High school memories

Remove all ads!

Aw geez, I offended someone again. I'm so sorry. You should be a bit less vague about *how* I offended you, if you're interested in discussion. But only if that's your intention.

On a completely unrelated note, I got another negative rep comment. After months of waiting, I finally got 2 reputation, I was so proud that day. But within 24 hours somebody blows me out of the water with this dumbass nondescript comment: "Such legendary stupidity that it should be framed for all time."
Someone thinks I'm stupid - utterly fascinating. If it wasn't sent with nep-rep, I wouldn't give a toss. The comment was placed about my first post in this thread, and I've been racking my brain trying to figure out what was so stupid in that post. I guess I'm just too stoopid to get it... So now I'm back to 1 reputation, thanks a bundle, whoever you are.

Now just to make clear that this isn't an accusation, or a diversion from the topic, let me point this out: Giving negative reputation is like a mild form of cyber bullying. Sure, there's not always psychomanipulation involved, but it can quite literally damage one's reputation, as demonstrated. So my response to this is also important too. I've declared before (in my blog) that I won't lower myself to this level, despite being tempted to. I won't respond by sending my own vague nondescript neg-rep. But I must do something, or I'll just be a tempting and easy target for such 'bullying' in the future. If I could, I'd name and shame the person who 'slapped' me. But all I can do, is tell on them, whoever they are, no matter how uncool it makes me look. This is how I think I got through high school bullying: I don't care what people think. I'll just tell everybody I was attacked, even if it lowers their opinion of me further. This way, it should get too messy for my anonymous attacker, and it will push him to lay off the violence (in this extended metaphor, 'violence' is the neg-rep button).

To return to the off-topic about mental illness: If you mean 'know about' mental illness in terms of living with it, then no, I 'know' nothing of mental illness. If this invalidates my opinion about policy towards the dangerously insane, then feel free to ignore what I say. Personally I think it's a non-argument, since it's always the sane who must devise a policy about the insane. It just happens that there was a programme on today, where they were talking with a dutch ex-TBS-patient, Wim Olijve. Wim's friend committed petty theft, and they had gotten into a fight. Because the police response wasn't to his liking, he got a knife from the tool shop, and carved his friend up. Miraculously his friend survived, but had a long stay in the hospital as a result. After years of treatment, Wim was declared 'not dangerous' by the doctors, and released with medication. He's now an accomplished author. When asked what he'd do if someone fought his grandfather, or kicked his dog, he replied: "I'd break all their fingers." "But you wouldn't go any further than that?" "No."
Very reassuring indeed, don't you think? Perhaps the line between a violent personality and insanity is a thin one. But I'll say this: I refuse to be one of these nutters' victims! I will be the one who gets to express remorse, and is treated to a 6 year prison sentence. They will be the one that ends up dead on the streets.

 

I agree. Further, I believe the negative reputation thing is pointless. I would much rather disagree in an open forum, instead of "dinging" someone with whom I don't agree. But the postive rep thing is fun. It's nice to give someone a positive lift for a good point or post.

 

Sometimes negative reputation is the easier thing for everyone rather than replying to a post sparking a heated argument.

 

Don't take this the wrong way DoTW but I never pictured you as a romantic. You learn something new every day.

 

No offense taken. You're not wrong, though, romanticism isn't my strong point but this perticular gal brought out that side of me... well-buried as it is.

I was too busy being antisocial back in the days to speak to anyone. I doubt you're the social butterfly type as well, so the most plausible scenario likely would be a silent respect.

Who?

 

The two brothers from Orson Scott Card's "Ender Wiggin" cycle. Ender (Andrew, got his nickname from his sister's childhood lisp) is capable of brutal acts of vicious violence and is recruited by the government to channel his capabilities in combat to defend humanity. His potential for violence is balanced by his ability to empathize with his opponent. His older brother Peter had similar capabilities for violence but had a liking for the violence and a bit of a sadistic streak.

DoTW, I often wanted to do something similar to what you described, particularily to one particular piece of ka ka who made my life miserable from age 6 on. But my desire to not piss off my parents overroad my violent urges.

 

Coin, just from what I've seen of your posts, I think the comment about 'not knowing anything about mental disorders' probably referred more to categorization/treatment. From the TBS patient you described (not sure what TBS is, but I'm guessing some kind of psych facility), I can guess 2-3 kinds of disorders the patient may have. One would result in them never being declared 'safe', as there is no known treatment of any kind for Antisocial Personality Disorder, the other two would just require therapy (with two very different goals and methods), but there's no such thing as actually being 'safe' for either. Just comparatively.

Your comment in question that the mentally ill involved in violent crimes should just be 'destroyed, just like a rabid, feral animal', is not only horribly offensive to anyone who cares for someone seriously unstable (such as many psychotics), it is also basically a claim to legalized murder. So someone suffering from PTSD, a psychotic break, or schizophrenia beat someone else in a fit of panic and fear they couldn't control. There are treatments available, and in extreme cases they can live in living facilities where they are carefully monitored, but rather than try to improve their lives, you want to kill them. That puts psychiatric treatment back about 200 years. Do you want to keep them in cages and hang them in the public square as well? How about someone suffering from something more mundane, like extreme depression, who is just driven to a more extreme reaction (murder in response to a mugging, instead of talking to police)? Do you want to execute them as well?

 

NOG, I hear what you are saying, but iof someone hurt an innicent member of my family I would tend to agree with coin and not want to hear their excuses. That was one of the things that aggravated me in high school and still aggravates me as a teacher -- when a kid does something bad or violent we no longer have it as our priority to make sure that it never frigging well happens again, but rather to come up with excuses (valid or not, often invalid and pathetic) for the child.

I was often a victim at younger ages of a particular group of bullies and the authorities just made lame excuses for them instead of actually teaching them that their behaviour was wrong. All that pathetic mollycoddling didn't end up helping these pieces of filth -- the one (who, BTW, had no real mental or emotional disorders, he was just an ass****) who was the worst was arrested years later for carrying the largest amount of cocaine recorded up until that time in a bust in Alberta, not to mention carrying a concealed pistol. Perhaps if people had held the little bastard responsible for his actions when he was a child instead of making useless excuses for him he would have grown up into a decent human being instead of the useless drag on society he is today.

 

I take it you never read the book Ender's Game. I highly recommend it.

 

Nog, bullies have been around a long time. I know some of you don't like to hear about the 'good Ola days' way back 50 or sixty years ago but other than the wonderful, exciting, marvelous and sometimes horrible technological advances I find the major difference between then and now is more openness, more recognition of things, more willingness to discuss and deal with problems now then back pre 1960's.

Children were sexually and otherwise abused and it was mostly hushed up. As to gang rape, well the reaction would be based on who the girl was. A common attitude then was that if a girl was raped she had probably asked for it. No, I don't think that the community I lived in would have done anything. Probably would have been hushed up. Most things were.

I think my class stood out because for some reason by the time we finished 8th grade we had managed to get rid of those who were not interested in learning. Students were held back then if they couldn't pass the classes and a lot dropped out of school when they reached 16. Please note that my class also had a reputation for misbehaving. If we didn't like a teacher we found ways to make life miserable for him or her. After graduating from high school we went on to turn the world upside down. I think a lot of young people all over the USA just got tired of the hypocrisy around them. Dope was also becoming more common. My whole generation was constantly being written up as being delinquent. TV began to cut down barriers between different cultures.

 

Alright, well I saw this post and of course, I'm now going to jump all over it. I'm still in high school, so, my memories are both vivid and clouded at once.

I go to a really small school; my graduating class is probably about mid thirties to high forties, and that includes all of the "mature" students we seem to get a lot of in Northern Ontario. Cliques are a big part of any North American high school I would assume, and here its no different. You've got your basic weirdos, hockey jocks, popular girls, sluts, stoners, preps, nerds, burnouts, smart kids etc etc etc the list goes on and on. Lots of times I find at my school that these groups overlap just because of the population (or lack there of). The kids I go to high school with are all the kids I went to playgroup, daycare, and catholic school with. Almost everyone has a connection to another "group" just through past history.

As for me, I'm not sure where I fit in, its kind of a weird question. In my early years I got picked on a little. That was mostly because I was new to the school (coming from Catholic seperate school... all the public school kids were mean to me). I actually remember one time in grade nine gym I tried to make myself sick just so I didn't have to deal with those boys... I honestly think thats one of the funniest things ever now, because those same kids are the ones I party with, and the same ones I deal with everyday. Since then I've gotten more atheletic and gotten a lot more friends; talk about climbing the social latter haha. I think I'm considered one of the "smart kids" (hell, maybe even one of the weird kids lets be honest) but the majority of my friends are the "popular girls". I don't get picked on or bugged because people know who I am, I'm not mean or rude to people, but I have choice words when people P*** me off.

I think one of the main things at my school that helps quash senior student harrassment is our Outer's program. Its a thing we have only at my school where teachers pick groups of seven out of people that normally do not spend time together, and throw them out in the bush for hard manual labour. The program spans the Fall, and Winter seasons with navigation, survival skills and of course portaging 250lbs canoes. The culmination of this is a 12 Spring trip when we go into Quetico Park and travel around with these canoes, doing hard camping with your "brigade" of five/six/seven. Overall its a good experience and really helps you to get over yourself and social stigmas...ANYWAYS ...... OH YEAH, 3 of those 12 days they put you out on a rock by yourself with no human contact in the middle of a provincial park (it was awsome to get away from everyone else for those three days let me tell you)... Sorry that was getting a little

So, getting back on topic...I saw one of the members here write that he sometimes recieved comments for being of a different background (sorry I can't remember who you are should you be reading this). Now, my community is made up of mostly caucasian people with few ethnic families. There is one Vietnamese student at our school who often gets comments on his background. His nicknames are based off of this, and I think that he is really put down by such comments. There is however, little he can do about it or else he will be labelled "uncool". Its really sad, but I hope that one day my peers can look back at it and realize what total douches they've been.

I've really enjoyed high school, but I can't wait to go to university since this is my last year. I've been accepted to all of my programs and am fondly looking forward to people who see the world as bigger than my hometown of 2000 people (one day I was asked by a girl my age who the PM was... she didn't know that, but she could tell you who had won Canadian Idol every year). And that is my little high school rant.

 

I'm back to 2 rep now - me happy! Thanks guys!

Your high school sounds like a well run place, and that team program does appear very helpful. Too bad about that kid being the brunt of racism.

Do/tW seems like a strange character. On the one hand extremely violent, but on the other, engages in nerdy pursuits like posting on forums. So there's the dangerous personality, but without the stereotypical moron aspect of it. Very strange indeed.

You're using a slippery slope argument here: I'm only talking about those who are a high risk factor, and only about 'destroying' them if there is no hope for improvement of their condition. I'm not talking about nazi practices of gassing all of the handicapped, but rather allowing the psychiatrists to diagnose patients as incurable, with lethal consequences. It's a morally gray line that the courts are hesitant to cross. Nowadays, with the great demand for detention facilities, psyciatists are feeling the pressure, and release people way too prematurely. Some people who are released on the streets still exhibit bouts of extreme irrationality and violence. Doctors may also be overly optimistic, and get fooled by the performances of some mental patients, leading the incurable to be categorized as curable, or even cured. Sane people can get the death penalty in the States too, so there should be a possibility for the insane to get the same punishment. Sorry to sound smug, but I want 'equal rights' (and duties and punishment) for the insane.

LKD hit the nail on the head here - it's bad enough that we tolerate repetitive misbehaviour by youths, but if we treat mental illness as an excuse for misbehaviour (of the worst kind) by adults, then it allows for a great many moral injustices. Some people are just an unchangeable disruptive influence on society, and it just sounds preposterous that taxpayers should be spending money on treating them, even when it will never help or improve them.

 

By your reasoning we should just get rid of everyone who is a drain on society. I actually like how practical that would be but first, who would decide who is a drain and secondly didn't we have a few societies that tried this and they did not work out very well did they?

 

I discussed that slippery-slope argument in my last post. And I beat you to the nazi comparison as well. 'Drain on society' and 'dangerous' aren't the same. By your reasoning, even babies should be destroyed, because their births drain society in time, effort and resources. I'm only talking about murderous madmen, and getting rid of them before they take others down with them. Naturally I'm not in any position to decide who is dangerous and who isn't, all I'm saying is we should incorporate it into the law, as the definitive cure for the uncureable.

But this off-topic side subject shouldn't take over from the main issue: Bullying. Still, it's not entirely unrelated, because I did mention an option to solve NOG's original conundrum: To improve the high school experience, we should put juvenile delinquents and mental patients on trial as responsible adults, especially for the most grave of injustices. Courts are already trying some juveniles as adults, and I think this should be made automatic for murder.

 

Well, at my school none of the rave music kids were into DnD, except me, and none of the DnD kids were into rave music, except for me. It was that if you liked DnD you were a metalhead or something like that, and if you liked rave music you were into drugs and sex and raves. The two groups never saw eye to eye, but I was socially diverse enough to fit in with both groups, but not as indepth as I would have liked to have been. Mostly I just forged my own path, did what I liked, even when it was unpopular, like rave music was at school before I came along and everyone was going through their Nirvana stage. Luckily I managed to convince some people that trippy music is better for smoking pot to than angry music, or heaven forbid, pop music...ugh...

 

Coin, what I mean is that many mental conditions are completely 'cured' and the patient is truely as safe as a normal person, as long as the patient continues to take medication. The cause is a chemical imbalance or physical disfunction in the brain, and only medication can treat it. You could put them through 100 years of psychotherapy without any change, but give them one or two pills every so often, and they're 'cured'. Do you kill these people, since you can't really fix them, but only treat them, or do you let them out and hope they stay on their meds (which most do in most cases)? Today, we have facilities where they are watched at home (to make sure they take their meds), but are then allowed to live a normal life outside work, friends, etc. There are other places where they're given a prescription and the authorities just take their words for it. Some of these drugs have very bad side-effects, and the patients stop taking them because they either think they're cured and/or they think the cure is worse than the disease (for them). I imagine that's what you are most often talking about with your complaints. A little more money in follow-up and that can be cut back almost entirely.

All in all, though, people using emotional excuses for crimes is bull, and the only time it should be allowed is when they have a liscenced forensic psychologist to testify that this person is legally insane, and then they go into a psych ward. I've actually heard that in the UK, they are judged guilty, but insane, so they go to the mental institution until they are judged 'cured' and then they serve the prison sentance. I'm not sure about this myself, but I think it's better than what we have now in the US.

Taza:

Thank you, I think. I'm wondering what exacly you mean by 'someone of your particular faith'. I would point out that my father, a devout christian, is also a liscenced clinical and forensic psychologist. I've always been interested in how things work, and that extends to the mind as much as to mechanical systems. I learned a lot from him, and now more from my wife (counseling student). The mind is a facinating thing, and a child's mind is most facinating of all (wonderfully fluid). School can be a wonderful growing experience, or it can permanently warp and scar a child.

 

This is a difficult dilemma. There's always going to be a lurking danger, behind a thin layer of medication. But many patients are likely to keep taking medication for the rest of their lives. It's up to the doctors to judge the risk a patient poses to society. Right now, all doctors can do, is keep high-risk cases locked up with plenty of medication. Besides the fact that they cost taxpayers money, there's still a risk of them escaping. Whay I'm saying, is that psychiatrists should get more options.
Doctors always want to preserve life, and don't want to make mistakes that will cost lives. They will not destroy psychotic patients en masse, but rather try to treat them as much as they can. But they won't send high-risk patients onto the streets with medication, because if someone dies, they are accountable. With this new option, doctors can have the option of destroying a patient, before the likely event of a relapse. It will probably hardly ever be used, but when it is, it will have been necessary.

 

I guess high school was pretty normal for me. I certainly wasn't considered a popular person, but I had a decent number of friends, and usually had a girlfriend. I even remained friends with some of those people long after we left high school.

That having been said, I have never gone to a high school reunion, and I do not play to do so in the future. Presumably we at least had a 10 year reunion, and possibly a 15 year one. Most of the poeple I would want to see and talk to, I have remained friends with, and the people I don't talk to anymore, it's usually because neither of us have made an effort to stay in touch.

 

My first experience with highschool bullies came in the first week of highschool. I was using a restroom between classes and four upperclassmen walked in (3 lackeys following the lead of a smallish punk leader). They blocked the door and asked each student leaving the bathroom if he was a freshman. (the implication was they would rough up any freshman they caught.) As I was leaving, the punk leader asked if I was a freshman and I replied: 'Do I look like a f@cking freshman?'. He gave me a pass and said: 'Get the f@ck outta here.' What I found interesting at the time is that I don't believe that he bought my act, I've always been a unconvincing liar. I believe that I was not what he was looking for. Firstly I was fairly large, about 5'10'' and 165 pounds at 14. Secondly, and more importantly, I was willing.

I made only one friend in highschool, he is my best friend now. I had other friends but those friendships were established before highschool and those friends all found cliques to belong to once they made it to highschool while I did not belong to a clique or desire to find a clique to belong to. I hung out with my friends while never associating with any particular group.

I was very indifferent to the whole silly social scene of highschool, I was busy with my own problems. One thing I learned was that indifference can be very antagonistic. I experienced a fair amount of verbal harrassment during the earlier years of highschool. I cared very little for mouthy peers but honestly wasn't overly distressed with verbal abuse and made more than a reasonable effort to avoid physical confrontation, much prefering to just be left alone. By the end of my junior year I weighed as much as 200 lbs. and had proven to be very willing to mind my own business and also had proven to not be an easy target for physical abuse. Most of my junior year and all of my senior year were very peaceful.

 

My pillbox full of antipsychotics says you don't know what psychosis is. I think you're talking about psychopathy, which is hard to notice without an in-depth psychiatric evaluation. Most psychopaths walk perfectly free, unnoticed by society.

Frankly, push me the right way and I'm dangerous. But here's the real kicker - everyone is. There's the set of buttons for everyone to push to make them into homicidal maniac. EVERY SINGLE HUMAN is that lurking danger. Just ask any mother.

And your talk about how doctors should kill their patient at their discretion shows one thing more than clearly.