Subject:
|
Re: What makes a cool kid cool? (was: Re: A new area of LEGO.com: the Build section)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Followup-To:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 May 2001 14:31:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1315 times
|
| |
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:3af8669a.2408665@lugnet.com...
> Labeling someone a "Cool Kid" (which you do several times on your pages) is
> something you (collective you -- The LEGO Company) should be ashamed of.
> Note that you're not saying that visitors to the "Cool Kids" area are cool,
> but that the kids you're worshipping there are cool, with phrases like "Look
> up previous Cool Kids" and "This month's Cool Kid" and "More cool kids"
> implying that there are only a handful of cool kids -- only the ones that
> you select.
Someone else brought this up before (I forget who), but I don't think the site
is saying 'these are the only cool kids,' or 'if you're not up here, you're not
cool.' In that sense, isn't the Cool LEGO Site of the Week cruel to other
people who make websites which don't get voted, or to take it a bit further,
sites which are (God forbid I say it) bad? Don't you think that those owners
suffer poor self esteem because they never get nominated CLSOTW?
<sarcasm>
We shouldn't be able to celebrate something or someone exceptional because there
are many more people/things out there which are not up to that standard and that
puts them in a negative light.
</sarcasm>
> Don't get me wrong -- I think the general idea behind the area is great! --
> and the graphic design is beautiful! -- I just think LEGO picked a cruel
> name for it.
To an extent, perhaps, but I think you're making too big of a deal out of it.
Consider this article (debate fodder - and I see an interesting one here):
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/2001/0
5/08/life_of_reilly/
(my apologies if the URL cuts off due to wrapping)
In this article, they're talking about schools banning games like dodgeball
because it 'encourages the best to pick on the weak.'
<personal experience>
As a kid I sucked at throwing a ball, or evading a dodgeball as a target. I was
one of what that person quoted above would consider 'weak.' I usually spent
more time out than in in games like dodgeball.
</personal experience>
Yet - after these years of growing up, I look back and do not find myself
emotionally damaged because I got hit by a rubber ball a lot. I'm sure you
could poll a lot of people in your office, school, or neighborhood who can say
they played dodgeball as kids and aren't emotionally damaged by sucking at it
either.
But even deeper than that runs this quote from the article,
"I know what all these NPR-listening, Starbucks-guzzling parents want. They want
their Ambers and their Alexanders to grow up in a cozy womb of noncompetition,
where everybody shares tofu and Little Red Riding Hood and the big, bad wolf set
up a commune. Then their kids will stumble out into the bright light of the real
world and find out that, yes, there's weak and there's strong and teams and
sides and winning and losing. You'll recognize those kids. They'll be the ones
filling up chalupas. Very noncompetitive. "
I see a surprising similarity between this article - in which I wholeheartedly
agree with the author - and the ideas presented here about the negative impact a
section 'Cool Kids' will have on every kid not mentioned's self esteem.
fut: o-t.debate
-Tim
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
71 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
