3 ms·

It is not in Greenland. These are tests carried out by the danish child authorities on all parents deemed to potentially have issues fulfilling their roles as p

by tokai 11mo ago

It is not in Greenland. These are tests carried out by the danish child authorities on all parents deemed to potentially have issues fulfilling their roles as parents. edit: Down votes for providing a correction? Alright.

roywiggins 11mo ago
People are down voting because "they test everyone" does not actually really respond to the allegation that it's anti-Indigenous, eg: > When Johanne was asked in 2019 what she saw during a Rorschach test - a psychological test where people are asked what they see when looking at ink-blot images - she said she saw a woman gutting a seal, a familiar sight in Greenland's hunting culture. > Johanne alleges that on hearing this answer the psychologist called her a "barbarian". Using a Rorschach test here seems designed to make this "test" so subjective that anyone could fail it if the invigilators want them to. Inkblot tests? In 2019, to decide if someone's a fit parent? That shouldn't pass the laugh test. You don't have to be an expert to think that's an obviously bad idea.
- tokai 11mo ago
  >does not actually really respond to the allegation that it's anti-Indigenous That's a faulty reading of my comment. I did not touch upon if this is anti-indigenous or not (it is btw). You also fundamentally misrepresent what I wrote with the "they test everyone". Misunderstanding what is actually going on here, even with righteous vitriol, is not going to help anyone.
gus_massa 11mo ago
> deemed to potentially have issues How is this determined? Which is the approval rate of the test? Let's made up 50%. Is it because the preselection is very accurate or because the test is unnecessary hard? Would you volunteer to take the test if the consequence is that they will remove your children if you fail? Even if everyone take the test, rich people will pay a trainer to prepare for the test. Like fake quote> If you see [the main hero of Denmark] heroically removing the eyes of [most evil enemy of Denmark], then you should reply: Three flowers in a pot. Perhaps the eyes removal makes no sense in the Denmark mythology, but just fill with a similar one. Here in Argentina, it may be "San Martin cutting people in half with his saber in San Lorenzo". A possible to solution is that each day a random member of congress or minister or judge or king/queen/heirs is selected. If they fail, they get banned from any public position for 18 years (because taking away their children is too much for me). If the test is fair, they don't have anything to worry about.
- tokai 11mo ago
  You are assuming my comment argue for or against anything. It does not, I was only correcting a misunderstanding of what is going one here. Calm down.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

by tokai 11mo ago

roywiggins 11mo ago

People are down voting because "they test everyone" does not actually really respond to the allegation that it's anti-Indigenous, eg: > When Johanne was asked in 2019 what she saw during a Rorschach test - a psychological test where people are asked what they see when looking at ink-blot images - she said she saw a woman gutting a seal, a familiar sight in Greenland's hunting culture. > Johanne alleges that on hearing this answer the psychologist called her a "barbarian". Using a Rorschach test here seems designed to make this "test" so subjective that anyone could fail it if the invigilators want them to. Inkblot tests? In 2019, to decide if someone's a fit parent? That shouldn't pass the laugh test. You don't have to be an expert to think that's an obviously bad idea.

tokai 11mo ago
>does not actually really respond to the allegation that it's anti-Indigenous That's a faulty reading of my comment. I did not touch upon if this is anti-indigenous or not (it is btw). You also fundamentally misrepresent what I wrote with the "they test everyone". Misunderstanding what is actually going on here, even with righteous vitriol, is not going to help anyone.

gus_massa 11mo ago

> deemed to potentially have issues How is this determined? Which is the approval rate of the test? Let's made up 50%. Is it because the preselection is very accurate or because the test is unnecessary hard? Would you volunteer to take the test if the consequence is that they will remove your children if you fail? Even if everyone take the test, rich people will pay a trainer to prepare for the test. Like fake quote> If you see [the main hero of Denmark] heroically removing the eyes of [most evil enemy of Denmark], then you should reply: Three flowers in a pot. Perhaps the eyes removal makes no sense in the Denmark mythology, but just fill with a similar one. Here in Argentina, it may be "San Martin cutting people in half with his saber in San Lorenzo". A possible to solution is that each day a random member of congress or minister or judge or king/queen/heirs is selected. If they fail, they get banned from any public position for 18 years (because taking away their children is too much for me). If the test is fair, they don't have anything to worry about.

tokai 11mo ago
You are assuming my comment argue for or against anything. It does not, I was only correcting a misunderstanding of what is going one here. Calm down.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]