18 May 2016, 10:50 am
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
19 May 2016, 1:01 pm
19 May 2016, 3:24 pm
i have some kind of radical ideas on this one.
so, in the early 1900s, the playground movement was beginning in the United States with 50% of cities already constructing fully equipped publicly funded playgrounds. in 1909, the journal of education published two major articles on the benefits of these new sanctioned spaces under the interests of “the value of physical activities in the proper training and development of children, the necessity of adequate and properly equipped play spaces for children, and the proper equipment of school buildings and properties to promote and secure the health of children.” but i think the impacts and implications of these interests are socially regressive, unsustainable, and unsuitable for children. hence why there are so few "conquerors" 
i'll spare you the entire rant i have about adults designing spaces that condition children to behave in ways which conform to standards set by authoritative systems and diminish the interests of children by insisting the interests adults impose upon them are more valuable...but the paternalistic concept of adults defining what is and what isn't suitable for children's play and capitalizing on the values of safety and standardization is how i believe they rationalize promoting safe, boring, and supervised activities. it reiterates a normalized belief that children require protection and separation from adult spaces, and so this seemingly selfless gift of safe play spaces can also be considered from the perspective of adults oppressing children.
okay so, beyond the innate human concern to provide for and protect offspring, i think it is because adults who believe in the system or don't even notice the system want to maintain control. children can explore their physical abilities, social interests, and creative potential as long as it fits within the acceptable framework of play which adults have constructed for them. they can diverge but only so much, creating a false sense of freedom and a reliance on the system to dictate how to think and act. they grow up to feed the system and not dare question it in fear they will be rejected by it. they forget how to play, they forget how to create, and they forget how to escape from the confines of the reality constructed around them.
furthermore, the safety measures taken in the design of playgrounds make children less aware of potential bodily danger and dependent on a false sense of security. this effectively create dumb, docile children. "conquerors" disrupt the hierarchy, and so i believe the inclusion of children's safety in the built environment is a subversive act of
MIND CONTROL
19 May 2016, 4:21 pm
so, in the early 1900s, the playground movement was beginning in the United States with 50% of cities already constructing fully equipped publicly funded playgrounds. in 1909, the journal of education published two major articles on the benefits of these new sanctioned spaces under the interests of “the value of physical activities in the proper training and development of children, the necessity of adequate and properly equipped play spaces for children, and the proper equipment of school buildings and properties to promote and secure the health of children.” but i think the impacts and implications of these interests are socially regressive, unsustainable, and unsuitable for children. hence why there are so few "conquerors"
i'll spare you the entire rant i have about adults designing spaces that condition children to behave in ways which conform to standards set by authoritative systems and diminish the interests of children by insisting the interests adults impose upon them are more valuable...but the paternalistic concept of adults defining what is and what isn't suitable for children's play and capitalizing on the values of safety and standardization is how i believe they rationalize promoting safe, boring, and supervised activities. it reiterates a normalized belief that children require protection and separation from adult spaces, and so this seemingly selfless gift of safe play spaces can also be considered from the perspective of adults oppressing children.
okay so, beyond the innate human concern to provide for and protect offspring, i think it is because adults who believe in the system or don't even notice the system want to maintain control. children can explore their physical abilities, social interests, and creative potential as long as it fits within the acceptable framework of play which adults have constructed for them. they can diverge but only so much, creating a false sense of freedom and a reliance on the system to dictate how to think and act. they grow up to feed the system and not dare question it in fear they will be rejected by it. they forget how to play, they forget how to create, and they forget how to escape from the confines of the reality constructed around them.
furthermore, the safety measures taken in the design of playgrounds make children less aware of potential bodily danger and dependent on a false sense of security. this effectively create dumb, docile children. "conquerors" disrupt the hierarchy, and so i believe the inclusion of children's safety in the built environment is a subversive act of
MIND CONTROL
I still thing we need more daring dashing children who not afraid taking risk, the children than later grow up to become daring and dashing adults
20 May 2016, 1:34 am
