More E-Rupp-tions!

Rupp's explanation is nonsense. My friends children (and now grandchildren) have oodles of self-esteem, having been raised in a libertarian way. Yet, they are the least-assholish people you could meet. Assholism is rooted in a selfish and authoritarian outlook, not a libertarian and altruistic one. And the worst ass holes you will ever find are right wingers. (This is one of the reasons I have stuck with the left all these years - the people are nicer. Yes, there are ass holes on the left, but they are much in the minority)

Right on Shannon!!

We have made bad manners entertaining and thereby lessened the seriousness of acting like an anal sphincter. The latest in TV which seems to be all the rage is part of the problem. Reality TV, Gerry Springer and those other guys along with the shows that build motorbikes and hot cars all elevate crabbing and swearing at others in public to new heights. I have yet to atch one of these longer that the 30 seconds it takes to find out what they are. The kids these days pick up on it and behave accordingly. Even their cartoons reenforce the acceptability.

Good points, Skywalker,

Good points, Skywalker, though I'm more inclined to see reality t.v. as the messenger - i.e. reality t.v. is only holding up a mirror to what's already out there.

If I can read between the lines of your train of thought tho: isn't the problem then the democratization of taste and social norms? Isn't the downside of full democracy the wholesale "dumbing down" of culture and society? Are manners therefore a product of unexamined power dynamics and socio-economic hierarchies that have become unglued? Or are manners a remnant of religious proscriptions pertaining to neighbourliness, hospitality, and property (Golden Rule, Ten Commandments, and their analogues in other world cultures).

Respect goes a long way

I know through the years of coaching kids hockey that a huge part of my coaching philosophy boils down to the use of the ladies and gentlemen (Having coach mixed gender teams). My number one rule is that we will leave a positive impression wherever we go.

That means, shirt and tie on road trips, exemplary behaviour in hotels and restaurants, volunteering at either the seniors home or social agency downtown, and a general expectation that playing rep hockey is a privilege, not a right. I wanted to have players that showed respect for themselves and for others. I modelled that behaviour, I taught it, and I insisted on it. It boils my blood when I see seniors standing on a bus while some teenagers sits on their ass listening to an ipod acting like they don't notice.

I think we as a society place too much emphasis on teaching about rights and not enough about the responsibilities that go with rights.

I once had a player who thought it was his right to keep his hair long and basically in a state of disarray because he often wore a ballcap which covered the mess on his head. Seeing we were not allowed to wear ballcaps (Touques in cold weather of course) I told him he had to either cut his hair or keep it neat and tidy. I never had issue with long hair seeing I had the super mullet, but it better be neat looking. Of course his parents cornered me and said it was their sons right to keep his hair anyway he wanted. I said they were correct, but there was also a responsibility to the team. They persisted so I said once again their son did have the right to wear his hair anyway he wanted it to, but as the coach I had the right to decide who played and who didn't.

BY the next game he looked like Audie Murphy.

Nightbloom

You may be right in your analysis but I have never believed that a democracy should apply to people too young to have learned that a level of responsibility comes with it. The recognition of ones responsibility as a member of a civilized society should come before they are permitted to participate in a democracy at that level. I may be old fashioned but civility and good manners have no shelf life.

Parents and the Pendulum

Very relevant. I see this coming home to roost in many families now that the 'kids' are grown and finally forging their place in the outside world with disastrous results.

Behaviours that got results with Mom and Dad are suddenly outrageously unacceptable - a rude shock for little Johnny as well as for the parents who are left to wonder how it went so wrong.

I have lost friends over their inability to discipline their children in my home. Now I see marriages exploding all around me, in part because of the stress by a narcissistic personality within the family.

Parents intent on building self-esteem in young children, allowing them to make most of the family decisions and sparing them the N-word at all costs, run the risk of creating monsters. This trend will soon reverse itself, I expect, and not a moment too soon.

puppyg - i totally agree on

puppyg - i totally agree on narcissistic personalities in the family (sometimes it might be one of the parents, sometimes it might be one of the children), and I also totally agree on the whole thing about behaviour that worked on daddy-o but which won't fly in the real world (neither in the workplace, nor in dating or adult peer relationships, or any other situation that requires quid pro quo and mature interpersonal negotiation). I've encountered a few specimens with that problem!

NDN_Coach - good on you - it sounds like you handled that perfectly.

Then I'm to understand that

Then I'm to understand that if I'm annoyed by a cellphone ringer in a public place it's Paris Hiltons fault.

If someone doesn't give up a seat on a bus it's Paris Hiltons fault?

If somebody rides a bike on a sidewalk it's Paris Hiltons fault?

And I thought it was the fault of videogames and SUVs.

And the solution is to display extremely bad manners and get in everybodys face because if they're your "personal" pet-peeves they're not pet-peeves, they're clearly defined social ills?

There's just nobody there...

I think the problem originates in there being an empty space for some, where they should live – in the center of the universe. They are not there. They themselves don’t count themselves. When you meet a person encouraging you to make a shortcut, not quite legit, with the words, “who’ll ever know”, you know that person is essentially hollow.

It’s all about ‘getting by’, taking yours and run, never looking back. There is no village that knows you and your history. You can just move someplace else and screw some other people, and it may never catch up with you, for there are so many places and so many people.

I think this is the crux of the matter, the sense of lack of identity. We ourselves are our only constant companions, the one person we may screw and never walk away from, and if we don’t count to ourselves, then no holds are barred. This is the state of partial or complete psychopathy., well described by Dr. Robert Hare, Dr. Elliott Barker and others. It is believed to be on the increase.

In my grade nine class, there was one boy who ‘had it’: golden locks, big blue eyes, the face of a model, and stature to match an Olympic athlete, and he was far from stupid either. The others, both boys and girls, ranted about how this boy was unshakable in his belief that he was God’s gift to girls and the rest of mankind in general. I remember classmates addressing their rants to me, and my answer: yes, he is all that convinced of his own worth. He also happens to be the easiest person in class to get along with!

There you have it.

You are an asshole

What about people like assholes who use the word 'asshole' in magazine articles, or assholes like the assholes who publish the Tyee who allow assholes to use the word 'asshole' in their magazine?

What about all of the other assholes who read articles containing the word 'asshole' and who don't seem to notice or mind articles where assholes are mentioned?

What's with all of you assholes out there?

Rick (aka Asshole) in PG

Look at it structurally!

People here are treating the problem in a typical isolated fashion – and using it as a stick to beat their favorite hobby horse, which in this case seems to be the libertarian parenting that gives children a healthy self-esteem. The problem of ill manners has to be looked at structurally, as part of a whole general trend within society for the last 25-30 years. Greed, selfishness and narcissism are the dominant modes of being. Having things is more important than being a decent person. Lies, slander and bullying pervade the media and politics. Vacuous, self-centered "celebs" and psychopathic billionaires are deemed worthy of emulation. Culture is replaced with corporate crap. War, and militarism are glorified, and the SWAT team-mentality infects the police. Urban life, small town life has been replaced by alienating suburban sprawl/shopping mall non-culture. All of these aspects I describe help give rise to a culture of rudeness and is related to the cultural counter-revolution which began in the 1980's with the rise of Thatcher and Reagan and their emulators. Yet, the right-wingers would rather blame liberal parenting. Talk about assholes!

Skywalker said "I may be old

Skywalker said "I may be old fashioned but civility and good manners have no shelf life".
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment except I don't think you are the least bit old fashioned. My partner and I raised three children from this generation (ages 32 26 & 24) and they all grew into fine adults. I do not think it is entirely impossible to do this in todays society however, I believe the responsibility rests fully on the shoulders of parents. A few things we drilled into our children were; always say please and thank you, treat everyone as you would have them treat you and above all else, be honest and be accountable for your own actions and mistakes. These are the virtues we were taught and if we do not instill them in our kids then we cannot blame them for being assholes,(or as our youngest used to say,"a word holes):o)

P.S.

We are constantly coming across individuals who have had some interaction with our kids and they invariably tell us what wonderful and polite people they are. To me,as a parent, there is no nicer feeling than being told this about our kids.

Could you at least

limit your claim to 'some people here'? I believe I made the opposite claim, that uncivil behaviour is due not only to absence of self-esteem, but part or all of the self per se. I do not care at this point, how it comes about, as this has been dealt with in other threads.

And, could you elaborate on what you mean by a 'libertarian upbringing'? I would be ever so grateful.

another angle

Parent may bring up their kids any way they want, as far as I am concerned; but they should realize that there is a big world out there, and the kids should be prepared to deal with that fact!
Last week I was in my front-garden when approached by two small kids; the girl asked to use my phone saying they were lost.
This happens to be a quiet residential street so they were in no danger.
My reaction was to help them, yet at the same time I realized that since I only have a landline I would have to invite them inside.
Alarmbells rang in my head!
I was alone and unwilling to risk any possibility of a wrong impression of an old man taking advantage of young kids.
So, I said NO and pointed to houses where I knew more than one person resided.
To my surprise the little girl started to cry, big time!
All I can guess is that she had no idea what the word “no” means?
Perhaps this was also the first time that crying did not work for her, to get her will?
It is a sorry state when a man has to refuse help, because of the way things may appear; but I feel it behooves parents to prepare their kids for the fact that the world does not revolve around them, no matter how charming, cute, pitiful of upset they may appear.

self-esteem movement is crap

"I've long suspected the self-esteem problem was a bit of a misnomer." Our schools have embraced the 'self-esteem' movement for more than thirty years--we imported it from the US, where it has been going on even longer. Everybody gets a ribbon regardless of performance. What absolute nonsense and shame on the BC public education system for being part of such a travesty. Self-esteem comes from accomplishment, nothing else. Additionally, we have a public school system that, in my experience, has been all too willing to avoid dealing with abusive, disruptive, disrespectful and dangerous behavior--and I'm not entirely blaming the teachers--been there, done that--I'm talking about administrators who are either too lazy or too indifferent to take action. And what is the result--an increasingly uncivil society--after all, all these louts are the products of the school system.

What a bunch of silliness..

from Shannon Rupp! If bikes on the sidewalk are her bête noire then she must have an exceptionally carefree life - good for her! So she whines about bad manners and pushes her own ridiculous theory about the cause - rubbish. I have been riding a bicycle on and off in Vancouver for 50 years, and (sorry Shannon) I do ride on the sidewalk sometimes. Bike paths and bike routes are fine, wherever they happen to be, but if the choice is to ride on the edge of the road with traffic roaring by, I'm on the sidewalk every time - yes it's slow (I rarely exceed walking speed) but I would rather risk the wrath of the Shannon Rupps of the world than get creamed by an inattentive (but otherwise polite?) dork in a Mercedes.

Cart before horse

“Self-esteem comes from accomplishment, nothing else.”

I beg to differ. This is a common mistake, due to the fact that high self-esteem will often lead to action that results in accomplishment, but it is rather the other way around.

Self-esteem comes from having internalised the understanding, that the one person in the world, whom you must first be able to rely on is you. The one person in the world whom you should first show respect is you. The one person in the world whom you must above all give service to is you. The belief we need to have is that we are capable of these feats, as well as of translating them into giving these gifts to others, when we have practised them for ourselves.

Self-esteem is not something we are born without and must learn. We are born with a healthy potential for self-esteem, which we will act in accordance with as a matter of course, once we start coming to grips with the reality around us. Those who lack it later have been robbed of their potential. Not by stern upbringing. Not necessarily by outright abuse. Sometimes just by consistent discounting and by never being allowed to run as fast as they could. We need to pit ourselves against odds in order to feel alive. We need the roller-coaster of victory and defeat, success and failure. We become crippled equally by never being allowed risk and failure, as by never experiencing success.

Many caregivers of young children are scared to the point of obsession, of allowing children to run risks. They rush to alleviate every hurt, wipe every tear, and cushion every bit of hardship. Once my youngest son as a very new scout went winter-camping with the troop in a mountainous park area. I mentioned to a few colleagues, some with and some without children themselves, that the leaders had decided to call it quits, when the temperature on the second day dropped to
–32 degrees Celsius. I was suddenly in the midst of an angry mob, accusing me of ‘endangering my child needlessly’ by sending him on the trip in the first place. I repeated till I was blue in the face, that my kid had come home walking so tall he almost touched the ceiling, having managed to face the elements and win. No matter. I was clearly a delinquent parent. My children’s father and I have listened to the most abject nonsense over the years about all the things we ought not to let our children do. In order to fulfil these dictums, we would have had to confine them to a padded cell, with barred and blinded windows, each sporting a ball and chain. The list includes gnawing apples (teeth could break), chopping wood ‘in the dark’ (actually at dusk), etc., etc.

So, I think it is not lack of actual accomplishment that takes down our self-esteem, but rather the presumption that we had better not try anything, for we could get hurt. We need those closest to us to believe in us, not discount us.

Interesting you pick on cyclists

As an occasional rider on sidewalks, I have to make the point that the integrity of your entire article falls apart when you express your own perception of freedom to "yank someone off their aluminum steed".

Depending on where you are, it is often safer for said cyclist to go to the sidewalk than stay on the road with 'steel steeds of death', or to get up a one way road where the sidewalk is 5 meters wide.

Most cyclists in Vancouver are on 'cruisers' anyway and aren't going like a motorcar. I know i moderate my speed and (having breaks on my 'steed') and am in awareness mode when I need to get onto the pedestrial tarmac.

Perhaps it's just the pedestrian being oblivious and selfishly not paying attention to the person behind them when they decide to walk across the street?

Perhaps pedestrians are the worst assholes in this society because they don't pay attention to ANYONE around them. hmmm.

I feel the same about skateboarders, while of course skateboards typically have no breaks you can hear them half a block away.

Common courtesy all around is whats lacking, maybe the humans in Vancouver have become way too specialized and hence way too self-involved to really care about the general overall picture.

This could be a lesson to everyone to lighten up and stop feeding the attention trolls.

go to the midwest

alright,
1. understanding violence, and non-violent communication might add to our ability to be more considerate - you can see Marshall Rosenberg talking about this topic here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ-fUVM4Dos
Not as easy as he makes it sound, in my experience.

2. Thanks Rick in PG. I appreciate your calling a spade a spade.

3. I've been spending a lot of time in the US. I have friends from the midwest - Chicago IL, Flint MI, small towns in Arkansas and Kansas. Their language is crude, offensive, direct, but based on their love, i never doubt their loyalty as friends and their violent language towards me is more than outweighed by the friendly language they also use. In this safe environment we can joke and vent without degrading our connection. I've been thinking that if this style of communication were expanded, it might allow us to integrate the assholeness we still carry, without shame, into a vibrant, supportive, friendly and humour-filled future.

I wanted to comment on Steve

I wanted to comment on Steve Burgess' review of "Burn After Reading", which I just saw last night, but the comments section is now closed (and no one left a comment!). Is there a guideline, or just a set timeframe for closing threads? Sometimes it seems to happen just when a discussion is warming up (and sometimes not).

Just wanted to say that it was a good review, and that it characterized the film accurately (i.e. the film makes more sense now that I've returned to re-read the review). I disagree slightly on Pitt's performance - I found he 'winked' at the audience throughout his scenes, as if to reassure them "I'm just pretending, this isn't really me." But it was still funny to watch him ham it up (although from the previews I thought he was was sending up a gay stereotype, but it turns out he was the the only asexual character in a movie fraught with liaisons and trysts. Too risky perhaps, or did they just want to focus on the 'doofuss' aspect without mixing messages?).

Fixed period

Five days - and less for the snippet stories on the Hook. The editors posted that information some time ago - although it was in a comment as I recall...

BTW, hope you didn't miss George Saunders in the current New Yorker...I think it's online.

Kinda funny, ends with this:

In summary: Because my candidate, unlike your winking/blinking Vice-Presidential candidate, who, though, yes, he did run as the running mate when the one asking him to run did ask him to run, which that I admire, one thing he did not do, with his bare hands or otherwise, is, did he ever kill a moose? No, but ours did. And I would. Please bring a moose to me, over by me, and down that moose will go, and, if I had a kid, I would take a picture of me showing my kid that dead moose, going, like, Uh, sweetie, no, he is not resting, he is dead, due to I shot him, and now I am going to eat him, and so are you, oh yes you are, which is responsible, as God put this moose here for us to shoot and eat and take a photo of, although I did not, at that time, know why God did, but in years to come, God’s will was revealed, which is: Hey, that is a cool photo for hunters about to vote to see, plus what an honor for that moose, to be on the Internet.

How does the moose feel about it? Who knows? Probably not great. But do you know what the difference is between a dead moose with lipstick on and a dead moose without lipstick?

Lipstick.

Think about it.

Moose are, truth be told, Élites. They are big and fast and sort of rule the forest. Sarah took that one down a notch. Who’s Élite now, Bullwinkle?

Not Sarah.

She’s just Regular as heck

Shannon's threads

I would like to propose that all future Shannon Rupp discussion threads be given over to discussions of my pieces instead. I think it works.

What's the deal with the

What's the deal with the frequent "kids these days" sentiment on The Tyee? How obvious to lambast young people for poor manners, eyes foggy with nostalgia for an imagined prim and polite past.

The problem here is a lack of empathy, and Rupp discovers none of such in her exposition on poor manners here. Yes, let's embarrass people in public places if they don't behave how we would like.

Could you perhaps politely remind people to give up their seats on the bus? We've all zoned out on the bus before -- it's an inevitable effect of crowded transit, long trips, and many grim faces.

A gentle reminder and a dose of kindness will go much further than your rude awakening.

Rudeness

I doubt there is a single reason for the decline of civility, but some key points are missing.
Use WWII as a point of reference and some facts fall into place, imo.
Babies born after WWII were blessed, fortunate beyond any previous measure and this was their “God given right“.
These babies had babies, with the same rights, but things were changing. Boomers were the first generation to have to teach their children how to tell adults “NO” and rudely was OK, if it was necessary - generation X.
I brought my children up this way and it broke their grandfather’s heart. Maybe I should have told him that if not for this hard line and our good dog, my daughter would have been another kind of statistic.
This is also the time abortion was approved, a polite form of birth control… The self esteem movement followed, hardly a coincidence.
Gwest brings up the next critical point-about our leaders!
So now, generation x is having children and these children must be further protected-from society itself! Times have changed.
Which brings up my final point concerning politeness: “don’t rock the boat” or “if you haven’t got anything good to say, don‘t” or “contribute to the solution or you‘re part of the problem“…what a convenient and enabling crock that is sometimes, for perpetrators.
Perhaps some rudeness is overdue, considering the shape of our world?

(And-what’s with this quest for the “new black”? I don’t get it and am amused no one has objected yet!)

Jammer

Buy a cell phone jammer.

It shuts down all cell phone communications in a 15 meter radius. Fun and games to see the self-important, puzzled and shaking their cell phones and hitting redial again and again.

Or move to New Denver.

please elaborate

"Boomers were the first generation to have to teach their children how to tell adults “NO” and rudely was OK, if it was necessary - generation X."

The problem, as I see it, is that this task was laid on the children. I believe it is the job of parents to stand between their children and people who only understand rude language. Or am I not seeing what you mean? I get a somewhat fragmented impression of what you are trying to say, such as: what kind of statistic would your daughter have been? You cannot, in a discussion, throw that kind of dramatic stuff in and try to beat the rest of us over the head with it until you explain yourself better.

And, for the record, I was born after WWII and I can assure you that no goodie was ever presented to me as my God-given right, neither by my parents nor my government. Broad generalizations seldom work as an argument for anything.

Yes, there is a single reason for the decline of civility. We have started to look at one antoher as just another commodity, not as sacred beings.

Desmond Morris said it: Mankind may just possibly have chance, if it can learn to set quality before quantity. And if you aren't working towards that goal, you ARE part of the problem.

I guess 'new black' refers to the elegant suit worn for going out. It is poor jargon in not being easy to understand, but I didn't think it was an important point compared to the gravity of the discussion as a whole. Maybe that is the reason nobody has objected - semantics isn't that important, yes?

Does smashing someone's cellphone strike a blow for civility?

Smash my phone and see what happens. (hint, i'll kick you in the groin)