The 21st Century, and 'Good Parenting': Dead... or Murdered?

I'll start in a roundabout, sinuous way talking about online social platforms and what people perceive as their effects on the youths, then use that as a sneaky introduction to the topic. Buckle up.

 

TikTok has serious issues, but people are absolutely getting the wrong takes out of it.

 

Yes, it has strong privacy issues (as is to be expected from mainstream social platforms), which for a company based on China is definitely concerning.

 

But people have the nerve of saying "it's brainwashing our kiddiess!!" — no, the issue is that you leave your children on the Internet doing whatever they wanna do, without moderation, so you don't have to parent them! You don't interact with them, you don't foster their development and cultivate strong social skills, you just leave them tapping at a screen so you don't have to bother parenting them. Imagine doing the thing you are supposed to be doing!

 

Why are people not applying the same level of concern to YouTube Kids? It's almost the same deal, it's just the content comes from shady companies, rather than from other young people. At least in TikTok the content the audience tends to be from the same demographic as the creators of the content they're consuming, so they can more easily relate to it.

 

 

 

This is an issue across the Western(ized) world, not only in the first world, but the third world as well. Many parents will cut corners if it means expending less energy to be able to raise their kids. They will stock up on instant noodles so that, on particularly sluggish days, they don't have to cook a proper meal. They will moan whenever there is a school break day, because school is "important for learning" (read: a break from having to perform parent duties).

 

But this may have been induced by the increasing pressure on people's lives as a result of corporatism, stagnating wages, and a steadily rising price of living and unemployment. Everyone has expectations placed upon them. Parents don't have to be just parents, they also have to be employees – and in the last few decades, especially with the advent of home office — which had already been a thing before COVID, if you remember! —, we often see that both parents have to work in order to be able to sustain their families, and not as a result of poor family planning, but the changing circumstances of the society, economy, and world around them.

 

This seriously limits the amount of time and attention they can dedicate to their kids, and can lead to poorer development as one grows through childhood and teenagehood.

 

I was able to experience this second-hand, as my brothers, all younger than me, grew up in a time of uncertainty in Brazil's economy, my father becoming more and more pressured by work, and my mother more and more pressured by having to manage the schooling of more and more children.

 

I would end up having three brothers, the youngest a full decade younger than me, with notably different upbringing, personalities, and manners. My youngest brother is a vessel of endless, indomitable bickering and entitlement; seldom did he feel the repercussions of his actions, but he also seldom received encouragement or reinforcement on doing the right thing.

 

While I grew up mostly bored, especially in school (as it was excruciatingly monotonous, and most of the time I already knew what was being taught anyways), I had generally unfiltered access to a computer, being able to grow my own interests and, at some point, growing the courage to interact in online spaces.

 

I have been playing classic Unreal Tournament since I was 5, and was always fascinated by its workings; it wouldn't take long until I learned the basics of Unreal Editor, and naturally, over the course of my late childhood and early adolescence, it would be a major motivation behind my interest in game development and all its associated crafts, from texture work, to level design, to programming, and, of course, music.

 

At the same time, I started to chat on IRC, as well as in online bulletin boards, on various things (though at first the language barrier was strong and I was a bit overoptimistic and naïve about myself, so people were understandably not very fond of me), which helped me develop some social skills, since I was always a bit of a loner at school. There was no filter or moderation on what I accessed online, but I also seldom used mainstream platforms — Facebook has always been much more popular in Brazil than elsewhere —, at least with the exception of YouTube, and always had some interests and wasn't just seeking to be entertained.

 

My brothers might never have the same opportunity I had to discover their interests and hobbies, but I know they will develop social skills through online interaction one way or another — and it may involve a lot of mutes and bans and generally trying times, until they slowly develop proper form and, depending of which online spaces they want to interact in, a general understanding of the English language.

 

They've always had much less access to a proper personal computer than I had, at some point taking turns with me on the only computer in the house, then having their own computers for a bit (but they always significantly underperformed even compared to mine); their digital musings have always been primarily on mobile devices, with app stores and a general lack of user freedom, while, as to me, even though I have a phone and have had one for years now,  I seldom use it for things I don't explicitly need one for, serving more as a fallback for when my computer is frozen or not working, or as a camera.

 

 

 

Because of that, and the obvious fact that there is no effective pedagogy in school grounds — their main contribution to children is to teach them to socialize; they don't teach their curricula effectively because they don't adapt to the different ways in which each student learns, but that's a can of worms for another day —, I'm actually more concerned about the future generations and their ability to tackle a world that is gradually going further and further into ruin and pollution, at a broil fueled by capitalist greed and inequality, and where living is quickly becoming more and more expensive.

 

I can hear some in the audience say, "maybe people should just grow their own foods and build their own houses, and stop whining!" With what land, and what materials, and what tools? These, the elusive means of production as you might have heard them be called, are owned by the ruling class, and to take them back is the whole idea of Marxism in the broad sense! The vast majority of people do not have access to do these very things you ask them to do. It's not that they don't want to; they simply can't buy their way to achieve it.

 

And for as long as that continues to be the fact, then the way families manage themselves, and the average upbringing of children and the way they grow up and learn things and are introduced to the world, are all entirely tied to how the capitalism system at large is operating in that moment. We, and the future of our youth, are, like it or not, entirely at the mercy of the tides of the System™. And right now, prospect is grim.

 

————

 

You can add your own two cents below as to what concerns you when it comes to young people and families today. While in this post I decided to elaborate on online socialization, then hobbies and skills, then economics and the class struggle, you can tackle the question from any perspective you want. I'd love to see things I've missed or misemphasized!

 

This is not about the "traditional family values" — by "family" I mean any social structure in which young people are developed, learning to be, well, people, citizens of the world, before they can go ahead into the world on their own in adulthood. If it raises someone, it's a family! And by that definition, I'd argue Doomworld has served well as one for me, so thank you all!  ♥

Edited July 26, 2022 by wallabra

I would say that to a large extent, upbringing reflects both the situation one is in - both the actual house situation, but also the time.

 

I was born in the mid-80s, raised by a single mom (her and dad divorced before I was a year old) with an older sister. Mom was busting her ass often working two jobs, plus trying to finish her GED, since she had my sister at 16 and me at 22, and I definitely remember her studying for her GED when I was very little. (She also had some other health problems I won't get into - suffice to say, poor mom has been through a LOT in her life.)

 

However, I was much more of a bookworm type. I read everything that interested me. When it was activity time during early school years, I'd be alone by myself with some colored pencils or reading a book, not bothering anyone. I was a social introvert even back then. That's not to say I didn't make friends - I absolutely did - but often it was over mutual interests.

 

However, note my timeframe - I was born in the mid 80s. So I'm one of the last kids who really grew up without the internet being everywhere, and more importantly, by the time I turned 18, social media was really only just beginning to take off.

 

Nowadays, more than even my generation, social media absolutely bombards kids with information, both good and bad, on a daily basis. Everyone is online, and the online realm is increasingly taking up more parts of our everyday lives, and it's let me do some amazing things. Some of my best friends live on entirely different continents than I do, and yet we can hold conversations daily (and wish we could meet each other in IRL... but I digress). But it's also enabled bad actors, or even just plain other kids, to constantly be there. It's not like when I went to school, when the assholes would be gone until the following day. Now, they could be stalking me online, pretending to be someone else, you name it. I'm genuinely glad I'm not coming of age in this era.

 

Parents nowadays need to do the tough task of parenting, and that's exactly as you said, so few of them do. You don't have to watch your kid every minute of every day, and the older they get the more you need to respect their desires for privacy and trust them, but you need to set the foundations early on. Teach them there ARE bad people out there on the internet, that not everything they see or read on it is going to be the truth, that they don't need to follow every single trend or challenge they come across, and most importantly, to know when it's time to unplug.

 

There's a reason social media tries to say you need to be 13+ to sign up for it. Many younger ones are already on there, they know that, but a 13 year-old is probably the earliest I'd let a kid online without strict supervision - and you'd better have taught them well to that point, otherwise along comes someone asking for private chats with a young girl, and she will be lucky if it's just some bullying classmate of hers screwing around with her.

 

Mind you, as much as I say all this, it also makes me another first - the first of a generation that's acutely aware of what sort of stuff lurks online, and while we're not the so-called digital natives, we've generally been around enough to know how it all works. That gives us a better chance to be better parents for this generation that is starting to come up underneath. To our tech-illiterate parents who barely can get to their email without being confused, it'd be impossible to know all the tricks, but we generally will. And if need be, we could take action to clamp that down.

I'll respond to the prompt in the topic title and say "Murdered"

I make enough money that my wife can stay home and play with baby. I can't imagine raising children with both parents at work. Best case, you have grandparents that can watch baby while you're at work. Worst case, you have to send baby to daycare and expose him to developmental psychological risks.

 

I am not too worried about education or social media though. I can solve both problems simultaneously by spending more time with my children.

In my country, there is a nasty trend of sending kids to a couple hours of "cram school" after regular school. You pay money to have someone: 1) babysit your child, 2) provide sub-standard education, and 3) stress your child out with endless hours of pedagogy. I'm going to skip all that and develop a home schooling curriculum to augment what is taught at regular school. "Oh, you're learning the quadratic formula at school right now? Grab the bow and arrows, we're going apply that to ballistics."

 

On 7/26/2022 at 3:24 PM, wallabra said:

I can hear some in the audience say, "maybe people should just grow their own foods and build their own houses, and stop whining!"

I think it's worth studying how the Amish communities came to be and how they manage things. Economically, most of them live in "poverty." Yet they manage to have a massive fertility rate. They don't suffer from worse health or mental problems.

7 hours ago, RDETalus said:

I think it's worth studying how the Amish communities came to be and how they manage things. Economically, most of them live in "poverty." Yet they manage to have a massive fertility rate. They don't suffer from worse health or mental problems.

 

They enshrine 'hard work' as a virtue, which I guess does mean they tend to be well exercised, but they are also bound by this to manual labour-value and limited productive capacity.

 

At the same time, their relative disconnect from the modern world also means they aren't leeched by corporatism quite as much, so they resist the economical exploitation better than most. Additionally, they probably have some sort of gift economy (more than most people, who gift only to family relatives, in certain holidays) to reduce inequality.

 

While I think they're doing fine, I also think they aren't quite a model for what society in the future should look like.

 

8 hours ago, RDETalus said:

In my country, there is a nasty trend of sending kids to a couple hours of "cram school" after regular school. You pay money to have someone: 1) babysit your child, 2) provide sub-standard education, and 3) stress your child out with endless hours of pedagogy. I'm going to skip all that and develop a home schooling curriculum to augment what is taught at regular school. "Oh, you're learning the quadratic formula at school right now? Grab the bow and arrows, we're going apply that to ballistics."

 

That sounds interesting and noble!

 

Though, how do you envision teaching ballistics and somehow tying that to the quadratic formula, though? Are you expecting your children to solve parabolic equations to predetermine trajectories or something? That would be impractical to apply without precision equipment. And I don't think it'll be very applicable in modern life, sadly. I like bow and arrow, though.

 

I take it you're more likely just using a rather hypothetical example to drive your point home. :p

I don't know about parenting, I don't have kids. My parents without a doubt tried their best. Obviously they could've done something different in some situtations but how can I judge them? Growing older I've learned to respect them more than ever. I know people who definately had it worse than I ever did.

 

If I ever have kids I want to grow them in a way which makes them respect others the way they are, defend themselves and in general not to be self centered assholes who don't want to see the effort when it's necessary. You know, common sense.

 

Then again I also wish they'd be able to view the world and everything inside it using their own brains. I don't want to see my possible children to fall under influence of any particular authority, should it be philosophical or political.

 

In my area we were growing up poor, we were a fairly under-developed hovel attached to a town nearby, we'd hear about wonderful next generation technology like "Sky boxes" and the horrors of the eldritch "internet" but it would be years after everyone else before we got that.

 

Our parents did their best, tought us values, our times were spent with family and friends. Suddenly, part way through my stay at high school, the area became more modern all of a sudden, internet, electronics stores, affordable technology... It was genuinely insane.

 

This was like, 2009 ish, I was still on the PS1/2 at this time. Next thing I know everyone is hanging out, talking, making friends on shit like MSN and BBM, talking all the time on KIK... Cyber bullying became a problem literally 5 seconds later* and most of this was happening damn near instantly. 

 

It changed the entire social landscape at school, I naturally fell behind because I was poor and more or less didn't exist in most people's eyes, doubt I ever would've been spoken to even if I had social media but still. Friends were gained and lost by silly shit, battles were fought behind the bike shed because A said B about C on Facebook and D didn't like it, stupid stuff generally happened daily.

 

Thank fuck I hadn't been growing up now, I think it'd be even worse, I remember the shit folks got online back then and it would be tenfold today.

 

*

 

3 hours ago, mrthejoshmon said:

Thank fuck I hadn't been growing up now, I think it'd be even worse, I remember the shit folks got online back then and it would be tenfold today.

 

God, imagine dealing with bullies nowadays. When I was a lad, the bully was relegated to the schoolyard and I would at least get a break from the constant harassment until the following day. Nowadays, the bully is on your computer and your phone. They're not just making snide remarks in class and beating your up during recess. Now they're stalking all your online accounts and threatening to dox you while spamming your accounts with shock images and maybe even CP to try and get you arrested and god knows what else. No escape at all. Just utterly relentless.

 

Can't say I envy kids growing up today or their parents on that front.

Not that crazy to consider that many kids don't know how to deal healthy with online stuff, when you consider that the parents and grandparents (ESPECIALLY THE GRANDPARENTS) don't even know how to deal with online stuff.

 

If the parents and grandparents are just mindlessly guzzling down the conspiracy-idiot Facebook pipeline like an a stillborn radioactive mutant straight from a Duke expansion pack, I don't expect the children to learn how to properly use the internet either.

5 hours ago, wallabra said:

They enshrine 'hard work' as a virtue, which I guess does mean they tend to be well exercised, but they are also bound by this to manual labour-value and limited productive capacity.

 

For someone who hates capitalism so much, this is a surprising take.

20 hours ago, wallabra said:

Though, how do you envision teaching ballistics and somehow tying that to the quadratic formula, though? Are you expecting your children to solve parabolic equations to predetermine trajectories or something?

Yes. The quadratic equation has two possible solutions. A child will ask why? All the other equations he's worked with in algebra so far only had one solution, why does this one have two? So you get the bow out (or a nerf gun) and you demonstrate that there are two methods of hitting the target:

1. Aiming straight at the target
2. Aiming high up and letting the arrow fall towards the target

That's what the quadratic equation is solving for.

 

20 hours ago, wallabra said:

And I don't think it'll be very applicable in modern life, sadly. I like bow and arrow, though.

The goal is to tie the quadratic equation to something that a child can physically play with. The education system here will push you through endless equation solving and rote memorization, but it will not teach you how to apply these equations. Children learn a lot through play.

7 hours ago, RDETalus said:

Yes. The quadratic equation has two possible solutions. A child will ask why? All the other equations he's worked with in algebra so far only had one solution, why does this one have two? So you get the bow out (or a nerf gun) and you demonstrate that there are two methods of hitting the target:

1. Aiming straight at the target
2. Aiming high up and letting the arrow fall towards the target

That's what the quadratic equation is solving for.

 

Umm, no!  It's the intersections of the parabola with the X axis (i.e. where Y equals 0), or in this case, the points of the trajectory that are at ground level — that is, you, and the target. Way to confuse the child's head further, Master Oogway :P

 

 

7 hours ago, RDETalus said:

The goal is to tie the quadratic equation to something that a child can physically play with. The education system here will push you through endless equation solving and rote memorization, but it will not teach you how to apply these equations. Children learn a lot through play.

 

Now that is something I do strongly agree with. The educational system needs more practical teaching.

 

Although I do think that, what it does teach in paper and whiteboard, could be taught better, if instead of relying on memorization, it gave kids a bit of background understanding and then made them try to discover the asnwers on their own, with enough guidance to point them in the right direction. In pedagogical education, it's not the conclusion that matters*, it's how you get there, and how you apply it to all sorts of scenarios! After all, the conclusion will always be something unique in each real life scenario.

 

^{* Don't mind Tom Lehrer's comments on New Math! New Math did a lot of things wrong, though it did have some positive impact too.}

1 hour ago, wallabra said:

Umm, no!  It's the intersections of the parabola with the X axis (i.e. where Y equals 0), or in this case, the points of the trajectory that are at ground level — that is, you, and the target. Way to confuse the child's head further, Master Oogway :P

yeah yeah yeah you get what I mean. Two different quadratics that share the same solution describe two different trajectories with the same targets.

 

1 hour ago, wallabra said:

if instead of relying on memorization, it gave kids a bit of background understanding and then made them try to discover the asnwers on their own, with enough guidance to point them in the right direction.

Do you have any thoughts on Common Core Math?

45 minutes ago, RDETalus said:

Do you have any thoughts on Common Core Math?

 

 

Not really, I think it's what I was talking about, if I recall correctly it's one of the parts of New Math that worked well?

 

School here in Brazil is more the familiar memorization but there are pedagogical elements – teachers actually assist the students and whatnot.

8 hours ago, wallabra said:

if I recall correctly it's one of the parts of New Math that worked well?

I'm not familiar with it, it wasn't around when I grew up. I heard it attempts to teach math with more discovery and less memorization. However, it ended up being a big controversy for a few months in the US because it was thought to be ambiguous and needlessly complicated. I'm wondering if I should learn the Common Core math curriculum to eventually teach to my kids.

On 7/28/2022 at 12:19 PM, dasho said:

For someone who hates capitalism so much, this is a surprising take.

 

And why is that? Everyone likes being able to use machines to produce more; the whole point is that we won't need an economy that produces scarcity when we don't have actual scarcity of resources or of labour, or machines doing copious amounts of "labour" for us (or, in the labour theory of value, splitting the labour that goes into making and maintaining the machines, throughout its output, throughout its lifetime).

 

So, I should have been clearer. What I mean is that the Amish would never become a substantial economical force — much like a rook trapped behind other pieces, their labour is trapped behind their moralistic rejection of industrialization —, nor are they a social modus operandi to look forward to nowadays.

 

And this is a purely economical critique. I don't identify with the Amish on a lot of aspects, but most of those are irrelevant and off-topic.

 

 

15 hours ago, RDETalus said:

I'm not familiar with it, it wasn't around when I grew up. I heard it attempts to teach math with more discovery and less memorization. However, it ended up being a big controversy for a few months in the US because it was thought to be ambiguous and needlessly complicated. I'm wondering if I should learn the Common Core math curriculum to eventually teach to my kids.

 

Yeah, notably because it tried to teach set theory to preschoolers lol. We don't need to follow on their footsteps exactly :P

4 hours ago, wallabra said:

 

And why is that? Everyone likes being able to use machines to produce more; the whole point is that we won't need an economy that produces scarcity when we don't have actual scarcity of resources or of labour, or machines doing copious amounts of "labour" for us (or, in the labour theory of value, splitting the labour that goes into making and maintaining the machines, throughout its output, throughout its lifetime).

 

So, I should have been clearer. What I mean is that the Amish would never become a substantial economical force — much like a rook trapped behind other pieces, their labour is trapped behind their moralistic rejection of industrialization —, nor are they a social modus operandi to look forward to nowadays.

 

I guess what I mean is that, reading your other posts, is that you would have everyone strive for a post-scarcity, post-capitalist society in which people are free to do as much (or as little) as they see fit, while still being free to partake of the labors of others if necessary or desired. So then, why does it matter if the Amish become either an economical or social force? They are relatively self-sufficient, and choose to not leverage what their faith guides them to believe is sinful. 

 

They are probably one of the closest things America has to your "motor community" concept. If the common populace joined them and rejected technology en masse, it would indeed shake the foundations of the capitalist economy that you are against, but my working theory is that you are discounting this because they are a faith group.

8 minutes ago, dasho said:

I guess what I mean is that, reading your other posts, is that you would have everyone strive for a post-scarcity, post-capitalist society in which people are free to do as much (or as little) as they see fit, while still being free to partake of the labors of others if necessary or desired. So then, why does it matter if the Amish become either an economical or social force? They are relatively self-sufficient, and choose to not leverage what their faith guides them to believe is sinful.

 

It doesn't matter. I'm just saying that they're not a model for what all of society should look like in the future.

 

 

8 minutes ago, dasho said:

They are probably one of the closest things America has to your "motor community" concept. If the common populace joined them and rejected technology en masse, it would indeed shake the foundations of the capitalist economy that you are against, but my working theory is that you are discounting this because they are a faith group.

 

But that would still mean things would take a lot of labour to be produced. You don't need to reject technology at all; just the capitalist mode of production, which in the long run siphons money from a caste into another, provoking imbalances in both wealth and (importantly) power.

 

To have less people willing to work "ordinary" company jobs is what would truly shake the foundations of the capitalist economy.

 

Sure, if everyone became a self-sufficient Amish, we could defeat the machine more easily. But what I mean is, we can still do so much better. We can use the technology and science the 21st century has given us.  :)

 

^{(It's not like we can go back in time and un-bite the apple!... or... the Apple... if you will...)}

Parents have always been peddled easy solutions to difficult problems for quite some time now. Before video games, it was movies like the Exorcist. Before those kinds of movies existed, it was comic books. It's always easy to tell them why their kid going out do stupid and/or destructive shit is not because they abdicated their parenting skills but because said piece of media warped their kids' brains, when the truth is much more complicated than violent images turning everyone into crazed killers.

There's too much work nowadays. Too much boring work.

 

It may sound sexist, but when women started to join the workforce it was a big benefit for their families because it was expected that only ONE parent would work (excluding single women of course). But then, capitalism and free market equalized that and made both ma and da working the rule, so there's less time to expend with one's children and women are seen bad when they don't work. Both parents working should be a personal decision and not something imposed on you by the economy.

 

I don't know. I feel the new millennium increasingly dystopic each day.

Parenting is no better or worse in the 21st century, merely different. The only way you're going to have better parents is by having a better education system and other ways of preparing them to be better people before they have kids. Parents in their 30's will say that other parents are bad because they let their kids use social media. Parents in their 50's will say other parents are bad for not making their kids go to church. Grandparents in their 80's will say that the problem is that parents don't beat their kids enough these days.

 

"Robert, you'll never guess what happened today! I went into the garage to look for the cat, and Jimmy was SMOKING MARIJUANA! Oh, he's been acting so violent lately, I knew something was wrong! What are we going to do with him?"

 

"Send that little fucker to military school so I can hit my crackpipe in peace!"

21 hours ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

Parenting is no better or worse in the 21st century, merely different. The only way you're going to have better parents is by having a better education system and other ways of preparing them to be better people before they have kids. Parents in their 30's will say that other parents are bad because they let their kids use social media. Parents in their 50's will say other parents are bad for not making their kids go to church. Grandparents in their 80's will say that the problem is that parents don't beat their kids enough these days.

I agree and disagree. I believe people are mostly context and I'd say they've typically absorbed more values from their society than their home by adulthood. But my inkling is they absorb more behaviours and the deep set stuff like attachment style-- and life-warping neuroticisms-- from the home.

 

But since parents too are mostly context, it's difficult to separate parenting from the values of their society. I thnk the hyperindividualistic character of the Anglosphere in particular has seen a big swerve in perspective on raising kids. The customer-service style is prevalent. I had the ideology of individiualism-- normal is boring, self-expression good, conformity bad, religion stupid stuff, but not the world in orbit because my mother - unavoidably, she was a single mum and barely out of childhood herself - had to raise me as a latchkey kid. Whereas her two-decade younger children have been raised in the modern middle class style where in addition to those values, keeping your child occupied, happy and comfortable at all times is seen as successful parenting.  In my view this has dropped resilience and ability to deal with diversity (of thought, not the shallow kind) a bit, especially when (at least in the UK) 50% of young adults leave the home to a university where once again, everything is the customer-is-always-right flavour of keeping them utmost comfortable and happy. This can be seen in psych studies from the mid-Eighties, although tbh the field is so sketchy with the replication crisis, 80% of experimental subjects being American undergrads etc, it's perhaps hardly worth mentioning.

 

At the other end of the scale, because of where I work, a lot of my friends are Eastern Euros from ex-Soviet bloc countries. Having been raised by parents and grandparents shaped by a culture that placed the society above the individual and a tough school system, my ultra-anecdotal observation would be that they're more resilient in many ways, but also carry more pain.

 

So every generation in every place gets its own special flavour of fucked up. But receiving the special sauce plus a horrendous package of post 2008 and covid economy and a pollution-spiked, overheating planet really is a shit deal.

 

 

 

Somewhat odd that we would see individualism producing less resilient people, and collectivism producing more resilient people. There's likely more factors at play like wealth differences between individualistic vs. collectivist societies, and whether parents are coddling vs. challenging their kids.

On 7/30/2022 at 8:28 PM, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

"Robert, you'll never guess what happened today! I went into the garage to look for the cat, and Jimmy was SMOKING MARIJUANA! Oh, he's been acting so violent lately, I knew something was wrong! What are we going to do with him?"

 

"Send that little fucker to military school so I can hit my crackpipe in peace!"

 

Cats are always violent. However, cats that use marijuana are known to be able to perform basic arithmetic and breakdance while doing a banana stand!