I think you’re misreading the place this is coming from. To me the suggestions (both the workshops, and “macho tests”) feel more inspired by the dutch dropping tradition (NYT, sorry).
Also, I think you might be “rounding off” the essay into an argument for some “metaphorical good old days” which I don’t think it’s doing. Namely, to me at least, “good old days” implies a “this never was real so wishing for it is dumb” that clearly isn’t the case with some of the things being suggested (see the above link talking about how children in the Netherlands tend to be freer and expected to take on more risk).
Finally, “had the privilege to die or get lead poisoning” is a pretty obvious straw man.
I think I did a pretty good job of noting that “good old days” is an idiom expressing that I think “taking on more risk” is a misleading steelman when applied to much of this. The following paragraph isn’t about being more self-reliant and well adjusted, it’s about looking cool and tough, which seems to me like it is probably totally separate.
In order to become a man, boys in my hometown were expected to travel across the country with one day’s pay and a backpack full of supplies, working for money or scavenging food along the way. You are allowed a bicycle, a motorcycle or a Greyhound pass. I choose the Greyhound pass. The hardcore kids choose “none” and go moose hunting in the tundra.
I don’t think the latter is a straw man, but I could be misunderstanding the thrust of something here I suppose:
Childcare, the raising of young children, is more hands-off, with a strong emphasis on the outdoors. Injury rates of children are commensurately higher. Pets too. My own dog fell off a cliff when I was a teenager. (The dog turned out alright in the end, but we evaced him just in case.) I could operate a band saw before I could multiply two-digit numbers in my head. Fewer children survive to adulthood than on Earth (I almost died in a motorcycle accident before I went to college) but those who do are more self-reliant.
The hardware we received was frequently broken. It took me a entire week to salvage the parts for my first computer. (I shudder when I recall how much lead and mercury dust I breathed.)
I’ll admit I imagined another occurrence of the concept of chemical poisoning somewhere in here, so the lead note was outright wrong, but the former is pretty spot-on as I read it.
I guess I was assuming (based on my model of lsusr)that the intent of that paragraph was to talk about taking on more risk and responsibility. But, reading it back I think you’re right about how that passage is a lot more “macho” and a lot less “useful self reliance skills” which I’ll agree is odd.
On the second point, I feel like your statement is a straw man due to the fact that, sure, part of what’s going on in the second passage is that kids get the “privilege to die”, but, the way you say that seems to ignore all of the (well established in my mind) benefits other than just death that kids raised in this manner would get.
I think you’re misreading the place this is coming from. To me the suggestions (both the workshops, and “macho tests”) feel more inspired by the dutch dropping tradition (NYT, sorry).
Also, I think you might be “rounding off” the essay into an argument for some “metaphorical good old days” which I don’t think it’s doing. Namely, to me at least, “good old days” implies a “this never was real so wishing for it is dumb” that clearly isn’t the case with some of the things being suggested (see the above link talking about how children in the Netherlands tend to be freer and expected to take on more risk).
Finally, “had the privilege to die or get lead poisoning” is a pretty obvious straw man.
I think I did a pretty good job of noting that “good old days” is an idiom expressing that I think “taking on more risk” is a misleading steelman when applied to much of this. The following paragraph isn’t about being more self-reliant and well adjusted, it’s about looking cool and tough, which seems to me like it is probably totally separate.
I don’t think the latter is a straw man, but I could be misunderstanding the thrust of something here I suppose:
I’ll admit I imagined another occurrence of the concept of chemical poisoning somewhere in here, so the lead note was outright wrong, but the former is pretty spot-on as I read it.
I guess I was assuming (based on my model of lsusr) that the intent of that paragraph was to talk about taking on more risk and responsibility. But, reading it back I think you’re right about how that passage is a lot more “macho” and a lot less “useful self reliance skills” which I’ll agree is odd.
On the second point, I feel like your statement is a straw man due to the fact that, sure, part of what’s going on in the second passage is that kids get the “privilege to die”, but, the way you say that seems to ignore all of the (well established in my mind) benefits other than just death that kids raised in this manner would get.
Hey, put the second paragraph that way and I see what you mean. I’m going to edit a little note into the original comment to point this out.