Tedesche @ Tedesche @lemmy.world

Posts

14

Comments

1,112

Joined

2 yr. ago

They’d dismiss it no matter the person’s race.

Duhurrhurrhurr, jokes about male rape victims so funny, hurrdehurrhurr!

Please seek help for your neurological disease.

I agree with the point you’re making, but the question of why people in the U.S. at least care more about this conflict than the others does have an answer, and I think it’s that the Israel-Palestine conflict has much more of a relevant history to Americans and our government is much more directly involved in it (or at least perceived to be) than the others. Pro-Israel support groups have existed here since Israel was formed and pro-Palestinian groups have existed here for at least a few decades as well. So, there’s already an existing activist structure to respond when something like Oct. 7th happens.

https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/121021051717-united-nations-every-woman-every-child-dinner-2012.jpg?q=w_1110,c_fill

You wear diamond-encrusted glasses, don’t you?

Okay, okay, okay, don't worry, I've been well-trained to know what to do here: we send Mr. Turscak on a paid vacation from prison while his Mexican Mafia gangmates investigate him for any wrongdoing.

Whine someplace else, troll.

I think you need some education. Review this woman's career and ask yourself honestly how conservative she seems. If what you read on the following page sounds like a conservative to you, I think your definitions are skewed as fuck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi

Thank you, this is exactly what @originalucifer is exhibiting. They ignore all of what Pelosi has fought for over the years, simply because she's not as far left as they are. And then they categorize anyone not as far left as them as a conservative/Republican. It's an us-vs-them purity test, designed to sow division, not guild a coalition against actual conservatives/Republicans.

I am not the cartoon monster you're so keen on fighting, but I think you're the type that looks for windmills to joust at online. I'm not interested in engaging in a pointless debate with someone who has already decided I'm evil. Go play Hero somewhere else.

I've already said I wasn't talking about the funding issue. At this point, you seem to be willfully misunderstanding me, so I'm not going to continue responding.

I can't help you with your apparently willful stupidity.

Do you think money allotted to the state for welfare should be used to fund CPS investigations?

No.

Do you think the foster care system is well run?

No.

What can you divine from these two closed-ended questions?

Whether some problem is the “direct” or “indirect” consequence of poverty does not matter for whether poverty reduction programs like TANF are effective.

Oh, yes it does. TANF is a band-aid on poverty; it does not address the systemic issues that poverty creates at all.

t’s a non sequitur.

With respect, I don't think you're using that phrase correctly.

You imply that improving the delivery of social supports like TANF will not be effective at helping the poor (who are, after all, the direct cause of their own problems in your experience!). But other rich countries with better social safety nets enjoy much better outcomes for the poor than the US. It’s strange that you criticize a systemic change to the delivery of welfare to the poor for not being “complex” or “systemic”. I’m not sure how blaming the poor for their problems is more “complex” or “systemic”. On the contrary, that’s highly individualistic and moralizing.

I'm not blaming the poor, and if you think I am, you haven't understood my comment at all. Other countries that have done better in terms of outcomes for the poor achieve those outcomes for a variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with government programs but rather culture or societal homogeneity. A lot of countries in Europe enjoy relative ethnic homogeneity compared to the United States and other countries, and champion their success falsely upon the neglect of the fact that they haven't had to deal with the issues that stem from having a multi-ethnic population. Just look at the Netherlands and what happened to their celebratorily tolerant society when they started admitting Islamic immigrants into their population: they experienced culture clash and began isolating immigrant groups into effective camps to "educate" them in order to ease social conflict. In other words, mixing cultures always results in social conflict, and governments tend to abuse the newcomers to those conflicts out of a legitimate desire to preserve their own culture above that of the newcomers'. Egalitarians like to think acclimation is a neat process, but it's anything but. It's hard and difficult and messy, and there really isn't any good solution to it. It requires continued empathy and tolerance, and willful assimilation by the newcomers; if there is resistance from assimilating populations, such as ghettoization, cultural conflict and violence are an inevitability. So, immigrants are sometimes part of the problem. That's just the way it is.

Funding is insufficient to address the problems I pointed to in my comment. It's not about money; it's about parenting and the related psychological skills. The only thing that can address that is complex social support; not just teaching of specific skills but relational improvements. I'm a therapist in a community mental health clinic. In addition to definable psychiatric disorders, I can tell you that at least half of what we treat is effectively the psychosocial consequences of generational poverty. In other words, we deal with "ghetto", "ratchet," "x-trash" people. These are people who don't necessarily qualify for any psychiatric diagnosis, but are nonetheless folks who no one wants to deal with in life. They're the products of bad parenting, who haven't been taught how to manage their emotions, and thus react in extreme ways to minor stressors, which makes them an annoyance and a threat to people we consider "normal." These folks need re-parenting. They're broken in a real sense, and I don't put it that way to diminish them. They weren't given the things we take for granted, and as such they can't function in ways we expect them to. And it's not fair to expect "normal" people to tolerate them either, because those "normal" people weren't prepared to deal with them. This is a hugely complex problem and it requires a solution that likely requires decades to fix, because it is generational in nature.

I understand the issue being highlighted in the article, and I wasn't commenting on that specifically. I was merely expressing disjunction with their characterization of the CPS system in the sense that they implied there was a hostile motive behind it in a general sense. In my experience, this isn't true.

No, and to be fair, I was assuming they were more general in their accusations.

ProPublica found that in Arizona and elsewhere, money meant to help parents struggling to raise their children is instead used to investigate them for alleged child maltreatment — which often stems from the very financial circumstances that they needed help with in the first place.

Under the Biden plan, Arizona would likely have to find other ways of funding its aggressive child protective services investigations of poor parents and use welfare dollars to help families stay together rather than removing their kids into foster care.

As someone who works with low-income folks and sees plenty of CPS cases play out, I think the article is being pretty slanted in its coverage here. It's depicting CPS investigations as being weaponized against the poor, but this is far from the truth in my experience. Funny how people stop caring about "putting children's safety first" when it becomes politically convenient to do so. In my experience, it's actually pretty rare that a family be investigated by CPS due to unavoidable problems related to poverty. I'm not going to say it never happens, but it's far from the norm in my experience. More often, the issue is a combination of poverty and the parent not doing something they should have or otherwise making bad decisions. One can of course argue that said bad decisions are due to social problems linked to the client's impoverished background, and that's true, but it's not a direct consequence of the parent not having enough money to take care of their children, and the distinction is important. One is an issue of one government system punishing a person for another government system's failure, not the parent's; the other is a much more complex societal systemic issue that is not a problem with government systems per se, but rather a sociological problem that requires a much more complex solution. The article's framing of this issue is simplistic and seems deliberately misleading for political purposes. Bad reporting.

Buck didn’t stop there.

Oh, shit. Careful guys, he's gone off-colloquialism!