3 ms·

Well, the plural of anecdote is not data. Maybe we should reconsider the laws, rather than the organization. If we didn't have a different standard of "guilty

by jbooth 16y ago

Well, the plural of anecdote is not data. Maybe we should reconsider the laws, rather than the organization. If we didn't have a different standard of "guilty until proven innocent" that immediately kicks in when someone's accused of child abuse, the organization might be much more effective. Or less effective. I don't know. Let's not overgeneralize from a few bad stories though.

jacquesm 16y ago
> Let's not overgeneralize from a few bad stories though. The plural of anecdote may not be data, but if there is no data to support something and plenty to support the opposite you're allowed to draw your own conclusions. Not everybody approaches each and every issue in life as though it were a scientific experiment, and when your relationship with your kid(s) is at stake you're allowed to make some shortcuts that a respectable scientist would never make. Using sentences like 'the plural of anecdote is not data' is an easy way to make it seem as though a discussion on a subject is not proper because, after all, all we have is anecdotes but the trick with such sentences is to apply them to the right subjects. This is not one of those subjects. Being accused of child abuse, in the world that we live in is a thing with tons of consequences, the organizations are empowered by the laws that we've got. Reconsideration of those laws is a fine goal but for the time being very unlikely, unless there will be a dramatic shift in the politics of many countries.
- jbooth 16y ago
  No data to support something? How many times has social services taken kids away from parents who were actually bad? 100s of times a day? How many lives and/or psyches have they saved this week? The problem is indeed the politics, because if you're looking for a campaign issue, you can just propose some ridiculous draconian system like "we'll take away kids immediately upon accusation". If your opponent predictably objects that that's unreasonable, he's SOFT ON CHILD ABUSERS. Bonus points if you accuse him of coddling criminals and put up posters with a scary looking black guy on it. These social service workers have a tough job and if they don't follow policy to the letter, they'll get canned. They've also, as said upthread, probably dealt with a fair number of convincing liars and gone home from work knowing that those liars' kids are still being abused. Obviously the cases cited are out of control and obviously we have problems regarding sex offender laws in this country -- you can be haunted for years by taking a leak in public. But the majority of social workers are getting crap pay for a thankless job that at the end of the day, leads to less child abuse. Let's just remember that.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    My 'anecdotes' are unfortunately all I've got, there are most likely instances where kids were taken away from parents that were 'actually bad', but I don't actually know of any of these. I do know of one overlooked case but needless to say the child protection services are not interested in that one because daddy happens to be a fairly influential person in that particular community. But even in that case I'd wager the children are better of with their real parents than they would be in the hands of this 'service', which more often than not tosses children from the frying pan in to the fire. Depending on where you're from it may be that the CPA or whatever it is called locally is doing a fantastic job, but so far I haven't seen any evidence of that and plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, powerplay, pettiness, revenge, allowing themselves to be used as a weapon between adults, messing up children's lives, messing up parents lives and in general doing a shitty job of it. Politics doesn't even enter in to it, that's just the enabling element, the people that make up these institutions are a very large part of the problem, if they did their job right within the law as it is laid down at the moment the bigger part of the problem would go away.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      The laws set their mandate. DSS or whomever is operating according to the laws that have been passed. If the law is reactionary, then it's their job to be reactionary. If the law is lax, it's their job to be lax. As far as the people being the problem, well, I won't ever claim any organization is made up of entirely perfect people. But I'm not lining up to do that job, and you're clearly not, either. So in light of that, unless you're volunteering to do a better job, it might be worth considering that many of those in the job are doing what they can with what they have.

by jbooth 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

> Let's not overgeneralize from a few bad stories though. The plural of anecdote may not be data, but if there is no data to support something and plenty to support the opposite you're allowed to draw your own conclusions. Not everybody approaches each and every issue in life as though it were a scientific experiment, and when your relationship with your kid(s) is at stake you're allowed to make some shortcuts that a respectable scientist would never make. Using sentences like 'the plural of anecdote is not data' is an easy way to make it seem as though a discussion on a subject is not proper because, after all, all we have is anecdotes but the trick with such sentences is to apply them to the right subjects. This is not one of those subjects. Being accused of child abuse, in the world that we live in is a thing with tons of consequences, the organizations are empowered by the laws that we've got. Reconsideration of those laws is a fine goal but for the time being very unlikely, unless there will be a dramatic shift in the politics of many countries.

jbooth 16y ago
No data to support something? How many times has social services taken kids away from parents who were actually bad? 100s of times a day? How many lives and/or psyches have they saved this week? The problem is indeed the politics, because if you're looking for a campaign issue, you can just propose some ridiculous draconian system like "we'll take away kids immediately upon accusation". If your opponent predictably objects that that's unreasonable, he's SOFT ON CHILD ABUSERS. Bonus points if you accuse him of coddling criminals and put up posters with a scary looking black guy on it. These social service workers have a tough job and if they don't follow policy to the letter, they'll get canned. They've also, as said upthread, probably dealt with a fair number of convincing liars and gone home from work knowing that those liars' kids are still being abused. Obviously the cases cited are out of control and obviously we have problems regarding sex offender laws in this country -- you can be haunted for years by taking a leak in public. But the majority of social workers are getting crap pay for a thankless job that at the end of the day, leads to less child abuse. Let's just remember that.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  My 'anecdotes' are unfortunately all I've got, there are most likely instances where kids were taken away from parents that were 'actually bad', but I don't actually know of any of these. I do know of one overlooked case but needless to say the child protection services are not interested in that one because daddy happens to be a fairly influential person in that particular community. But even in that case I'd wager the children are better of with their real parents than they would be in the hands of this 'service', which more often than not tosses children from the frying pan in to the fire. Depending on where you're from it may be that the CPA or whatever it is called locally is doing a fantastic job, but so far I haven't seen any evidence of that and plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, powerplay, pettiness, revenge, allowing themselves to be used as a weapon between adults, messing up children's lives, messing up parents lives and in general doing a shitty job of it. Politics doesn't even enter in to it, that's just the enabling element, the people that make up these institutions are a very large part of the problem, if they did their job right within the law as it is laid down at the moment the bigger part of the problem would go away.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    The laws set their mandate. DSS or whomever is operating according to the laws that have been passed. If the law is reactionary, then it's their job to be reactionary. If the law is lax, it's their job to be lax. As far as the people being the problem, well, I won't ever claim any organization is made up of entirely perfect people. But I'm not lining up to do that job, and you're clearly not, either. So in light of that, unless you're volunteering to do a better job, it might be worth considering that many of those in the job are doing what they can with what they have.