Bill Maher: American Kids are Way Too Confident

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

14 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Lol.  You gonna cry you whiney bich? 

 

Hey you are the one lying- not me. 

[MDC 7,836]

19 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

He knows he's lying. It's pathological with him at this point. 

At least he’s not saying gross sexual stuff about your underaged kid. 

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

At least he’s not saying gross sexual stuff about your underaged kid. 

True....he also didn't wish rape on either of my kids.

He just said I was "a coward", "neglectful to my kids" "effeminate" and "not a real man."

[TBayXXXVII 2,656]

On 5/23/2024 at 12:20 PM, jerryskids said:

Maher nails it as usual.  

TL;dr:  Millenials and GenZ tend to suck at actual important things, but they think they don't, because we've trained them to think they don't.  We don't listen to your music because it sucks.  Being an influencer is not a great career goal.

https://www.thefp.com/p/bill-maher-american-kids-paris-hilton?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

This isn't a "kids" issue, it's a national philosophical issue.  American's, all of them (yes, even the poor ones), are spoiled.  American's, as a whole, believe they're entitled to everything.

[jerryskids 7,054]

48 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

This isn't a "kids" issue, it's a national philosophical issue.  American's, all of them (yes, even the poor ones), are spoiled.  American's, as a whole, believe they're entitled to everything.

I think both can be true:  The average American acts more entitled, and younger people are particularly bad about it.

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,908]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

At least he’s not saying gross sexual stuff about your underaged kid. 

I never did that. You should report it if I did. You can’t even quote it. So sad the lengths these clowns go to. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,908]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

True....he also didn't wish rape on either of my kids.

He just said I was "a coward", "neglectful to my kids" "effeminate" and "not a real man."

I said you neglect your students. Which you do. Nice try though with the “my kids” garbage.  You are trash.  And defeated.  

[MDC 7,836]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

True....he also didn't wish rape on either of my kids.

He just said I was "a coward", "neglectful to my kids" "effeminate" and "not a real man."

One example of what he said about my son, who was 10 at the time:

Probably typed that one handed. Creep.  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,908]

5 minutes ago, MDC said:

One example of what he said about my son, who was 10 at the time:

Probably typed that one handed. Creep.  

You’re the one that said there is nothing you can do to stop a kid from watching it.  Good job.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,656]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I think both can be true:  The average American acts more entitled, and younger people are particularly bad about it.

 

Agreed, it's the trickle down affect.  Every generation is spoiled, hence, they spoil the younger generation more.  It's going to continue to get worse.  It'll never get better until people start realizing that not everyone is equal and have the same opportunities... and those opportunities won't come until they make them for themselves.

[GutterBoy 2,900]

2 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

True....he also didn't wish rape on either of my kids.

He just said I was "a coward", "neglectful to my kids" "effeminate" and "not a real man."

He said the same to me, in addition to wishing my kids get raped.  He's a real POS.

[MDC 7,836]

10 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

He said the same to me, in addition to wishing my kids get raped.  He's a real POS.

Did he really? Wow. What a complete and total scumbag loser. 

[jerryskids 7,054]

Well, this thread went off the rails.   

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

59 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I said you neglect your students. Which you do. Nice try though with the “my kids” garbage.  You are trash.  And defeated.  

Nov. 30, 2022

"You neglect your own children too."

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,908]

4 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Nov. 30, 2022

"You neglect your own children too."

 

 

Sounds legit. 

[GutterBoy 2,900]

5 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Nov. 30, 2022

"You neglect your own children too."

 

 

[TheNewGirl 1,635]

On 5/23/2024 at 1:05 PM, jerryskids said:

Fair.  I think it's mostly GenZ, with some spill into Millenials.  They aren't hard and fast delineations.  

Also I'm Gen X, not far from Boomer.  My kids are a Millenial/Z boy (28 yrs old) and two Gen Z girls.  The boy is much more conservative than the girls, which seems consistent with the stereotypes.  Our family is like Family Ties, if the parents were conservatives.   

There is truth in this.  My generation was the first of the "latchkey" kids, and I think a lot of those people grew up feeling like they weren't loved, so they swung the pendulum too far the other way into helicopter parenting.

Somewhat. I was also a Latchkey kid and I do a bit of both. I tended to be helicopter-ish as they got a little older, entering the teen years, but then backed off some. I was not as bad when they were little and had a "they will be fine" attitude. I did tend to be more apprehensive about who watched them, though. We rarely used babysitters, it was mostly family and they didn't do many sleepovers. 

But I do know a LOT of Gen X that turned out to be very staunch helicopter parents, it was sad to see it really. 

[BeachGuy23 642]

Notice how it's almost always the cultist who think taking "shots" by stalking you across this, or multiple boards, to gleem what they think is some kind of IRL "gotcha" is such great fun and high entertainment?  It could be a story you told about your life, you complaining about your wife, job whatever.

The only lib who does anything similar is me and I only do so in response to being attacked.

This board represents real life, the vast majority of libs are reasonable and don't resort to insults or ad hominem attacks.

The opposite is true for the MAGAlovers among us.

This is why they teach their kids to spit at the media and they show their devotion to their master by flying gear in tribute to him or with vulgar attacks on Biden.

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

2 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

Somewhat. I was also a Latchkey kid and I do a bit of both. I tended to be helicopter-ish as they got a little older, entering the teen years, but then backed off some. I was not as bad when they were little and had a "they will be fine" attitude. I did tend to be more apprehensive about who watched them, though. We rarely used babysitters, it was mostly family and they didn't do many sleepovers. 

But I do know a LOT of Gen X that turned out to be very staunch helicopter parents, it was sad to see it really. 

I said at one point a huge problem with kids now (and in school) is the way people parent anymore. It is antagonistic against the world because "the world is trying to get you." Of course I was called a groomer, and a loser, and told I don't care about kids and was just trying to blame parents. Of which I wasn't obviously solely blaming parents. 

[jerryskids 7,054]

50 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I said at one point a huge problem with kids now (and in school) is the way people parent anymore. It is antagonistic against the world because "the world is trying to get you." Of course I was called a groomer, and a loser, and told I don't care about kids and was just trying to blame parents. Of which I wasn't obviously solely blaming parents. 

Being a HS teacher, I would think you have some good insight on this. (the first part, not the second, get over it).

I've heard it said that for a kid to be successful, two of the following three need to care:  parent(s), teacher, kid.

Thoughts?

[jerryskids 7,054]

2 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

Somewhat. I was also a Latchkey kid and I do a bit of both. I tended to be helicopter-ish as they got a little older, entering the teen years, but then backed off some. I was not as bad when they were little and had a "they will be fine" attitude. I did tend to be more apprehensive about who watched them, though. We rarely used babysitters, it was mostly family and they didn't do many sleepovers. 

But I do know a LOT of Gen X that turned out to be very staunch helicopter parents, it was sad to see it really. 

We were never really helicopter parents, except for times with my daughter's diabetes, which I don't count.

Interesting that you became helicopter-ish as they got older.  

Looking back on my childhood, I guess that technically I was maybe a latchkey kid, but I never felt unloved or neglected.  My mom was home when we were very young, then went back to work when we were in elementary school.  I don't remember details of after-school that young, but I know that from middle school on, I had after school activities (sports, band, scouts) that led into the evening.  I have no memory of being home for hours on end alone, tempted to make poor tween/teen decisions.   

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

53 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Being a HS teacher, I would think you have some good insight on this. (the first part, not the second, get over it).

I've heard it said that for a kid to be successful, two of the following three need to care:  parent(s), teacher, kid.

Thoughts?

By the second part you mean the being called a "groomer" stuff? I'm not letting that go. It's highly insulting people say it.

As to the successful thing- yes generally it is true that two of those three caring lead to students success but anymore the teacher is strongarmed into just passing the kid through regardless. You try to fail a kid and the school complains that "our graduation numbers aren't good enough" or a parent writes in and complains that you hate their kid or threatens lawsuits and everything so the school just rubber stamps the kid. Kids generally care to a point- especially once they become seniors.

There are studies done that don't outright say it but the implication is that the two biggest factors in a kid's success in school is their economic status and whether their parents are together or not. It isn't foolproof but parents together and making good money usually lead to them being there for the kids more often and providing learning and a stable home life which benefits the kids in school.

Generally though I'd argue- kids are far better and more resilient than society gives them credit for. 

[jerryskids 7,054]

9 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

By the second part you mean the being called a "groomer" stuff? I'm not letting that go. It's highly insulting people say it.

As to the successful thing- yes generally it is true that two of those three caring lead to students success but anymore the teacher is strongarmed into just passing the kid through regardless. You try to fail a kid and the school complains that "our graduation numbers aren't good enough" or a parent writes in and complains that you hate their kid or threatens lawsuits and everything so the school just rubber stamps the kid. Kids generally care to a point- especially once they become seniors.

There are studies done that don't outright say it but the implication is that the two biggest factors in a kid's success in school is their economic status and whether their parents are together or not. It isn't foolproof but parents together and making good money usually lead to them being there for the kids more often and providing learning and a stable home life which benefits the kids in school.

Generally though I'd argue- kids are far better and more resilient than society gives them credit for. 

Interesting, thanks.  So would you advocate programs to encourage parents to stay together?

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,339]

48 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Interesting, thanks.  So would you advocate programs to encourage parents to stay together?

Can't have that, but we need more programs that help kids transition without telling their parents.

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

8 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Interesting, thanks.  So would you advocate programs to encourage parents to stay together?

I'm not sure how you would target that and even if parents split- if they are economically secure it can minimize the damage of a marital split on a kid. The institution of marriage is a social issue that needs fixing in general as far too many people think "Eh we fought, time to split."

But in the long run- I do think we should do something to encourage people working on marriage rather than giving up

[GutterBoy 2,900]

9 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Interesting, thanks.  So would you advocate programs to encourage parents to stay together?

Is this some kind of gotcha?

Pretty sure we can all agree that 2 parents in a household is better than 1, or none.  Weird flex.

[jerryskids 7,054]

5 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm not sure how you would target that and even if parents split- if they are economically secure it can minimize the damage of a marital split on a kid. The institution of marriage is a social issue that needs fixing in general as far too many people think "Eh we fought, time to split."

But in the long run- I do think we should do something to encourage people working on marriage rather than giving up

Thanks.  I agree with this sentiment.   

4 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Is this some kind of gotcha?

Pretty sure we can all agree that 2 parents in a household is better than 1, or none.  Weird flex.

Sean seemed to get that I asked about programs, which is more than just saying "pretty sure we can all agree."  A program would be an actual commitment, not only of money but of an outward public stance that two parents are better than one.  But I googled, and while I see private programs, I don't see any government ones.  Why is that, if we all can agree?  One reason is that single parents are disproportionately lower income, and more importantly, black, so saying that single parenting is bad would be... what's the word... starts with an R...?   

[Bier Meister 1,748]

43 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks.  I agree with this sentiment.   

Sean seemed to get that I asked about programs, which is more than just saying "pretty sure we can all agree."  A program would be an actual commitment, not only of money but of an outward public stance that two parents are better than one.  But I googled, and while I see private programs, I don't see any government ones.  Why is that, if we all can agree?  One reason is that single parents are disproportionately lower income, and more importantly, black, so saying that single parenting is bad would be... what's the word... starts with an R...?   

I don't think providing services to couples attempting to preserve the family as racist  per se.

Services should be available to lead all families towards success, not just the married households

two committed parents is a better environment for successful child development (as is tier of wealth), however, i believe that progressives advocate that it is not the only route to success.

[jerryskids 7,054]

31 minutes ago, Bier Meister said:

I don't think providing services to couples attempting to preserve the family as racist  per se.

Services should be available to lead all families towards success, not just the married households

two committed parents is a better environment for successful child development (as is tier of wealth), however, i believe that progressives advocate that it is not the only route to success.

I am saying that I don't see government services towards it, even though we all agree two parents are best.

Also, you can help single parents while still advocating for two parents, but we don't. I proposed fear of racism as a factor. Another is that Marxism opposes the nuclear family.  We've seen single parenting increasingly glorified over the past few decades. 

This glorification is a "luxury belief."

 

A luxury belief is an idea or opinion that confers status on members of the upper class at little cost, while inflicting costs on persons in lower classes. The term is often applied to privileged individuals who are seen as disconnected from the lived experiences of impoverished and marginalized people.

Mostly supported by upper middle class to wealthy folks, who themselves are mostly in nuclear families.

[Bier Meister 1,748]

12 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I am saying that I don't see government services towards it, even though we all agree two parents are best.

I think they are out there, but possibly hard to find. Prior to culinary, I was a therapist and worked at many different agencies while attaining licensure (some being targeted towards low income family services).

12 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Also, you can help single parents while still advocating for two parents, but we don't.

I am not that sure we don't.  sometimes it is a matter of advertising/accessibility.

I proposed fear of racism as a factor.

i don't think racism is a big factor here...more related to socioeconomic factors.

Another is that Marxism opposes the nuclear family.  We've seen single parenting increasingly glorified over the past few decades. 

I really do not think that the US opposes the nuclear family, mostly want there to be options.

I also do not think single parent households are glorified.

12 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

This glorification is a "luxury belief."

 

 

Mostly supported by upper middle class to wealthy folks, who themselves are mostly in nuclear families.

 

[jerryskids 7,054]

2 hours ago, Bier Meister said:

I think they are out there, but possibly hard to find. Prior to culinary, I was a therapist and worked at many different agencies while attaining licensure (some being targeted towards low income family services).

I really do not think that the US opposes the nuclear family, mostly want there to be options.

I also do not think single parent households are glorified.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

If you are interested in learning more about luxury beliefs, Rob Henderson has written a lot on the subject.  Made a career of it, some might say.  So feel free to read skeptically.  But it contains some interesting ideas.

https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/status-symbols-and-the-struggle-for