FWIW, transcript here. tl;dr: “No, you can’t have lunchbox.”
This is supposed to have some kind of meaning?
I recognize all the words, but in that order it’s pretty meaningless.
Yes.
Hey, I participated in that thread!
…and I still don’t understand what you’re trying to convey. That Prager U has a mean scowl?
Could this possibly be more condescending?
Full of broad generalizations and cherry-picked statistics.
Ridiculous propaganda.
I skimmed the transcript. It amounts to a rant in which some old dude says the world is falling apart because kids these days are spoiled and get everything they want. The “Vitamin N” he prescribed to solving the world’s problems is to tell people “no,” whenever they want something. I’m sure you have an uncle who won’t shut about this sort of thing. It’s a waste of time. If the OP thinks thees anything here worth discussing, E should tell us.
Ah. (And, thanks for bringing the actual content into the thread.)
It’s always nice to hear the “haves” pretending that they got everywhere entirely on their own bootstraps. The world would probably have been a better place if most of those types had been given a dose of Vitamin N at a critical point and thus were currently living in the gutter.
Prager U is basically where ultraconservative delusions mate with unscientific woo and have little horror babies. It’s like if Alex Jones put on a tweed jacket and mortarboard and started speaking coherently - it would appear more intellectual on the surface but the substance would remain much the same nonsense.
I pitted this guy a few years ago. Basically, he thinks children are born bad, and badness has to be conditioned out of them. He’s said that dogs are better than children, because dogs come into the world wanting to please humans, while children come into the world wanting to be pleased by adults. So children require more harsh conditioning than dogs. Every aspect of child behavior has to be judged, and if it’s not up to standard, punish punish punish. For example, if a child doesn’t stay right by hir mother’s side at the grocery store, bedtime is right after supper for the next three weeks. (And mom should twist the knife by stating that it’s a benefit for her, because “I get to enjoy three weeks of child-free evenings!”)
**And there’s never any advice on how to guide a child towards “correct” behavior. ** I wonder, with people who follow his precepts, if they ever communicate to the child what they want him to do, or if they just keep handing down punishments, and if the kid can’t figure it out, that’s hir problem.
And I knew the day would come when he would disparage Mr. Rogers. See, ol’ Fred was too much of a friend to children, instead of emphasizing discipline and adult authority. Which is a crock, of course; Rogers constantly told children they should listen to adults. But he also listened to children, which gave them too much of a sense of self-importance.
Rosemond does **not ** like children just the way they are. He doesn’t approve of any communication between adults and children other than adults giving orders and children meekly complying. According to him, children should never converse with adults. It’s also the height of arrogant entitlement for a child to come to their parent with a problem. Children don’t have problems anyway; if they claim they do, they’re manufacturing drama because they enjoy it. And if they get excited and happy at a family gathering, they should be removed from the scene and forthwith grounded/sent to bed. I mean, think about it. The kid enjoys spending time with family, and that’s bad behavior that has to be shut down. Then, when he’s a sullen, withdrawn teenager, he’ll be punished for that, too.
There’s really not much difference between parenting Rosemond style and being a prison guard. Never let your defenses down, no fraternizing, no compromise or empathy. Otherwise, the parent will not be in complete control, and the kid/s will…stage a coup, I suppose. And people listen to this guy! He’s revered in some circles! I shudder to think of it.
Forgive the double post, but here’s an editorial from him that will curdle your blood. Sex-change operations are a misnomer: the accurate term is genital mutilation. Same-sex marriage is absurd, because fifty years ago, 100% of Americans would have thought it was. (I guess the percentage of the population who were homosexual were not true Americans?) And homosexuality is a choice with dire moral implications for the chooser. Anyone who thinks they were born in the wrong body, or even that they’re in the right body but are attracted to their own gender, is a delusional drama junkie. And judging people is right, because God says so.
I suppose I’m pleasantly surprised to discover that the word starting with the letter “N” that PragerU is throwing around isn’t the one I was afraid it was throwing around. I have such low expectations for that place.
To be fair, that video does demonstrate that there are circumstances in which saying “No” leads to the best outcomes. As in, “Should I watch that video?” (or indeed “Should I watch any YouTube video linked to in an OP with no indication what the content is?”).
I get my best tips from Wossamotta U.