A Burnt Torch: Darkest Dungeon, Mental Health and Lovecraftian Horror

Started by Martinus, February 20, 2015, 01:45:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Eddie Teach

Quote from: The Brain on February 20, 2015, 04:13:14 AM
We must look to Sparta for parenting guidance I think. I am not a huge fan of non-hackers.

Sparta didn't exactly leave an enduring legacy to its children.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

CountDeMoney

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 20, 2015, 08:13:30 PM
Sparta didn't exactly leave an enduring legacy to its children.

But more importantly, it didn't have unions.  Advantage: Sparta.

The Larch

Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 03:43:55 AMThere was recently an article on the BBC world website, for example, addressed to parents (written by a Westerner for Westerners) and evaluating pros and cons of letting your adult children move back in with you if they lose their jobs, or fall on hard times - what is interesting is that Westerners who were commenting felt very ambiguous about it, arguing when you should charge rent, when you should refuse, and when you should kick the child out - while all non-Westerners just stared at it, completely and utterly baffled and stunned that someone would even consider not letting their child in unconditionally.

That must be an Anglo thing, such a behaviour would be utterly shunned around here and, I guess, in most southern European societies.

Habbaku

The medievals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers.

Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people.

-J. R. R. Tolkien

Martinus

Quote from: The Larch on February 20, 2015, 09:17:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 03:43:55 AMThere was recently an article on the BBC world website, for example, addressed to parents (written by a Westerner for Westerners) and evaluating pros and cons of letting your adult children move back in with you if they lose their jobs, or fall on hard times - what is interesting is that Westerners who were commenting felt very ambiguous about it, arguing when you should charge rent, when you should refuse, and when you should kick the child out - while all non-Westerners just stared at it, completely and utterly baffled and stunned that someone would even consider not letting their child in unconditionally.

That must be an Anglo thing, such a behaviour would be utterly shunned around here and, I guess, in most southern European societies.

Yeah, same in Poland. I suspect that (without of course saying it is universal), it may be a feature of the protestant work ethics, that tends to put a great emphasis on self-reliance and seem to view failure as a moral failing of sorts. In catholic countries I think it is different.

Martinus

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 20, 2015, 09:07:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 02:44:57 AM
the modern anxiety in question being that you will be squeezed like a lemon by your employer/government/society and then, when you get too many "quirks", replaced with someone else.

"Quirks" or "perks"?  Because shareholder value gets impacted by perks, too.  Like health benefits and profit-sharing bonuses and paychecks.  And then you get replaced with someone else.

I blame HR people. Language defines reality. "Human resource" is one hell of a motherfucking evil expression.

In fact the evolution from "labour" / "work force" to "employment" to "human resource" illustrates the change that happened quite nicely. "Labour" emphasised the contribution a worker was making to the "capital" (which was provided by the capitalist); "work force" was perhaps less positive, but at least it emphasised "force". "Employment" was putting the focus on the employer, who was providing employment to workers (as opposed to workers providing labour to the employer), but at least it maintained the role of an employee as a subject (as opposed to an object) of the labour relations. Finally, "human resource" puts employees squarely in the "object" box - they are a resource to be exploited, like equipment or raw materials.

The Brain

Women want me. Men want to be with me.