Lurker > joe40001

David1988 posted...

These things dont function like a strict set of rules you would find in a boardgame lets say, they are more like general guidelines/benchmarks/archetypes of what a lot of people can relate to and how we can easily talk about/share our experiences with others. People understand not everyone goes through typical experiences a lot of people go through, for instance in the West it would be surprising if someone is still a virgin by around age 25, whereas it may not be as surprising in more sexually conservative parts of the world, but its not like we don't understand there cant be 25 year old virgins here in the west just because its rare. In short if you're looking for a kind of algorithmic outputs to your questions in a perfectly precise and scientific way, you won't find it, overwhelming majority of humans don't process their experiences or talk about things in such a manner.

I think I understand it more:

The rites of passage to age map isn't prescriptive. It isn't the case that if you were to say... have your first kiss or move out on your own and you were to do those things 1-2 standard deviations from the mean age at which those or any other life event happens, that you are "bad" in some way. But rather you are just abnormal from a statistical point of view.

However, because media tries to express reality (and our aspirations), characters will often be written in such a way that they are very close to average, or skewing in a certain direction the creators would assume is preferable.

For example, they might make a movie about a guy losing his virginity, and they might make it take place close to the mean age that happens. Or even have it take place earlier under the assumption that they think most guys would prefer to lose their virginity earlier rather than later.

This representation of the perceived mean along (along with the assumed aspirational nudging) creates a normative force such that most media reflects a consistent time when "losing virginity happens".

This convention is born from desired relatability, repeated enough can seem to become a "rule". No longer is it "we picked an age that we think people would want the main male character to lose his virginity" and instead it becomes the male viewers thinking that what they see repeated is the age they SHOULD lose their virginity.

When in fact the whole thing was a product of pandering and there is nothing prescriptive or of a value judgement about that rule.

So the "rules" are just an average of what the media thinks we want to see as informed by statistical averages. And a coming of age movie is just somebody acting out some version of those rule fulfillments. Even though, from a value perspective there is intrinsically nothing better or worse about them or their character had they experienced those "rites of passage" at completely different times or not at all.

There is no reason you SHOULD have your first kiss, first job, or first heartbreak at ages X, Y, and Z as reflected by the cultural normative tropes, but sometimes you might feel you should because you see them repeated often as a convention.

But this whole thing is just the human desire to fit in, it's like if tons and tons of movies had a trope of people learning to juggle on their 15th birthday. Some 25 year old could have the same "I missed my chance" sinking feeling in their gut that people have in the real world about the "rites of passage" we see in media.

But obviously it's absurd for that 25 year old to feel shitty about not having learned to juggle yet, and similarly it is absurd for somebody to feel bad about "not yet fulfilled" some "rite of passage".

Ok, cool. I'm glad I was able to think this over and bounce ideas off you all and get feedback this was really helpful.

I too carry around some of these nagging hints of bad feelings about these "rules" but I've never really interrogated the whole thing. And now that I understand that they are consequences of our desire to fit in and not tied to tangible merit I don't feel as bad. Cool. :)

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I guess I do see my mistake, rites SHOULD happen at certain times IF you want to be 'normal'

"Normal" seems to be supposing something like (correct me if I'm wrong) "having mostly fulfilled the rites of passage list at the approximately correctly mapped age".

But that dang map. Where do so many people get it from? I get the impression it's not any sort of concrete thing, but something some people just have as a shared collective knowledge. Is this right? Or is there any sort of reference to it? Like, how did you know you "failed your coming of the age of careers"?

I think if you can answer how you knew that it would really really help me understand.

Punished_Blinx posted...

I guess;

* Going to new school/college or leaving school/college
* Going to a party with no adults
* School dances
* Being left alone with no adult supervision
* Drinking alcohol/doing drugs for the first time
* Having a crush
* Getting a boyfriend/girlfriend or falling in love
* Dealing with school popularity dynamics
* First job
* Learning to drive
* Seeing life in a more realistic way
* Parting from friends and/or family
* Moving out
* Puberty
That's not a definitive list but are some examples. Basically that period of life when you gradually get more responsibilities, take relationships with others more seriously and are on the precipice of becoming an independent adult. But also a time when things seem like they're the biggest deal in the world when in the long term they are not.

Thank you for making this list.

So yeah, I guess my issue is that you refer to this in a pretty normative way, like "these things more or less happen to everybody at the exact same time" and I don't think that's true.

I'm not faulting you, I've seen this before from many other people, where they act like life is more or less an amusement park ride that has different stops at different ages and they all have set events that you experience. And this always confuses me because life doesn't work like that. IMO

Two people even in similar cultures are origins are going to have a different set of experiences, in different orders, over a completely different set of ages I think.

The premise these things seem to be built upon is what I want to interrogate. What is this "age -> life experience/rite of passage" map many people seem to have? Where do they get it from? Who or what tells them these rules?

Punished_Blinx posted...

There are no specific ones really. It's basically anything that involves a kid or teenager having to grow up for something or for some reason. It could be having a crush, getting a girlfriend/boyfriend, being near the end of high school, hitting a new responsibility due to their age etc.

In your usage here and later, can you define, (very clearly) what you specifically mean when you use the phrase "growing up"?

Because they're adults. Coming of age movies are about growing up and maturing.

What's the cutoff for when a love story isn't a coming of age story? Is it an age? Or something else.

In Disney movies like Aladdin people are pretty young and fall in love but those aren't called "coming of age" stories generally.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I think you missed the part where I said the formative period is when these events start happening for a person. So you can, actually, come of age at any age.

Realistically you might want to look at it as a marketing/critical concept for "movie about youth that isn't necessarily for youth".

But the broader concept of bildungsroman is closer to "the start of the age (era) of romance", for example. But that requires some flexibility.

Failure to launch is just not going through rites. I failed my coming of the age of careers for example

All of your responses seem to be built on this foundation of having a very clear sense of what these rights of passage are but I don't understand from where you get them.

How did you know you "failed your coming of the age of careers"? What was the rule, how did you know it, and how did you know you had failed it?

Also can you clarify, are you using the term "youth" to mean "the state of not being alive many years", or "the state of not yet experiencing rights of passage"?

Can just list the "coming of age" "rights of passage" directly?

All I have:
5-ish = Going to school for the first time??
18-ish = Going to prom?
??ish = Falling in love? (for the first time???)
12-13 = Whatever the hell is happening in "stand by me" that makes it a "coming of age" movie

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Well, the rites of passage are usually determined by the myths of the group. So the stuff you see in movies gets absorbed as the stuff that is supposed to happen. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy where someone sees a story, wants to know what it's like, experiences the thing they saw, it's everything they want (or don't want), then they tell the story again in a different way.

The reason the rites are ambiguous is because it depends on the place and time. Going to prom is seen as a rite of passage, for example, because it is often your first major participation in the world of formal events.

The formative period is, usually, the period before the rites of passage start becoming regular life events.

Obviously this doesn't apply to those with failure to launch from an early age, but they could easily have their own coming of age .stories.

See, I think you are kinda pointing to the thing that is the source of my confusion

Firstly: They seem to imply culturally agreed upon rights of passage, but people often aren't clear about what they are, this is confusing to me. So far "prom, falling in love" are the only specific ones, and falling in love isn't tied to any given age. Plus many movies involve falling in love but aren't considered "coming of age" movies. (Like many classic disney) what's up with that?

Secondly, can you expand on the premise of "failure to launch"?. What do you mean by that? What is "launching"?

Punished_Blinx posted...

That's an Age of Coming movie

Losing innocence isn't necessarily a negative. Like when you realize your parents are just regular people who don't have the answers that could be seen as losing innocence. But you're gaining a perspective that ultimately helps you to relate to them on a deeper level.

Yeah some of those can be ok, but often the phrase "losing innocence" functions nearly identically as "increasing cynicism" and that I think is categorically pretty bad.

MC_BatCommander posted...

You are way overthinking this, it's literally just an umbrella term for stories about youth maturing and losing innocence

Maybe this is one of those things that relates to my ASD, that tends to be the case when people say "you are overthinking this"..

Still, I get confused because I feel these stories present the idea of a person "growing" from a state to a better state, but to me "losing innocence" doesn't seem like a positive thing.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

there are certain rites of passage that are associated with youth, and the bildungsroman is generally a narrative that occurs during a formative period, a time usually associated with going through rites of passage (which is what makes it formative).

This is how most people represent it but to me its super unclear.

What "rites of passage"? What "formative period"?

It feels like lots of these movies are built on "at about X age just about everybody experiences life experience Y"

But I struggle with that premise because:

1. It's always super ambiguous what the Xs and Ys are
2. Most people are very different, so to act like there's these sets of Xs and Ys implies a predictability and uniformity of life experience that iMO isn't borne out by the diversity of life experience, even within a single country/culture.

Guerrilla Soldier posted...

learning about life: loss, hardships, conflicts, struggle, responsibility

Aren't most movies kinda about this though?

Is "coming of age" another way of saying "a character becomes less niave/innocent"?

MC_BatCommander posted...

In genre studies, a coming-of-age story is a genre of literature, theatre, film, and video that focuses on the growth of a protagonist from childhood to adulthood, or "coming of age". Coming-of-age stories tend to emphasize dialogue or internal monologue over action, and are often set in the past. The subjects of coming-of-age stories are typically teenagers.

I heard "Turning Red" get this label, and I'm pretty sure that's about a kid. I might have heard "Inside out" also get this label.

I feel like I've heard this about certain crude boner comedies too though, idk. Feels like a label that is all over the place.

I've seen lots of very different tones/genres/stories described with this label, so what is the unifying thing?

Please just start at the fucking beginning, I really really hate this trend.

The best Dr. Hibbert moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo1jfzS6AOY

spanky1 posted...

Do you mean "see you next Thursday?" What did they dub in its place?

So far "clown" and "tart".

This one is underrated, I particularly like the first 15 seconds or so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_krT7Bl3PiY

I googled the movie's script and they say the word 5 times in the script. So far both instances have been clearly dubbed.

...a particular swear word more commonly used in Britain than the US.

There are plenty of other swear words in the film, I have a feeling it was netflix sparing my "american sensibilities" or something.

I'm very much of the opinion that you should present a movie as it originally exists, or at least (like cable tv) acknowledge the movie has been edited for content.

When you are like "here's this movie, exactly as it always was" but then alter it, it feels like you are gaslighting me and I find it very annoying.

ZannoL posted...

Details: Under the new law, a crime would be prosecuted as a lynching when death or serious bodily injury results from a conspiracy to commit a hate crime.

This seems to be the important line.

I think what this law actually is isn't making lynchings a hate crime (they already were) but making it so any murder or serious assault that is the result of a conspiracy to commit a hate crime now will be called a "lynching".

So, it would seem that for example a group of people assaulting somebody for their race is now under law a "lynching".

Please correct me if others read that differently.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


WASHINGTON U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Hays County Republican, caused a firestorm at a hearing Thursday about Asian Americans and hate crimes by invoking lynching in Texas as an example of justice.

I was saying his statement here was not about the bill being discussed in the topic. It was a comment during a discussion about Asian Americans and hate crimes.

I'm not defending what he said.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yeah, I guess I don't know what I expected.

Even if this bill is mostly just a symbolic political stunt because hate crimes like these are already prosecuted as hate crimes, this guy should have the sense to realize he's playing into democrats hands by voting no on it.

It's like if Biden created a "it's against the law to torture puppies bill" as a cheap political stunt. Sure it wouldn't actually change the law because it's already against the law to torture puppies, but at the same time, you shouldn't vote against the bill.

harley2280 posted...

No need to get upset and start yelling what the fuck. It's okay we understand you can't read, don't get upset get hooked on phonics. https://www.hookedonphonics.com/

This is sad

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


That quote does not seem to be during his defense of voting against this bill.

I'd definitely be curious to hear his explanation of his no vote here. From how he talks it sounds like he's an old man who has seen too many John Wayne movies.

Solid Sonic posted...

Surprising this has to be explicitly included in hate crime definitions. You'd think killing someone for their existence or lifestyle would be fairly cut and dry as hate crimes go.

Considering that the only lynching that happened in the last 20 years was successfully prosecuted as a hate crime, it seems like it already was cut and dry.

This is a symbolic law. Which is whatever I guess.

I'd prefer Biden actually deliver on some of his promises like healthcare or support for the poor, but I guess this is an easier way to get votes without upsetting big business.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Who is endorsing lynchings?

harley2280 posted...

I'm sorry you struggle with English so bad you can't even read your original post.

wtf are you talking about? Every case of lynching in the past 30 years as prosecuted for murder, which is what I was saying. This law isn't really necessary and looks to be mostly symbolic (or pandering if you are cynical).

Was... harley legitimately pointing to 1870s lynchings as evidence that this law is necessary in 2022?

Are they a troll or something I don't know about?

harley2280 posted...

As normal you're wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lynching_victims_in_the_United_States

Adam
* African-American
* Tampa Hillsborough
* Florida1859
* In response to the murder of a white man, and "in keeping with local custom, a slave man was selected to be killed in retribution".
* Adam was tried and convicted of the murder of a white man. He was represented by Ossian Hart who appealed the conviction. The Florida State Supreme Court declared a mistrial following which a mob broke into the jail, seized Adam and hanged him.[15]: 269
* Outlaw, Wyatt 4950
* African-American
* Graham Alamance North Carolina 1870
* Prominent local figure (no crime alleged)
* 63 indictments, but the North Carolina Legislature, to end their cases, repealed the law they were charged with violating
Instead of prosecuting anyone the state repealed the law.

* Stephens, John W. 35 White
* Yancyville Caswell North Carolina 1870
* State senator who worked to help freedmen
* Ku Klux Klan; no one charged.

That post is very hard to read, but if you look at the actual link you just posted:
There have been 3 US lynching in the last 30 years, all the perpetrators were charged with murder, many were also charged with hate crimes, and some were executed.

So... I was right.

No, she's a horrible person and not in that hot way some women are.

It's mostly the other guy talking and kinda fumbling his argument tbqh.

Antifar posted...

In practice what they measure is parental wealth and income
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/03/rich-students-get-better-sat-scores-heres-why.html

A super rich person is going to have access to a lot more time, opportunity, and training at say swimming. That doesn't mean the Olympic 100 meter backstroke is a measure of wealth.

Wealth is a proxy for academic opportunity and increased academic opportunity is going to lead to increased academic success, but that doesn't mean these tests of academic success are actually tests of wealth.

Things like getting into college because your parents donated a wing, or just social nepotism are bullshit unrelated to academic merit. But standardized tests are about academic merit.

COVxy posted...

Blinded procedures don't help when the effects of discrimination are already baked in at the time of evaluation.

And those should be addressed at the opportunity level. Not the merit measurement level. For example, an orchestra for say playing violin doesn't have enough representation from poor kids, that means you should push policies that get poor kids more violins and violin practices, that doesn't mean you should lower the standards for violining for poor kids.

Nobody wants their success to be a consequence of lowered standards, they want the opportunity to achieve high standards.

The-Batman posted...

youre wrong.

all these tests are good for is for measuring how good you are at taking that specific kind of test. Rich kids get test tutors and special prep courses and then ace these tests.

it is hard for southside Jim to compete with Tucker Leavensworth when Jim goes to flip Big Macs after school and Tucker gets a hearty meal, a nap and then he gets 90 minutes of SAT prep with a tutor that specializes on that, every day

A tutor helps you learn these things, that doesn't mean the things don't have value.

Yes, a math tutor will help you be good at taking a math test, and a poor person won't have the same time and practice at doing such a test, but that unfairness does not reflect poorly on the test or on math.

A person shouldn't say "math doesn't matter" to fix the problem, they make sure the poor person has access to more resources and opportunity to get better at math.

A really good test will measure the relevant ability and not much else, If you think tests are not doing that well enough, then we can further improve the tests. But abolishing them is obviously the wrong response.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/7/0/AACZqoAADFFm.jpg

FigureOfSpeech posted...

Good that he did this. Fucking sad that he had to do this.

Did he have to do this though?

Like I think this might be symbolic because I'm pretty sure that any murder is going to be prosecuted. And I feel like if anybody ever did get lynched in 2022 we'd hear about it.

Am I wrong? Are there a bunch of lynchings going on that literally nobody talks about?

I just googled it and got:
"The lynching of Michael Donald in Mobile, Alabama, on March 21, 1981, was one of the last reported lynchings in the United States. Several Ku Klux Klan (KKK) members beat and killed Michael Donald, a 19-year-old African-American, and hung his body from a tree."

I'm guessing this law was a symbolic gesture. I'm open to being corrected but I really don't think lynchings happen in the US anymore for like... 40+ years.

Lost_All_Senses posted...

A lot of assumptions with no insight. We get it, you guys like Will more than Jada and need someone to villainize to make Will the victim. Even though he's the one who assaulted someone. It doesn't kill anyone to wait for more insight. It just saves some from looking like idiots.

Anyway, she talking about the healing process for Chris's face or what?

I'm not making will the victim. He is responsible for his actions.

But it's pretty clear that Jada demands Will stand up for her and also doesn't seem to give 2 shits about his mental health.

Only clickbait twitter people who don't actually watch the movies they talk about hated it.

Most people liked it.

I fell like Will grew up in a house without a strong father figure (correct me if I'm wrong with this) and desperately wanted love and also struggled with his sense of masculinity and Jada was able to prey on that need and fuck him up emotionally.

Will is still responsible for his actions but I strongly believe Will and his family would have turned out better with a loving wife rather than a cruel one.

(PS are we allowed to say the term that describes their publicly acknowledged sexual relationship?)

hockeybub89 posted...

Standardized tests are kinda bullshit imo

Strongly disagree. Academics (as with many things) should be merit based, and standardized tests are designed to measure academic merit.

If you think they fail to do that adequately, I'm open to them being improved to do a better at that task, but the task itself is very important.

s0nicfan posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/2/0/AABJX0AADFE0.jpg

We had it right before.

Blind auditions are a great answer and we need to export that mentality to all hiring practices.

It's like the definition of anti-racism, the perfect example of fairness. Take all the bullshit out of it and just judge a person based on themselves as an individual and nothing else.

I feel like almost every person at the Oscars would fail the Asch Conformity Experiment.

AlCalavicci posted...

Lmao

They shouldnt have included it in the thumbnail

Agreed.

At least people listening to the podcast itself will be surprised.

Which is why the progressive caucus should have held out for the things in the bill that would have helped americans rather than giving up all their leverage and just being a rubber stamp themselves.

My favorites:
Scorsese2002 posted...

https://imgur.com/a/PdMPHQV

Smackems posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/8/9/AAZOwTAADEzJ.jpg

Scorsese2002 posted...

https://imgur.com/a/RYUEP2m

Simon_Gruber posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/6/7/AAOrNoAADE17.jpg

The best comment I heard about Will Smith's speech was that it was "like the ending to a Darren Aronofsky movie"

gunplagirl posted...

Proportionately, donating $10 would be more of my money than her donating this much.

Would it? I don't want to talk about politics, but somebody brought up a math statement and now I'm interested.

So if you are saying your entire net worth is less than 10k, for this statement to be true she would have to be worth over a billion dollars. Is she? I think it's in that ballpark.

I don't think she's a "makes a million dollars a day" level rich.

Maybe every few days? So donating 2-5 workdays worth of income to a cause isn't bad.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/4/5/AACZqoAADDpB.png

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/1/0/AACZqoAADDb-.png

I don't fully support legalization, but I do support decriminalization.

Putting people in prison rather than treatment for drugs is dumb, but I also don't want to transition to a world where advertisers could sell genuinely harmful drugs to people and we were all chill with it.

If the same kind of big money that drove the opioid epidemic got the legal blessing to just straight up sell and advertise actual Heroin I don't see that going well.

APokemonEnding posted...

Sorry if that's what you got from my tone, but I'm really just intoxicated rn vileplume

Nah, it's fine. I recognized I was going a bit hard against you, it wasn't so much what you said but how what you said reminded me of that kind of sentiment that I find frustrating.

I just resent any sentiment based on the premise of "be sure to think of somebody from a different race as fundamentally different and unrelatable to you!"

Somebody who wouldn't question you writing a 80 year old rich white Dutch man if you are a 25yo middle-class white nerd guy, but would question you if you wrote a 25yo middle-class black nerd guy, IMO is showing overt racism with whatever premise they must be operating under.

People of different races all share a common humanity and I'm sick of people trying to push the idea that people of different races are fundamentally different. People are just people.