Ganesh, I said in my post that I was using "across the board" in the widest sense, not to be confused "Barbelith the board". Nevermind, I retract that particular musing.
I'm glad you retract it. Like I say, it was an overgeneralisation.
You yourself have already accepted that within the limited confines of this story, "clearly" the man should have given up this seat.
Yes, because this story is "clearly" written in such a way as to force that conclusion.
If this is the case, if we are able to speculate thus far, then why can we also not speculate that it was good and right for someone - anyone, no matter their age - to take action to rectify this situation?
We can, yes, and I speculate that, in a similar Real Life situation, the child would appear insufferably brattish to me if he behaved in such a way. Even within this highly manipulative tale, I think he sounds brattish. I think I've explained why I think that.
As you and alas have already identified, none of the other adults did anything to help. That to me seems to strengthen rather than weaken the case that what the kid did was entirely justified. Because nobody else was doing it, or anything similar.
Well, any "other adults" are barely there, which fits with this being a parable. They're extraneous. It apparently doesn't occur to either Hard-Working Pregnant Woman or Heroic (In An Unconventional, Almost Maverick Kinda Way) 10-Year-Old to ask anyone other than Seated Yuppie for a seat. Rather than cast the net wider, our narrative focuses exclusively on the interaction between these three parties, with everyone else a non-participant - so, rather than turning to anyone else, we move onto shin-kicking.
So no, I don't think that the kid was "entirely justified", but I also don't think his actions ring true - just as I don't think Robby's purported actions ring true. Both are ciphers for the purpose of providing a simple (simplistic) little homily.
"Issue commands" seems to me to be as overly dramatic a rhetorical shift as anything in the original story or anything I've posted in this thread.
You don't think "now move!" and "I said move, motherfucker!" constitute commands? I do. I think whoever wrote this story transposed some NYPD Blue dialogue into the words of a hypothetical child - which is perhaps why it sits so jarringly.
Then there's this obsession with what kids shouldn't do or say to "adults" seems odd - is it less bad if kids kick each other in the shins or call each other "motherfucker"? Is it the lack of respect that bothers you? Is that why "issue commands" is the phrase - to highlight that the natural order of things is being turned on its head?
Ahh, it's my "obsession" now, is it? Is that like being "fixated" or "hysterical"? Could we please not attempt to use illness terms to describe my viewpoint? I know the term "obsession" well enough to know you're using it inappropriately here, presumably in an attempt to pathologise my viewpoint. Don't, please.
I don't think that, generally speaking, 10-year-olds should be issuing commands to adults, calling them "motherfucker" or kicking them in the shins, no.
Are they any situations in which a 10 year-old should feel free to tell an adult to do something, use naughty words or kick them on the shins? Or does the authority of adult over child and the deference that must be paid by children to adults always trump any other circumstances, even if those circumstances include the contingent well-being of other adults?
Would you like to have a wider discussion of my views on children and child-adult interactions? We can certainly do that, but I'd suggest starting another thread for that purpose.
We know, in as much as we can know anything from a reported incident, that he did not respond to the woman's initial polite request for a seat, or her second one, or the child's initial request (or, if you insist, "command"). Note that: he did not say "sorry, I myself need to sit down". He did not respond.
I don't believe it's a "reported incident" any more than our bereaved virtuoso is a "reported incident". The Bad Guy didn't respond, no, which makes me wonder why the Good Guys were so fixed on his particular seat. Were there no other seated passengers? Was this man's the only seat in the entire carriage?
Personally I don't give two hoots as to whether he was teh evil capitalist Man or an umemployed asshole in a Che t-shirt: I'm judging the situation based on his actions as described, not his clothes or reading matter...
But his actions cannot simply be separated from the way he's described; the bias is integral to the fabric of the story. He was "respectable looking" (not like these men in hoodies, one wouldn't even bother approaching them for a seat; but he should know better), "young" (so, obviously, he didn't have the excuse of being elderly/infirm) and he rustled his paper "crossly" (so he obviously felt entitled to be cross at the very thought that he give up his seat).
There could be all manner of reasons why our hypothetical man couldn't stand up and didn't wish to enter into dialogue about it. We've no idea, so we approach the story from the viewpoint of the Good Guys only. |
