Re: School stories

In comp.os.linux.misc Nuno Silva <[email protected]> wrote:
> (Maybe this one needs to be narrowed to less groups, or sent to alt.unix.geeks?)
> 
> On 2026-04-04, Steve Hayes wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 3 Apr 2026 18:00:06 +0100, Janet <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, 
>>>[email protected] says...
>>>> 
>>>> On 2 Apr 2026 19:33:18 GMT, rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> >Kipling wrote about the hazing of the younger students by the older ones. 
>>>> >In 'Surprised by Joy' Lewis strongly hints there was a sexual element.
>>>> 
>>>> Lewis doesn't merely hint. He says quite clearly that there was sexual
>>>> exploitation at the school he attended. There were not merely
>>>> adolescent crushes, but there was systemic exploitation as well. 
>>>
>>>
>>>   I'd be surprised if Kilpling used the term hazing,  or was referring 
>>>to that American activity.  He was probably talking about  the  
>>>different British custom fagging 
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagging 
>>
>> I have only a vague idea of what "hazing" is, and assumed it meant
>> something like what was euphemistically called "fresher orientation"
>> at one of the universities I attended, in which new students were
>> humiliated in various ways to make them understand that they were
>> lower than shark shit. 
> 
> It's sad that some people do think such orientation has to come with
> "hazing". It's perfectly possible to have a community and activities for
> orientation and integration purposes without harassment or
> humiliation. Yet some, seeing it with milder harassment, will assume
> it's good because it can be less strong...

It is likely the "social clique" version of the "five monkeys 
experiment" 
<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/games-primates-play/201203/what-monkeys-can-teach-us-about-human-behavior-facts-fiction> 
from business/government that is often used to explain how some long 
outdated process continues to remain "the policy".  Because "that is 
the way it has always been done", even though no one doing the process, 
nor no one mandating the process as policy, remembers why the process 
was done in the way it is done.

The current "social clique" members had to undergo the torture to gain 
their status as "in" members of the clique, so therefore all new 
entrants have to also undergo the same torture the current "in" members 
underwent in order for the new entrants to prove their worthiness for 
inclusion in the clique.  I.e., "because we have always done it that 
way".