5 ms·

The sad fact is, there is a truly real evil going on when it comes to many rights. Parental rights are just the most recent battleground, and no one does a thin

by _siis 4y ago

The sad fact is, there is a truly real evil going on when it comes to many rights. Parental rights are just the most recent battleground, and no one does a thing to curb it. Also, I don't mean a cultural evil, as most people dismiss this as just being your cultural opinion. I mean the type of multi-cultural evil that strips people of their ability to respond (agency), tells them misleading lies, promotes flawed and self-defeating beliefs, causes loss in one form or another, and worse most of the time the people doing this are mentally ill but you still have to deal with the outcomes. This is a real problem because if you conform, you are tacitly approving of those beliefs and your children will learn socially from your response to it. Unfortunately, in a world where you get CPS or the police called to charge you with child endangerment its a pretty mad world, and its happening more and more. An interesting parallel are these philosophies that you can somehow make things safe, all ultimately fall into some form of socialist or fascist narrative where someone at the top decides what is or isn't safe because you as an individual are unimportant comapared to the group which is paramount. These narratives are very common in totalitarian and fascist societies that use propaganda and political warfare to kill potentially disruptive thinking.

derivagral 4y ago
> totalitarian and fascist societies A few books helped me frame this stuff far better than I was able to before. This was the one I started with[0]. Framing isn't a fix or a prevention, but it has helped me to adjust actions and expectations much more tailored for the situation. I am not looking forward to that crocodile remark: "I just want to be sure your child is safe." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Freedom
- StrangeATractor 4y ago
  Just came in here to say that Fromm is great. Highly recommended.
- atoav 4y ago
  As an outside observer, the single most disturbing trend in the US is the fact that everybody seemingly feels totally entitled to police each other's lives. My personal religious believe frowns uppon $X? That means $X should now be illegal for everybody. I believe without evidence your kids are constantly unsafe: let me call the police on them. It is okay not to like what your neighbours are doing. It is okay (and maybe even necessary) to discuss this with them. But it is not okay to call the police on them or force them by law to your believes. And that in a nation where your cent piece had "Mind your business" written on it.
  - zpeti 4y ago
    It’s the Protestant Puritanism of American culture getting stronger. It’s the same with the so called woke religion, it’s just a repackaging of Puritanism. Just like any culture there are many parts of the American one, but the part that comes from adventure, exploration, freedom etc definitely has been on the decline since about the 70-80s. Control and Puritanism is what’s stronger now. Personally I hope it swings back at some point.
    - whythre 4y ago
      It’s all paternalistic authoritarianism… but the logic is consistent- if the majority of people think we should police how adults act and think, well, children should absolutely, unconditionally be micromanaged! The poor little fools might get hurt and then someone will get sued.
      - atoav 4y ago
        Don't get me wrong here, but I don't think what you (perhaps sarcastically?) state here is a good idea. If all adults agree to build mechanized genocidal murder factories that will remain a stain on humanity for centuries it is still wrong to do so. Some rights are non-negotiable to my eyes. Even (or maybe especially) when a democratic majority decides to break them. Legality doesn't matter here. The concentration camps next to where I grew up were also legal during Nazi reign. That doesn't make them right, not back then, not now and not in the future. I'd highly advise against a petty "let's se where that gets them"-stance when it comes to human rights issues, because those paying the price are not those who commit the atrocities.
- than3 4y ago
  Thanks for the recommendation. I hadn't heard about this book, and I'm always looking for new books that help frame problems better. Just based off what I saw regarding this, its probably not the best as a starter book. It can really be tough with this type of material because if you don't have a solid practical or rigorous approach to both logic and argumentation, and can reasonably make parallels or see where it leads, you can easily fall into traps that are plausible but may be flawed/false. You really have to approach this type of material critically and assume its false until you can find rational and reasonable support for what may be said. Reading material in this genre, like you would a leisure book would be a mistake, since most tend to internalize words/concepts like movies after speed picks up, and of course children that have not yet reached the age of reason shouldn't be reading this type of material since they would be developmentally incapable of recognizing any potential lies for what they might be. Not having read the book yet I can't yet vouch for the content, but it definitely looks interesting, and worth a read, at least for me. You really have to know the philosophy and tactics that are pushed in this area in order to recognize it enough to defend against it. There was a very interesting recent publication in USMC University on Political Warfare which has some overlap.
- pharmakom 4y ago
  Thank you for sharing this. I have experienced this cycling without a helmet (as is my right) from aggressive motorists. Now I have a term for the phenomenon!
deanCommie 4y ago
> I mean the type of multi-cultural evil that strips people of their ability to respond (agency), tells them misleading lies, promotes flawed and self-defeating beliefs, causes loss in one form or another, and worse most of the time the people doing this are mentally ill but you still have to deal with the outcomes. This is such a non-statement that everyone can fill in with the ideology that they choose to categorize in this way. You voiced a lot of super general concerns, but without specific examples it's difficult what you actually believe. Because so much language has been corrupted. Both people that see peaceful transition of power of democracy in the US being threatened, and those that are against public health mandated COVID lockdowns call those that disagree with them "fascist". So I genuinely don't know what you're talking about in this paragraph and I'm curious if you would be willing to share some examples.
- than3 4y ago
  > This is such a non-statement Its not a statement, its a set of statements that compose a characterization, which is something commonly done by scientists, engineers, and rational people to communicate specific descriptions so they can be recognized again by others, this is primarily done when common words are not available to match specific common meanings in communications. > can fill in with the ideology that they choose to categorize in this way You'll have to further clarify what you mean, there are two potential meanings embedded with that single statement, and you've failed to communicate which one that is, it looks to me like you've misunderstood this as some ideology akin to philosophy such as consequentialism when its a description of behavior. A characterization is just a description of the distinctive nature, elements, features, or composition of someone or something specific, in this case behavior. Behavior that leaves at least one party with a negative outcome while also negatively impacting all or most future outcomes related to that party. Its important to understand and convey the correct and rational meaning of words, as you said many groups seek to corrupt language to prevent communication, to distract, disorient, and create disunity using a whole host of sordid and malign influence tactics to cause distorted reflected appraisal. > Both people... and those that disagree with them. We will not be going off into the weeds, talking about potentially irrational beliefs of others, or getting bogged down in unrelated controversial narratives as those only serve disunity and chaos. You may also want to review the actual definition and elements of fascism. Regardless, what you mention here has no relevance to the current discussion.
akomtu 4y ago
Iirc, there is a small book "The Grand Inquisitor" that shows this problem in a hypothetical dialogue between imprisoned Jesus and the chief church inquisitor who claims that freedom and moral choice is too much to bear and what people need instead is "freedom from choice."
- tetromino_ 4y ago
  It is one chapter (a story-within-a-story) in Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov.
welshwelsh 4y ago
I really don't like the phrase "parental rights." As authority figures, parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities. Parenting is a form of government and should be treated as such. It's the children's rights, freedom and agency that are being infringed upon. Even if a parent was unjustly restricting their own child from going outside, instead of calling the police on someone else's child, that would be just as wrong. On average, I think CPS interventions are usually good. A parent with unchecked power is the ultimate form of totalitarianism, and abuse is common.
- than3 4y ago
  That's a very irrational line of flawed circular thought. You cannot have responsibilities without having the necessary rights needed to fulfill those responsibilities. Its two sides of the same coin. You have both, or you have neither regardless of what someone else may irrationally say or decide, and rational thought is all that matters. Worse, that line of reasoning also leads to legitimizing and justifying coercion, corruption, compulsion, and a large number of other intolerable outcomes that have throughout history cyclically become self-destructive. There are plenty of examples in history, it was very common in years leading up the Nazi's rise to power before and during WW2. You may want to further educate yourself from published statistics before pushing unbacked value statements like its 'usually good', and 'abuse is common' [0]. If you'd checked, you'd see what you said is not actually true and misleads. Additionally, take a look at the pie chart broken down by category in the report, what percentage of false reports do they say they receive... What percentage of reports, in aggregate, find some form of confirmation (based on how those categories are handled with respect to due process). Keep in mind, 'Unsubstantiated' doesn't mean what you might think it means [1]. Given police refer these issues to CPS for investigation instead of investigating themselves, and given statistics often follow a distribution curve not a binary choice, are either of those answers that are simple lookups from the report, likely, or expected, or rationally sound without there being some profound issue with the system being measured. [No]. Its really disheartening having to deal with people pushing irrational misinformation, and other limiting beliefs and narratives that will negatively impact others. All this comment's done is add to the noise in a fundamentally negative way to muddy water. Karma has a way of coming back to you three fold over time regardless of whether you believe in it or not. Please try to avoid pushing false noise in the future. [0] https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/canstats.pdf https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/canstats.pdf, Statistics [1] https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/decisionmaking.pdf https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/decisionmaking.pdf

by _siis 4y ago

derivagral 4y ago

> totalitarian and fascist societies A few books helped me frame this stuff far better than I was able to before. This was the one I started with[0]. Framing isn't a fix or a prevention, but it has helped me to adjust actions and expectations much more tailored for the situation. I am not looking forward to that crocodile remark: "I just want to be sure your child is safe." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Freedom

StrangeATractor 4y ago
Just came in here to say that Fromm is great. Highly recommended.
atoav 4y ago
As an outside observer, the single most disturbing trend in the US is the fact that everybody seemingly feels totally entitled to police each other's lives. My personal religious believe frowns uppon $X? That means $X should now be illegal for everybody. I believe without evidence your kids are constantly unsafe: let me call the police on them. It is okay not to like what your neighbours are doing. It is okay (and maybe even necessary) to discuss this with them. But it is not okay to call the police on them or force them by law to your believes. And that in a nation where your cent piece had "Mind your business" written on it.
- zpeti 4y ago
  It’s the Protestant Puritanism of American culture getting stronger. It’s the same with the so called woke religion, it’s just a repackaging of Puritanism. Just like any culture there are many parts of the American one, but the part that comes from adventure, exploration, freedom etc definitely has been on the decline since about the 70-80s. Control and Puritanism is what’s stronger now. Personally I hope it swings back at some point.
  - whythre 4y ago
    It’s all paternalistic authoritarianism… but the logic is consistent- if the majority of people think we should police how adults act and think, well, children should absolutely, unconditionally be micromanaged! The poor little fools might get hurt and then someone will get sued.
    - atoav 4y ago
      Don't get me wrong here, but I don't think what you (perhaps sarcastically?) state here is a good idea. If all adults agree to build mechanized genocidal murder factories that will remain a stain on humanity for centuries it is still wrong to do so. Some rights are non-negotiable to my eyes. Even (or maybe especially) when a democratic majority decides to break them. Legality doesn't matter here. The concentration camps next to where I grew up were also legal during Nazi reign. That doesn't make them right, not back then, not now and not in the future. I'd highly advise against a petty "let's se where that gets them"-stance when it comes to human rights issues, because those paying the price are not those who commit the atrocities.
than3 4y ago
Thanks for the recommendation. I hadn't heard about this book, and I'm always looking for new books that help frame problems better. Just based off what I saw regarding this, its probably not the best as a starter book. It can really be tough with this type of material because if you don't have a solid practical or rigorous approach to both logic and argumentation, and can reasonably make parallels or see where it leads, you can easily fall into traps that are plausible but may be flawed/false. You really have to approach this type of material critically and assume its false until you can find rational and reasonable support for what may be said. Reading material in this genre, like you would a leisure book would be a mistake, since most tend to internalize words/concepts like movies after speed picks up, and of course children that have not yet reached the age of reason shouldn't be reading this type of material since they would be developmentally incapable of recognizing any potential lies for what they might be. Not having read the book yet I can't yet vouch for the content, but it definitely looks interesting, and worth a read, at least for me. You really have to know the philosophy and tactics that are pushed in this area in order to recognize it enough to defend against it. There was a very interesting recent publication in USMC University on Political Warfare which has some overlap.
pharmakom 4y ago
Thank you for sharing this. I have experienced this cycling without a helmet (as is my right) from aggressive motorists. Now I have a term for the phenomenon!

deanCommie 4y ago

> I mean the type of multi-cultural evil that strips people of their ability to respond (agency), tells them misleading lies, promotes flawed and self-defeating beliefs, causes loss in one form or another, and worse most of the time the people doing this are mentally ill but you still have to deal with the outcomes. This is such a non-statement that everyone can fill in with the ideology that they choose to categorize in this way. You voiced a lot of super general concerns, but without specific examples it's difficult what you actually believe. Because so much language has been corrupted. Both people that see peaceful transition of power of democracy in the US being threatened, and those that are against public health mandated COVID lockdowns call those that disagree with them "fascist". So I genuinely don't know what you're talking about in this paragraph and I'm curious if you would be willing to share some examples.

than3 4y ago
> This is such a non-statement Its not a statement, its a set of statements that compose a characterization, which is something commonly done by scientists, engineers, and rational people to communicate specific descriptions so they can be recognized again by others, this is primarily done when common words are not available to match specific common meanings in communications. > can fill in with the ideology that they choose to categorize in this way You'll have to further clarify what you mean, there are two potential meanings embedded with that single statement, and you've failed to communicate which one that is, it looks to me like you've misunderstood this as some ideology akin to philosophy such as consequentialism when its a description of behavior. A characterization is just a description of the distinctive nature, elements, features, or composition of someone or something specific, in this case behavior. Behavior that leaves at least one party with a negative outcome while also negatively impacting all or most future outcomes related to that party. Its important to understand and convey the correct and rational meaning of words, as you said many groups seek to corrupt language to prevent communication, to distract, disorient, and create disunity using a whole host of sordid and malign influence tactics to cause distorted reflected appraisal. > Both people... and those that disagree with them. We will not be going off into the weeds, talking about potentially irrational beliefs of others, or getting bogged down in unrelated controversial narratives as those only serve disunity and chaos. You may also want to review the actual definition and elements of fascism. Regardless, what you mention here has no relevance to the current discussion.

akomtu 4y ago

Iirc, there is a small book "The Grand Inquisitor" that shows this problem in a hypothetical dialogue between imprisoned Jesus and the chief church inquisitor who claims that freedom and moral choice is too much to bear and what people need instead is "freedom from choice."

tetromino_ 4y ago
It is one chapter (a story-within-a-story) in Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov.

welshwelsh 4y ago

I really don't like the phrase "parental rights." As authority figures, parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities. Parenting is a form of government and should be treated as such. It's the children's rights, freedom and agency that are being infringed upon. Even if a parent was unjustly restricting their own child from going outside, instead of calling the police on someone else's child, that would be just as wrong. On average, I think CPS interventions are usually good. A parent with unchecked power is the ultimate form of totalitarianism, and abuse is common.

than3 4y ago
That's a very irrational line of flawed circular thought. You cannot have responsibilities without having the necessary rights needed to fulfill those responsibilities. Its two sides of the same coin. You have both, or you have neither regardless of what someone else may irrationally say or decide, and rational thought is all that matters. Worse, that line of reasoning also leads to legitimizing and justifying coercion, corruption, compulsion, and a large number of other intolerable outcomes that have throughout history cyclically become self-destructive. There are plenty of examples in history, it was very common in years leading up the Nazi's rise to power before and during WW2. You may want to further educate yourself from published statistics before pushing unbacked value statements like its 'usually good', and 'abuse is common' [0]. If you'd checked, you'd see what you said is not actually true and misleads. Additionally, take a look at the pie chart broken down by category in the report, what percentage of false reports do they say they receive... What percentage of reports, in aggregate, find some form of confirmation (based on how those categories are handled with respect to due process). Keep in mind, 'Unsubstantiated' doesn't mean what you might think it means [1]. Given police refer these issues to CPS for investigation instead of investigating themselves, and given statistics often follow a distribution curve not a binary choice, are either of those answers that are simple lookups from the report, likely, or expected, or rationally sound without there being some profound issue with the system being measured. [No]. Its really disheartening having to deal with people pushing irrational misinformation, and other limiting beliefs and narratives that will negatively impact others. All this comment's done is add to the noise in a fundamentally negative way to muddy water. Karma has a way of coming back to you three fold over time regardless of whether you believe in it or not. Please try to avoid pushing false noise in the future. [0] https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/canstats.pdf https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/canstats.pdf, Statistics [1] https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/decisionmaking.pdf https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/decisionmaking.pdf