director or member of staff just getting sick of dealing with kids isolating each other over their potential for "friend ranking", and so opted to attempt forbidding "friend ranking" altogether.

And not really considering that preschoolers are probably not going to follow that rule.


I brought it up to my mom who works in this environment, and she had some interesting points.

It's micromanaging
Attempting to eliminate "cliques" at this point in life prevents kids from being unable to cope when it starts happening in the future. It happens, no matter what, and it's easier to learn it when they're younger and more emotionally malleable.
Removes the inevitable teaching moment when "you're not my best friend anymore" situations occur
Kids don't totally have a grasp on what "best" is, so for a lot of kids, their entire class would be their "best friend"


Also notice that the little girl in this situation is now anxious about using the term "best friend" outside of school.

[newfan]

Some people believe the classroom is helping prepare kids for later in life when they have jobs. Your not always going to be able to work with your first (or best) choice of colleague in the future. Or work one on one with someone. So kids need to learn how to deal with these thing a little better. How to work in groups and how to communicate that they need time with a specific person and not a group. Or be okay in accepting many people into a group to work. It’s not all Bout play it’s about preparation for future work skills.

at age 3/4?
Haven't we got this by the time we get to working age already through growing over the years?

[TurtleWA]

at age 3/4?
Haven't we got this by the time we get to working age already through growing over the years?

Kids learn through play. So if a kids is old enough to play they are old enough to learn, imo. I imagine some “working age” people still do not know how to work in groups or one-on-one, both are important.

[Sumac]

Some people believe the classroom is helping prepare kids for later in life when they have jobs. Your not always going to be able to work with your first (or best) choice of colleague in the future. Or work one on one with someone. So kids need to learn how to deal with these thing a little better. How to work in groups and how to communicate that they need time with a specific person and not a group. Or be okay in accepting many people into a group to work. It’s not all about play it’s about preparation for future work skills.
But there is enormous difference between kindergarten and the job.

Anyway Utrommaniac said everything better than I ever could.

[newfan]

Kids learn through play. So if a kids is old enough to play they are old enough to learn, imo. I imagine some “working age” people still do not know how to work in groups or one-on-one, both are important.

Yes, I know kids learn through play and that they are learning all the time, I just had skills for the workplace down as something that they learn in/during childhood, but not really necessary at age 3/4. :) Just difference in opinion. My son came out of school complaining that they were put into groups for sessions where they had to interact with the children in their group and not who they wanted but these were 5/6 year olds in their 2nd year of school, that I get, they are past the first year of more play and the freedom to interact with who they want throughout the day. (course they still do outside of these group activities)

[FredWolfLeonardo]

I ate dirt at kindergarden when I was 3/4, pretty sure that contributed jack to my job skills in the future :P

[TurtleWA]

It's micromanaging
Preschool age kids need more managing because they are kids. It’s a balanced approach. Not so much of helicopter parenting/teacher and not so much free-range parenting/teacher.

Attempting to eliminate "cliques" at this point in life prevents kids from being unable to cope when it starts happening in the future. It happens, no matter what, and it's easier to learn it when they're younger and more emotionally malleable.
I interpret it as encouraging students to have a larger group of friends. And in these groups the moments to practice coping skills will arise.

Removes the inevitable teaching moment when "you're not my best friend anymore" situations occur
There will always be times in life for those teaching moments surrounding rejection and/or loss of relationship.

Kids don't totally have a grasp on what "best" is, so for a lot of kids, their entire class would be their "best friend"
I don’t think the concept is talking about the kids that consider the entire class their “best friend.”

[TurtleWA]

Yes, I know kids learn through play and that they are learning all the time, I just had skills for the workplace down as something that they learn in/during childhood, but not really necessary at age 3/4. :) Just difference in opinion. My son came out of school complaining that they were put into groups for sessions where they had to interact with the children in their group and not who they wanted but these were 5/6 year olds in their 2nd year of school, that I get, they are past the first year of more play and the freedom to interact with who they want throughout the day.

Learning milestones in the social skills category for 3 and 4 year olds say “play well with other children and be willing to share” and “play with other children rather than just side by side.” So that’s what I was basing my statements from. However it’s not about mastery of these skill at 3/4 or even 5/6. It’s about exposure and practice year after year. And hopefully when adults it will have paid off with ease of workplace interactions. This is all my opinion and people are welcome to have their own.

[newfan]

Learning milestones in the social skills category for 3 and 4 year olds say “play well with other children and be willing to share” and “play with other children rather than just side by side.” So that’s what I was basing my statements from. However it’s not about mastery of these skill at 3/4 or even 5/6. It’s about exposure and practice year after year. And hopefully when adults it will have paid off with ease of workplace interactions. This is all my opinion and people are welcome to have their own.

Okay putting it this way comes across differently to me, this I agree with, start off age appropriately as you described with things like sharing, I know side by side play is considered normal for this age group but interactive play is encouraged here, then build over the years.

[Sumac]

I interpret it as encouraging students to have a larger group of friends. And in these groups the moments to practice coping skills will arise.
Still won't stop them from being closer with some people than the others. Even if they can't say this "dreaded" best friends.

There will always be times in life for those teaching moments surrounding rejection and/or loss of relationship.
The earlier kids get how the real world works - the better. No need to infantilize them even further.

[plastroncafe]

Children, especially children at that age, don't know how to people let alone how to socialize. They're learning how to share at that stage, they're learning about personal space and boundaries.

These are really important lessons that have far reaching implications.

Now I don't have pre-school aged children, but if I did I'd make sure I was on board with the philosophy of the pre-school I sent them to. If I wasn't...I'd send them to a different one.

But I would then trust my teachers to have the best interest of my kids at heart when it comes to actually teaching them.

Here's to hoping this little girl is too young to learn the lesson: When the world tells me I can't do something, mommy and daddy will swoop in and fix it for me, because...otherwise I might feel sad about being told no.

[Sumac]

Continuing with "PC gone mad" trend here's news across the pond:
19 year old was found guilty of "hate crime" after posting lyrics of world-famous rapper Snap Dogg on her Instagram to pay tribute to a boy who died in a road crash. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921)
Never mind, that this song was performed in front of thousands people and message on Instagram didn't had malicious intent. But potential offense trumps logic. It's all about feelings now.

[Jester]

Good to see the Count Dankula case (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/count-dankula-nazi-pug-salutes-mark-meechan-fine-sentenced-a8317751.html) is setting precedence....Oye.

[Andrew NDB]

Continuing with "PC gone mad" trend here's news across the pond:
19 year old was found guilty of "hate crime" after posting lyrics of world-famous rapper Snap Dogg on her Instagram to pay tribute to a boy who died in a road crash. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921)
Never mind, that this song was performed in front of thousands people and message on Instagram didn't had malicious intent. But potential offense trumps logic. It's all about feelings now.

That's definitely where the trajectory we're on leads. To "enlightened" stuff like that.

Good to see the Count Dankula case (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/count-dankula-nazi-pug-salutes-mark-meechan-fine-sentenced-a8317751.html) is setting precedence....Oye.

That case has been going on for a long time. Initially he was literally arrested... for making this video:

UD_QlnY8Ggg

[ProphetofGanja]

Does anybody else here actually work at a preschool? No, just me? Okay

[plastroncafe]

Preschool kids are a bit younger than the ones I deal with on a professional basis. I know quite a few people who work in early childhood education.

And usually what they tell me is that the children are wonderful, but that it's the parents who are abhorrent.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I can certainly believe that. Considering most of them would be in that age range that began school themselves shortly after the end of the era of paddles in school, it would seem "spare the rod, spoil the child" DOES have some ill effects as adults. Entitlement, lack of respect, etc....

[TurtleWA]

I can certainly believe that. Considering most of them would be in that age range that began school themselves shortly after the end of the era of paddles in school, it would seem "spare the rod, spoil the child" DOES have some ill effects as adults. Entitlement, lack of respect, etc....

Are you saying if an adult doesn’t have respect for others it’s because they didn’t get paddled enough as a child?

[ssjup81]

Are you saying if an adult doesn’t have respect for others it’s because they didn’t get paddled enough as a child?Depends on the child. Some kids grow up fine without being spanked, but received some kind of alternative consequence for their actions. Others were spanked because those alternatives didn't work. As long as the kid gets some form of punishment it shouldn't matter if you spank or not. The parents should know their kids.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Depends on the child. Some kids grow up fine without being spanked, but received some kind of alternative consequence for their actions. Others were spanked because those alternatives didn't work. As long as the kid gets some form of punishment it shouldn't matter if you spank or not. The parents should know their kids.

Pretty much this. I don't particularly condone spanking, but there definitely needs to be serious consequences and punishment when kids behave badly, and it shows when there is not. "Time outs' do not count as a serious consequence. As a parent, you are not there to be their friend, you are there to teach them right and wrong, and how to behave acceptably. Ours was, I think, the last generation that grew up with those kinds of consequences.