6 ms·

Yes it’s normal to worry about your kids. It’s normal for family and friends to worry about your kids. When a politician is worried about your kids, you should

Yes it’s normal to worry about your kids. It’s normal for family and friends to worry about your kids. When a politician is worried about your kids, you should be worried about your rights and freedoms. Not only for your own sake but for your kids too!

slg 2mo ago
>When a politician is worried about your kids, you should be worried about your rights and freedoms. Not only for your own sake but for your kids too! What rights and freedoms should I worry about when a politician wants to make sure my child is fed by supporting food stamp programs or free hot lunches at school? The idea that any attempt to help a child is inherently suspect honestly says something distrubing about your own worldview. You can't imagine someone genuinely caring for a child that isn't there own?
- GiorgioG 2mo ago
  Politicians don’t care about your kids, they only care about your vote.
  - slg 2mo ago
    This level of cynicism is only possible if someone has never interacted with people on a local political level. Once again, it's more a reflection of your own worldview than an accurate reflection of all of humanity. There are some people who genuinely have empathy for others and want to do good. The way some of you refuse to believe that is truly disturbing.
    - stressback 2mo ago
      There are some people who have genuine empathy for others and want to do good, and they aren't politicians. The only thing disturbing about this is you don't see it.
      - slg 2mo ago
        Once again, you can only say this if the idea of "politician" is some abtract concept that you can dehumanize. If you get involved in local politics, I guarantee you will meet someone who cares.
  - cortesoft 2mo ago
    So you should just oppose everything any politician proposes?
- zmgsabst 2mo ago
  In the case of food stamps, that was the leverage by which social engineers destroyed the black family via incentives for single mothers — collapsing from 75% married (circa 1950s) to 25% married (modern). The “Welfare State” is nothing but modern share cropping from the party of Jim Crow.
  - romanhounds 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - slg 2mo ago
    Just so I'm clear here, you think half of Black moms have pushed their child's father away for the lucrative reward of food stamps? And that scenario was preplanned by some unnamed "social engineers"?
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - zmgsabst 2mo ago
      The sharecropping nature was intentional, ie, their vision of subservient people generating wealth for the state which it then distributed for their basic needs rather than those people owning property by which they could do for themselves. That it destroyed black families (among others) is merely happenstance rather than intentional racism — stemming from the overall failure of technocratic managerialism. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UPxpKe4N8b8 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UPxpKe4N8b8
  - tadfisher 2mo ago
    Your narrative is embellished and does not correlate strongly with the data [1]. Embellished: marriage rates are 33.8% for Black women and 37.8% for Black men, neither of which I would round to 25%. Uncorrelated: marriage rates dropped sharply among people of all single races on the Census except for Asians. It has dropped more sharply for Black respondents, but anything disproportionately affecting the lower and middle economic classes would disproportionately affect Black families. Show me some data, and not outdated welfare policies from the 1980s, that supports the "social engineers" causal narrative better than plain deindustrialization. Or deindustrialization combined with good old American racism and mass incarceration. I am willing to change my position on this. 1: https://usafacts.org/articles/state-relationships-marriages-and-living-alone-us/ https://usafacts.org/articles/state-relationships-marriages-...
- inigyou 2mo ago
  You should be worried the politician is going to enslave people to make the food for the children.
  - slg 2mo ago
    I find it difficult to give some people on this site the benefit of the doubt when they say nonsense like this. How can you possibly believe that free hot lunches in schools leads to slavery? Like what is the literal chain of events that you imagine happening to lead from one to the other?
- cobbzilla 2mo ago
  > You can't imagine someone genuinely caring for a child that isn't there own? I just said the opposite. I can imagine many people genuinely caring for a child that isn’t their own. I am skeptical when a politician who does not know my children claims to care about them. To borrow an LLMism: It’s not cynicism, it’s the reality of history. We the people have been duped many times over. Caveat Emptor.
  - slg 2mo ago
    >I just said the opposite. I can imagine many people genuinely caring for a child that isn’t their own. Sure, but limited to "family and friends". Following that up with "who does not know my children" indicates you clearly view empathy as extending to merely one's personal relationships and you seemingly can't imagine caring for a stranger's child. I'll grant you cyncism is not the correct description of that worldview, but I stick by the general label of disturbing.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - cobbzilla 2mo ago
      Sure the school board parents are politicians too, they care about kids, no disagreement. If you’d stop straw-manning me for a moment you might notice you still misunderstand my point.
adrianN 2mo ago
There are many scenarios in which politicians can be legitimately worried about the kids. For example if they want to install crosswalks and enforce speed limits around a school, or if they want to increase funding for social services. I do believe we should allow for a lot more nuance in our political opinions and avoid most statements that can be made in the constraints of a short comment on social media.
inigyou 2mo ago
There are no politicians worried about kids. There are politicians worried about the votes of people who worry about kids, which is effectively the same thing.
- account42 2mo ago
  It's very far from the same thing. The former calls for solutions that protect kids, the latter calls for solutions that can be sold as protecting kids.
red_admiral 2mo ago
Politicians often have kids too, and what parent does not worry about their own kids? Is it that much worse if a politician genuinely cares about other people's kids too?
Tangurena2 2mo ago
> When a politician is worried about your kids, you should be worried about your rights and freedoms. Not only for your own sake but for your kids too! I work with those politicians. They have kids too and they are just as susceptible to media/propaganda/fearmongering as you are. However, unlike you and I, they can do something (usually wrong) about it.

slg 2mo ago

>When a politician is worried about your kids, you should be worried about your rights and freedoms. Not only for your own sake but for your kids too! What rights and freedoms should I worry about when a politician wants to make sure my child is fed by supporting food stamp programs or free hot lunches at school? The idea that any attempt to help a child is inherently suspect honestly says something distrubing about your own worldview. You can't imagine someone genuinely caring for a child that isn't there own?

GiorgioG 2mo ago
Politicians don’t care about your kids, they only care about your vote.
- slg 2mo ago
  This level of cynicism is only possible if someone has never interacted with people on a local political level. Once again, it's more a reflection of your own worldview than an accurate reflection of all of humanity. There are some people who genuinely have empathy for others and want to do good. The way some of you refuse to believe that is truly disturbing.
  - stressback 2mo ago
    There are some people who have genuine empathy for others and want to do good, and they aren't politicians. The only thing disturbing about this is you don't see it.
    - slg 2mo ago
      Once again, you can only say this if the idea of "politician" is some abtract concept that you can dehumanize. If you get involved in local politics, I guarantee you will meet someone who cares.
- cortesoft 2mo ago
  So you should just oppose everything any politician proposes?
zmgsabst 2mo ago
In the case of food stamps, that was the leverage by which social engineers destroyed the black family via incentives for single mothers — collapsing from 75% married (circa 1950s) to 25% married (modern). The “Welfare State” is nothing but modern share cropping from the party of Jim Crow.
- romanhounds 2mo ago
  [dead]
- slg 2mo ago
  Just so I'm clear here, you think half of Black moms have pushed their child's father away for the lucrative reward of food stamps? And that scenario was preplanned by some unnamed "social engineers"?
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - zmgsabst 2mo ago
    The sharecropping nature was intentional, ie, their vision of subservient people generating wealth for the state which it then distributed for their basic needs rather than those people owning property by which they could do for themselves. That it destroyed black families (among others) is merely happenstance rather than intentional racism — stemming from the overall failure of technocratic managerialism. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UPxpKe4N8b8 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UPxpKe4N8b8
- tadfisher 2mo ago
  Your narrative is embellished and does not correlate strongly with the data [1]. Embellished: marriage rates are 33.8% for Black women and 37.8% for Black men, neither of which I would round to 25%. Uncorrelated: marriage rates dropped sharply among people of all single races on the Census except for Asians. It has dropped more sharply for Black respondents, but anything disproportionately affecting the lower and middle economic classes would disproportionately affect Black families. Show me some data, and not outdated welfare policies from the 1980s, that supports the "social engineers" causal narrative better than plain deindustrialization. Or deindustrialization combined with good old American racism and mass incarceration. I am willing to change my position on this. 1: https://usafacts.org/articles/state-relationships-marriages-and-living-alone-us/ https://usafacts.org/articles/state-relationships-marriages-...
inigyou 2mo ago
You should be worried the politician is going to enslave people to make the food for the children.
- slg 2mo ago
  I find it difficult to give some people on this site the benefit of the doubt when they say nonsense like this. How can you possibly believe that free hot lunches in schools leads to slavery? Like what is the literal chain of events that you imagine happening to lead from one to the other?
cobbzilla 2mo ago
> You can't imagine someone genuinely caring for a child that isn't there own? I just said the opposite. I can imagine many people genuinely caring for a child that isn’t their own. I am skeptical when a politician who does not know my children claims to care about them. To borrow an LLMism: It’s not cynicism, it’s the reality of history. We the people have been duped many times over. Caveat Emptor.
- slg 2mo ago
  >I just said the opposite. I can imagine many people genuinely caring for a child that isn’t their own. Sure, but limited to "family and friends". Following that up with "who does not know my children" indicates you clearly view empathy as extending to merely one's personal relationships and you seemingly can't imagine caring for a stranger's child. I'll grant you cyncism is not the correct description of that worldview, but I stick by the general label of disturbing.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - cobbzilla 2mo ago
    Sure the school board parents are politicians too, they care about kids, no disagreement. If you’d stop straw-manning me for a moment you might notice you still misunderstand my point.

adrianN 2mo ago

There are many scenarios in which politicians can be legitimately worried about the kids. For example if they want to install crosswalks and enforce speed limits around a school, or if they want to increase funding for social services. I do believe we should allow for a lot more nuance in our political opinions and avoid most statements that can be made in the constraints of a short comment on social media.

inigyou 2mo ago

There are no politicians worried about kids. There are politicians worried about the votes of people who worry about kids, which is effectively the same thing.

account42 2mo ago
It's very far from the same thing. The former calls for solutions that protect kids, the latter calls for solutions that can be sold as protecting kids.

red_admiral 2mo ago

Politicians often have kids too, and what parent does not worry about their own kids? Is it that much worse if a politician genuinely cares about other people's kids too?

Tangurena2 2mo ago

> When a politician is worried about your kids, you should be worried about your rights and freedoms. Not only for your own sake but for your kids too! I work with those politicians. They have kids too and they are just as susceptible to media/propaganda/fearmongering as you are. However, unlike you and I, they can do something (usually wrong) about it.