15 ms·

Notice here that there has been no arrest, no charges, and no trial. Yet the family in question still had to go through a very stressful period of time AND has

Notice here that there has been no arrest, no charges, and no trial. Yet the family in question still had to go through a very stressful period of time AND has an open file with the county CPS, who threatened to take the kids away. I was in a very similar situation for almost the exact same thing. I'm happy Georgia DFACS did not get involved, though being arrested still sucks.

m_mueller 12y ago
This right here is the number one reason why I'd never take a job in the US. I'd be scared to either be forced to * become a helicopter parent (and thus have less independent children). * run the risk of loosing my children and/or go to jail. How the hell did you people let it come that far? I.e. how do people keep voting for these moron politician with their war on XYZ narrative. Me and my wife come from two countries where parents are actually pushed to make their children more independant - Switzerland and Japan. In Switzerland, children are usually sent to Kindergarden on their own, by foot, at least if the neighbourhood is safe (note: requires a city structure where a drive isn't necessary to get anywhere). All parents do is give them a lunchbox, a visibility triangle and a kiss on the head. [1]: This is how you'll meet them on the roads. There's signs and TV programs everywhere before first day of school to warn drivers of new children on the streets - after 1-2 weeks it's not necessary anymore and we don't have a higher number of child accidents to my knowledge. In Japan, small children are accompanied not by their parents, but by older children, usually 3-4 years older. Their morning meetup is organized and supervised by elderly volunteers who keep watch at the meetup point. It both teaches responsibility to the 9+ year olds and first independance from adults to the youngest. How come the US doesn't use studies from abroad when doing CP regulation? Boggles my mind. [1] http://www.baselland.ch/fileadmin/baselland/pics/docs/uebrige/mit_pol/2007/2007d/529_2g.jpg http://www.baselland.ch/fileadmin/baselland/pics/docs/uebrig...
- mikerichards 12y ago
  Switzerland might be different, but let's be honest, many of the countries that surround it don't have political cultures that instill independence in its citizens...especially compared to the U.S.
  - m_mueller 12y ago
    I can't say too much about other European countries since I've never lived there for longer periods of time, but at least judging by what I read I don't quite get your argument. The way I see it there are two aspects of classic liberalism: * liberal towards persons * liberal towards organizations These two often contradict each other, so IMO a place cannot be perfectly and absolutely liberal - it will at best be a balance between the two. The US from what I can judge is extremely liberal towards organizations - kick out tenants, fire employees, influence the government through legal bribery (PACs) - go ahead, no problem (keep your lawyers ready though). Towards persons the US seems to be pretty much the opposite of liberal - the government seems to want to regulate every aspect of people's lives, and if some fall outside the norm there's politicians declaring war on them and introducing more and harsher punishments. In France, Italy, Austria and Germany (=our large neighbours), the tendency is rather the opposite: Relatively liberal towards people, very restrictive towards organizations. Switzerland is a balance between the two, but with the general idea of not restricting anything if it's not really necessary. There's even a third level of liberalism: Towards local governments. Want your own tax regime, with Blackjack and Hookers? Build a new village in Switzerland and let it become an official commune, there you go.
    - learc83 12y ago
      It's a little more nuanced than that--different countries value different personal freedoms. For instance, in Germany you can't homeschool you're children, in the US you can. In the UK it's very difficult to own a gun, in the US it's easy. Many hate speech laws in Europe would be unconstitutional in the US, and the US has broader protections for criminal defendants than many other developed countries. However, on the other side, the US lacks universal healthcare, and has fewer consumer and privacy protections.
      - m_mueller 12y ago
        Yes, gun laws and freedom of speech is usually cited when comparing personal freedoms in the US and Europe - and I agree, it's one aspect of personal freedom (and Switzerland is somewhere in between there btw.). In my opinion however, the differences in these two areas are rather marginal when it comes to how life plays out. To me it comes down to this: Let's say I'm an Alien from outer space who tries to integrate into human society. How free am I to do whatever I'd like. Let's mount Maslow's pyramid. * changing the atmosphere with the gas I like to breath didn't go over too well - got imprisoned for a while, will not repeat. * eating a human was even worse! After decades of imprisonment and therapy in Europe they actually let me free again, my friend in Texas wasn't that lucky. Wouldn't recommend. * Alright, I've learned that human life is sacred and that I shouldn't try to change the environment too much that humans like. Next I had to get was some food source. After searching through what humans throw away (tasty!), some humans came and brought me to a place with a roof. I talked to some other human with a suit who hooked me up with some idea of theirs, I think it's called a 'bank account'. I learned that I can use that to go to a 'store' and exchange that thing using some electrons with fresh food. Pretty neat! * Good news! That suit guy even organized a home for me! Well, the thing is, other humans there didn't quite like my morning roaring rituals, so I had to give them up. Noise is not such a good idea here, especially when silly humans are 'sleeping' - whatever that is, noone could explain so far. Some guy even called in other humans that came in a dress with the word 'police' on it. Was a bit scared at first, but they just explained a bit and went away. * Wanted to paint the outside a bit nicer in traditional Qrkzsu Green. Something strange happened, was sent to a guy that tried to teach me how to integrate. Alright, I got most of it now I think. * It's 40 years later now, nothing much happened. Except I wanted to visit another place that's always in those moving pictures they show using many more electrons. Tried to drink human's version of Grigrog on my way to their own garbage facility. That wasn't a good idea, took a few days to get free again. Wanted to sleep on something they call a 'bench', but apparently it's only for sitting. Ok maybe I've gone a bit far off there ... ;).
- 0942v8653 12y ago
  > How the hell did you people let it come that far? I.e. how do people keep voting for these moron politician with their war on XYZ narrative. I hate to say it, but… we don't really have a choice. You choose either the Republicans or the Democrats, neither of which actually care about the things that matter but instead have, as you mentioned, this odd form of bikeshedding that is intended to make people feel "safe". Not that it actually works, because now we are scared of the government. It's funny how we technically have more freedoms than people in other countries but we have to work so much harder to keep any of them. Japan and Europe different from the US in lots of ways, but at least Europe in general seems to be less concerned about "safety" especially when it's so impractical. And helicopter parenting seems to come easily, just as much a part of culture and social norms as it is necessitated by these laws. It's not something that's exactly forced on people but rather something that's accompanied naturally by the decisions of these "moron politicians". > How come the US doesn't use studies from abroad when doing CP regulation? Boggles my mind. The US doesn't care about studies from abroad. The US is too US-centric; it thinks it's too different from the rest of the world for those studies to apply.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    By Europe, you aren't including the UK right?
    - pjc50 12y ago
      Even in the UK this stuff varies by location. I went to school by train in Croydon about 20 years ago from age 13 and only had two very minor incidents (both caused by other kids from different schools). Lately I moved to Edinburgh and was surprised to see occasional kids that were clearly under 10 taking the bus on their own.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - Pxtl 12y ago
    Europe is absolutely concerned with safety... but actual safety. Look at the Netherlands/Sweden "vision zero" initiative - the goal is to get highway/traffic fatalities down to zero. Compare vs. the USA where over 30,000 Americans die on the road every year. That's like if 9/11 happened 10 times per year, instead of once per century. My kids don't walk to school alone... and it's not because of my worries about paedophiles lurking around every corner, it's the very real risk that they could be hit by a car - the leading cause of death for their age-bracket.
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  > How the hell did you people let it come that far? The number of petty busybodies who think they know how other people should raise their children, even when (especially?) they don't have children of their own, is on the rise. But hey, it takes a village, right?
  - m_mueller 12y ago
    > But hey, it takes a village, right? You mean in Switzerland, to have children on the streets like that? Well we have cities too (albeit smaller ones) and our roads can be very busy as well. Everything tends to be very decentralized however, so each neighbourhood usually has their Kindergarden and primary school, in 15min walking distance from every home. At worst children have to cross one main road on their way, which will be trained with their parents beforehand.
    - thrownaway2424 12y ago
      Right, well when I lived in Zurich children all walked to school without adults. The problem here in the USA is most of our built environment is completely unsuitable for walking or bicycling, even by adults, so adults with life-long windshield perspectives are understandably ignorant of walking.
      - zaroth 12y ago
        The problem here is not the condition of the sidewalk. IMO the problem is too much immunity on the part of the CPS agents. Threatening to abduct a child from their parents in this situation, if they don't sign some absurd contract to not let their children walk outside, should open them up to a lawsuit that should most certainly win, and the agent making the threat should lose their job. Instead, in the current legal environment the lawsuit would be dismissed and the CPS agent is praised for doing a good job!
        zaroth 12y ago
        There are two ways an agency can react when presented with a case like this. On the one hand, by interpreting the law absurdly broadly, you expand your own authority until some check-and-balance comes along and pushes you back in line, which could very well be never. On the other hand, the more you push the boundaries, the less you can focus on where the real problems are. An agency which can't evaluate a situation like this, and in an hour walk away with a 'Have a nice day,' is a broken agency. The bar must be higher than this. Kids are incredibly safe in these neighborhoods, and the more kids that are out, the safer it gets. We need to be encouraging this behavior, not apply some seriously chilling effect. What can be more chilling than the threat of taking away the kids?! The idea that this could reach to that level is I think the worst part of the whole ordeal. This is so far removed from 'we need to get the kids out of here' it is absolutely ridiculous that could even come up. But I think, again, it's about the state trying to maintain 'easy access' to their biggest weapon, so they can use it easily when they need to. I think what there needs to be is a bright line test which assures parents their kids are not at immanent risk of being seized by the fucking state. For this, I think the answer is simple, you cannot ever remove children, you can merely arrest the parents. If you can't legally arrest the parents, then you shouldn't be taking the kids. I can't even imagine how traumatic that must be. I mean... if I was actually working at an agency like this, if I got a call about those kids walking on their own with multiple residents calling the police, the reasonable thing to do is first establish the parents knew where the kids were, and then second ask a few basic questions of the kids, and see if the eldest knows the right answers. It's really no different than if you encounter a park ranger, some of the questions they might ask you to ensure you are safe. We/They are there for your protection. So it's hugely concerning for such a simple case to get this out of hand.
- tokenadult 12y ago
  You wrote, This right here is the number one reason why I'd never take a job in the US. Your fear of coming to the United States, which is second only to France as an international tourist destination, and second to none as a net destination for immigration, is irrational. It is perfectly safe to live in the United States and walk about in public. My children do that all the time. (I say so in a comment in this thread that was posted earlier than your comment.) This news story is news because it is a rare event. But what the news story illustrates is that irrational fear can keep people from doing things that are perfectly safe--like letting their children walk about in public, as I do, or visiting other countries, as I have.
  - m_mueller 12y ago
    How can it be a rare event if it's based on a State law? Am I supposed to trust that the government is not starting to enforce laws I cannot live with? Also, visiting a country and living there are two very different things. I often visit the US and I tend to enjoy it. But deciding to live somewhere (i.e. taking a job) requires a conscious decision by me to accept the overall societal and legal framework of a place - and I currently cannot do that for the US. In fact I question why there aren't more Americans who cannot accept it. Can something like the Sexual Revolution ever happen again (= a wide ranging transformation of society through a largely non violent movement). Is the grip by mass media and government too tight? Is it just not bad enough to warrant action?
    - robotresearcher 12y ago
      > How can it be a rare event if it's based on a State law? Because like all laws, it is invoked and exercised with discretion by real, sensible, responsible people almost all the time.
      - sgift 12y ago
        Sounds like a nicer way of saying: You break laws all the time, but we won't penalize you. At least we won't if you behave the way we deem good ... you will do that, will you? No more of your silly opposition against your betters? Good boy/girl. You either break a law or you don't. The alternative is the begin of tyranny.
- andyl 12y ago
  > How the hell did you people let it come that far? That is a great question, but is IMHO too socially / politically sensitive for Americans to address seriously. An honest and open discussion about root causes isn't going to happen - especially here on Hacker News.
  - m_mueller 12y ago
    Well, there is some discussion, I don't think the thread quality is too bad. What's interesting is the shifting voting behaviour though. First it went to 15 points, then (it was evening in the US) more and more people seem to not have liked the discussion much, so they downvoted me, and now the Europeans have come online and a few more upvotes trickle in. But other than that the discussion seems reasonable - I wouldn't want to try that on /r/politics and such.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > How the hell did you people let it come that far? I.e. how do people keep voting for these moron politician with their war on XYZ narrative. My generation (I'm 30) is incredibly paranoid when it comes to parenting, which is really saying something because my frame of reference is my own parents (over-protective asian immigrant boomers). When I was that age, not only would I walk home from school unsupervised, but they had 4-6th graders as "patrols" along the walking routes to keep an eye on the 1-3d graders. My parents thought nothing of letting me walk my brother home when we were about the same age as the kids in the article, and neither did anyone else. That being said, it should be noted that the place in the article is a D.C. suburb, which means it's full of paranoid, uptight people to begin with. On top of that, like many D.C. suburbs, it has seen a heavy migration of hispanic immigrants in recent years, which has resulted in a lot of tensions. I wouldn't call it representative of the whole U.S.
- cafard 12y ago
  a. The vocative "you people" is accepted when spoken by irresistible authority, e.g. by a drill sergeant to military recruits. In other contexts, it is simply offensive. b) There is a wide neutral ground between "helicopter parent" and the degree of freedom offered the Meitiv children. For various reasons, we drove our son to school but in no other ways resembled the helicopter parent. c) The process you describe is much less electoral than bureaucratic, a rigorous and unthinking carrying out of premises that started off reasonable. The residents of Montgomery County, Maryland, are not that susceptible war on XYZ narratives, but they could have a greater than average acceptance of government regulation, so many of them being employed in the development and enforcement of the same. d) Studies from abroad? If you repopulated close-in Montgomery County with Swiss or Japanese nationals, I'd be happy to see children younger than the Meitiv kids walking home long distances. e) Of course the Meitivs are in the right. And he expression "responsible for unsubstantiated neglect" is revolting.

m_mueller 12y ago

This right here is the number one reason why I'd never take a job in the US. I'd be scared to either be forced to * become a helicopter parent (and thus have less independent children). * run the risk of loosing my children and/or go to jail. How the hell did you people let it come that far? I.e. how do people keep voting for these moron politician with their war on XYZ narrative. Me and my wife come from two countries where parents are actually pushed to make their children more independant - Switzerland and Japan. In Switzerland, children are usually sent to Kindergarden on their own, by foot, at least if the neighbourhood is safe (note: requires a city structure where a drive isn't necessary to get anywhere). All parents do is give them a lunchbox, a visibility triangle and a kiss on the head. [1]: This is how you'll meet them on the roads. There's signs and TV programs everywhere before first day of school to warn drivers of new children on the streets - after 1-2 weeks it's not necessary anymore and we don't have a higher number of child accidents to my knowledge. In Japan, small children are accompanied not by their parents, but by older children, usually 3-4 years older. Their morning meetup is organized and supervised by elderly volunteers who keep watch at the meetup point. It both teaches responsibility to the 9+ year olds and first independance from adults to the youngest. How come the US doesn't use studies from abroad when doing CP regulation? Boggles my mind. [1] http://www.baselland.ch/fileadmin/baselland/pics/docs/uebrige/mit_pol/2007/2007d/529_2g.jpg http://www.baselland.ch/fileadmin/baselland/pics/docs/uebrig...

mikerichards 12y ago
Switzerland might be different, but let's be honest, many of the countries that surround it don't have political cultures that instill independence in its citizens...especially compared to the U.S.
- m_mueller 12y ago
  I can't say too much about other European countries since I've never lived there for longer periods of time, but at least judging by what I read I don't quite get your argument. The way I see it there are two aspects of classic liberalism: * liberal towards persons * liberal towards organizations These two often contradict each other, so IMO a place cannot be perfectly and absolutely liberal - it will at best be a balance between the two. The US from what I can judge is extremely liberal towards organizations - kick out tenants, fire employees, influence the government through legal bribery (PACs) - go ahead, no problem (keep your lawyers ready though). Towards persons the US seems to be pretty much the opposite of liberal - the government seems to want to regulate every aspect of people's lives, and if some fall outside the norm there's politicians declaring war on them and introducing more and harsher punishments. In France, Italy, Austria and Germany (=our large neighbours), the tendency is rather the opposite: Relatively liberal towards people, very restrictive towards organizations. Switzerland is a balance between the two, but with the general idea of not restricting anything if it's not really necessary. There's even a third level of liberalism: Towards local governments. Want your own tax regime, with Blackjack and Hookers? Build a new village in Switzerland and let it become an official commune, there you go.
  - learc83 12y ago
    It's a little more nuanced than that--different countries value different personal freedoms. For instance, in Germany you can't homeschool you're children, in the US you can. In the UK it's very difficult to own a gun, in the US it's easy. Many hate speech laws in Europe would be unconstitutional in the US, and the US has broader protections for criminal defendants than many other developed countries. However, on the other side, the US lacks universal healthcare, and has fewer consumer and privacy protections.
    - m_mueller 12y ago
      Yes, gun laws and freedom of speech is usually cited when comparing personal freedoms in the US and Europe - and I agree, it's one aspect of personal freedom (and Switzerland is somewhere in between there btw.). In my opinion however, the differences in these two areas are rather marginal when it comes to how life plays out. To me it comes down to this: Let's say I'm an Alien from outer space who tries to integrate into human society. How free am I to do whatever I'd like. Let's mount Maslow's pyramid. * changing the atmosphere with the gas I like to breath didn't go over too well - got imprisoned for a while, will not repeat. * eating a human was even worse! After decades of imprisonment and therapy in Europe they actually let me free again, my friend in Texas wasn't that lucky. Wouldn't recommend. * Alright, I've learned that human life is sacred and that I shouldn't try to change the environment too much that humans like. Next I had to get was some food source. After searching through what humans throw away (tasty!), some humans came and brought me to a place with a roof. I talked to some other human with a suit who hooked me up with some idea of theirs, I think it's called a 'bank account'. I learned that I can use that to go to a 'store' and exchange that thing using some electrons with fresh food. Pretty neat! * Good news! That suit guy even organized a home for me! Well, the thing is, other humans there didn't quite like my morning roaring rituals, so I had to give them up. Noise is not such a good idea here, especially when silly humans are 'sleeping' - whatever that is, noone could explain so far. Some guy even called in other humans that came in a dress with the word 'police' on it. Was a bit scared at first, but they just explained a bit and went away. * Wanted to paint the outside a bit nicer in traditional Qrkzsu Green. Something strange happened, was sent to a guy that tried to teach me how to integrate. Alright, I got most of it now I think. * It's 40 years later now, nothing much happened. Except I wanted to visit another place that's always in those moving pictures they show using many more electrons. Tried to drink human's version of Grigrog on my way to their own garbage facility. That wasn't a good idea, took a few days to get free again. Wanted to sleep on something they call a 'bench', but apparently it's only for sitting. Ok maybe I've gone a bit far off there ... ;).
0942v8653 12y ago
> How the hell did you people let it come that far? I.e. how do people keep voting for these moron politician with their war on XYZ narrative. I hate to say it, but… we don't really have a choice. You choose either the Republicans or the Democrats, neither of which actually care about the things that matter but instead have, as you mentioned, this odd form of bikeshedding that is intended to make people feel "safe". Not that it actually works, because now we are scared of the government. It's funny how we technically have more freedoms than people in other countries but we have to work so much harder to keep any of them. Japan and Europe different from the US in lots of ways, but at least Europe in general seems to be less concerned about "safety" especially when it's so impractical. And helicopter parenting seems to come easily, just as much a part of culture and social norms as it is necessitated by these laws. It's not something that's exactly forced on people but rather something that's accompanied naturally by the decisions of these "moron politicians". > How come the US doesn't use studies from abroad when doing CP regulation? Boggles my mind. The US doesn't care about studies from abroad. The US is too US-centric; it thinks it's too different from the rest of the world for those studies to apply.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  By Europe, you aren't including the UK right?
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Even in the UK this stuff varies by location. I went to school by train in Croydon about 20 years ago from age 13 and only had two very minor incidents (both caused by other kids from different schools). Lately I moved to Edinburgh and was surprised to see occasional kids that were clearly under 10 taking the bus on their own.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- Pxtl 12y ago
  Europe is absolutely concerned with safety... but actual safety. Look at the Netherlands/Sweden "vision zero" initiative - the goal is to get highway/traffic fatalities down to zero. Compare vs. the USA where over 30,000 Americans die on the road every year. That's like if 9/11 happened 10 times per year, instead of once per century. My kids don't walk to school alone... and it's not because of my worries about paedophiles lurking around every corner, it's the very real risk that they could be hit by a car - the leading cause of death for their age-bracket.
brandonmenc 12y ago
> How the hell did you people let it come that far? The number of petty busybodies who think they know how other people should raise their children, even when (especially?) they don't have children of their own, is on the rise. But hey, it takes a village, right?
- m_mueller 12y ago
  > But hey, it takes a village, right? You mean in Switzerland, to have children on the streets like that? Well we have cities too (albeit smaller ones) and our roads can be very busy as well. Everything tends to be very decentralized however, so each neighbourhood usually has their Kindergarden and primary school, in 15min walking distance from every home. At worst children have to cross one main road on their way, which will be trained with their parents beforehand.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    Right, well when I lived in Zurich children all walked to school without adults. The problem here in the USA is most of our built environment is completely unsuitable for walking or bicycling, even by adults, so adults with life-long windshield perspectives are understandably ignorant of walking.
    - zaroth 12y ago
      The problem here is not the condition of the sidewalk. IMO the problem is too much immunity on the part of the CPS agents. Threatening to abduct a child from their parents in this situation, if they don't sign some absurd contract to not let their children walk outside, should open them up to a lawsuit that should most certainly win, and the agent making the threat should lose their job. Instead, in the current legal environment the lawsuit would be dismissed and the CPS agent is praised for doing a good job!
      - zaroth 12y ago
        There are two ways an agency can react when presented with a case like this. On the one hand, by interpreting the law absurdly broadly, you expand your own authority until some check-and-balance comes along and pushes you back in line, which could very well be never. On the other hand, the more you push the boundaries, the less you can focus on where the real problems are. An agency which can't evaluate a situation like this, and in an hour walk away with a 'Have a nice day,' is a broken agency. The bar must be higher than this. Kids are incredibly safe in these neighborhoods, and the more kids that are out, the safer it gets. We need to be encouraging this behavior, not apply some seriously chilling effect. What can be more chilling than the threat of taking away the kids?! The idea that this could reach to that level is I think the worst part of the whole ordeal. This is so far removed from 'we need to get the kids out of here' it is absolutely ridiculous that could even come up. But I think, again, it's about the state trying to maintain 'easy access' to their biggest weapon, so they can use it easily when they need to. I think what there needs to be is a bright line test which assures parents their kids are not at immanent risk of being seized by the fucking state. For this, I think the answer is simple, you cannot ever remove children, you can merely arrest the parents. If you can't legally arrest the parents, then you shouldn't be taking the kids. I can't even imagine how traumatic that must be. I mean... if I was actually working at an agency like this, if I got a call about those kids walking on their own with multiple residents calling the police, the reasonable thing to do is first establish the parents knew where the kids were, and then second ask a few basic questions of the kids, and see if the eldest knows the right answers. It's really no different than if you encounter a park ranger, some of the questions they might ask you to ensure you are safe. We/They are there for your protection. So it's hugely concerning for such a simple case to get this out of hand.
tokenadult 12y ago
You wrote, This right here is the number one reason why I'd never take a job in the US. Your fear of coming to the United States, which is second only to France as an international tourist destination, and second to none as a net destination for immigration, is irrational. It is perfectly safe to live in the United States and walk about in public. My children do that all the time. (I say so in a comment in this thread that was posted earlier than your comment.) This news story is news because it is a rare event. But what the news story illustrates is that irrational fear can keep people from doing things that are perfectly safe--like letting their children walk about in public, as I do, or visiting other countries, as I have.
- m_mueller 12y ago
  How can it be a rare event if it's based on a State law? Am I supposed to trust that the government is not starting to enforce laws I cannot live with? Also, visiting a country and living there are two very different things. I often visit the US and I tend to enjoy it. But deciding to live somewhere (i.e. taking a job) requires a conscious decision by me to accept the overall societal and legal framework of a place - and I currently cannot do that for the US. In fact I question why there aren't more Americans who cannot accept it. Can something like the Sexual Revolution ever happen again (= a wide ranging transformation of society through a largely non violent movement). Is the grip by mass media and government too tight? Is it just not bad enough to warrant action?
  - robotresearcher 12y ago
    > How can it be a rare event if it's based on a State law? Because like all laws, it is invoked and exercised with discretion by real, sensible, responsible people almost all the time.
    - sgift 12y ago
      Sounds like a nicer way of saying: You break laws all the time, but we won't penalize you. At least we won't if you behave the way we deem good ... you will do that, will you? No more of your silly opposition against your betters? Good boy/girl. You either break a law or you don't. The alternative is the begin of tyranny.
andyl 12y ago
> How the hell did you people let it come that far? That is a great question, but is IMHO too socially / politically sensitive for Americans to address seriously. An honest and open discussion about root causes isn't going to happen - especially here on Hacker News.
- m_mueller 12y ago
  Well, there is some discussion, I don't think the thread quality is too bad. What's interesting is the shifting voting behaviour though. First it went to 15 points, then (it was evening in the US) more and more people seem to not have liked the discussion much, so they downvoted me, and now the Europeans have come online and a few more upvotes trickle in. But other than that the discussion seems reasonable - I wouldn't want to try that on /r/politics and such.
rayiner 12y ago
> How the hell did you people let it come that far? I.e. how do people keep voting for these moron politician with their war on XYZ narrative. My generation (I'm 30) is incredibly paranoid when it comes to parenting, which is really saying something because my frame of reference is my own parents (over-protective asian immigrant boomers). When I was that age, not only would I walk home from school unsupervised, but they had 4-6th graders as "patrols" along the walking routes to keep an eye on the 1-3d graders. My parents thought nothing of letting me walk my brother home when we were about the same age as the kids in the article, and neither did anyone else. That being said, it should be noted that the place in the article is a D.C. suburb, which means it's full of paranoid, uptight people to begin with. On top of that, like many D.C. suburbs, it has seen a heavy migration of hispanic immigrants in recent years, which has resulted in a lot of tensions. I wouldn't call it representative of the whole U.S.
cafard 12y ago
a. The vocative "you people" is accepted when spoken by irresistible authority, e.g. by a drill sergeant to military recruits. In other contexts, it is simply offensive. b) There is a wide neutral ground between "helicopter parent" and the degree of freedom offered the Meitiv children. For various reasons, we drove our son to school but in no other ways resembled the helicopter parent. c) The process you describe is much less electoral than bureaucratic, a rigorous and unthinking carrying out of premises that started off reasonable. The residents of Montgomery County, Maryland, are not that susceptible war on XYZ narratives, but they could have a greater than average acceptance of government regulation, so many of them being employed in the development and enforcement of the same. d) Studies from abroad? If you repopulated close-in Montgomery County with Swiss or Japanese nationals, I'd be happy to see children younger than the Meitiv kids walking home long distances. e) Of course the Meitivs are in the right. And he expression "responsible for unsubstantiated neglect" is revolting.