If your mental gymnastics were more entertaining I might engage with more of them, but I haven’t completely disengaged. — praxis

But you have, you know that. Otherwise you wouldn't have dropped every topic of our discussion to end up at

I don’t know what to make of your irrational aversion to narratives. Did your mother only read unpleasant stories to you as a child? — praxis

Big man praxis defending the utility of narratives with an ad hominem. It's really quite funny - and fitting.

And if you don’t want to dispute my assertion about the Trump administration favoring the rich and powerful over the working class that is your choice. — praxis

Clinging by the mast, boat sinking... Someone should play the violin. But seriously: why should I do anything when you've plainly ignored most of my points, and distorted the rest through selectively quoting me out of context and the like?

Read our dialog from the beginning, understand that you've been an incredibly rude, emotional and bad faith actor throughout. Oh well :)

defending the utility of narratives with an ad hominem — MadWorld1

I was merely attempting to simultaneously explain your aversion to them and amuse myself. Only questionable stories need defending.

why should I do anything when you've...

You choose to whine instead of dispute, how unsurprising.

stories need defending — praxis

Hush now, my child. Soon you'll be asleep again in the garden of safe space.

Damn, botching quotes is actually kinda fun. I finally understand why you're doing it.

What makes it an issue is our glorious leader saying things like the following at campaign rallies — praxis

Trump makes up things? OMG! :gasp:

Such comments are designed to appeal to the conservative moral framework, and pathetically, they actually work. — praxis

Scaremongering isn't limited to one side, it's a way of the country.

Polarization rules!

Scaremongering isn't limited to one side, — ssu

You mean like that the-shy-is-falling climate change bullshit or that Trump is Hitler reincarnated? The latter is definitely true. :scream:

Hush now, my child. Soon you'll be asleep again in the garden of safe space. — MadWorld1

Funny you would say such a thing, I received a PM today from Outlander demanding that I “hush” because he fears that you are suicidal.

Is that a hoax or should I be the one reassuring you?

Wow. Then again when diplomacy fails... long live politics!

...at first I was trying to be concerned, allegedly. But the fact that semi-unique word is used by him only an hour after I suggested you should... is interesting. Politics, man. Game of Thrones. Good people can be controlled by emotions, by those without. Trust no one. Especially on the internet.

Or to put it in meme speak. I'm in ur inbox eating ur PMz.

Fight battles of spirit not flesh. Or mind not matter. Of course, spillover can always occur.

This thread is total bullshit at the moment. Read the title and whine about or celebrate Trump.

He can be pretty abrasive. But "that's why people like him" apparently it's "real" lol. Never know though... never know. Perhaps one day. But not now.

Its sort of funny (in a grotesque way) how often people say they like Trump because he's "real" or "genuine" or "honest", given that he's one of the more prolific and shameless liars in recent memory. But I suppose its not any more absurd than the idea that he's some populist folk hero looking out for the little guy, despite the fact that he's a spoiled silver-spoon rich boy who's never worked a day in his life and who has spent his entire time in office fighting for the interests of the financial/corporate elite over and against those of middle and working class Americans.

the interests of the financial/corporate elite over and against those of middle and working class Americans. — Enai De A Lukal

Why do people work? So they can be rich like them. You can set a negative example or a positive one. Which would you prefer?

oh boy, imagine being this naive/ignorant :rofl:

So you like to let people sit in darkness when you say you have an answer. Don't knock your own creation. It might knock back.

Because if you did care about equality and "education" you would share your belief- "cold hard facts", sorry- with someone less educated. Yet you don't. Which shows your attitude is far worse than your presumption of any so called elite you speak of. See. You're no different. At all. Perhaps no one is.

and the longest government shutdown in American history.

The new normal (well until November at least).

Funny you would say such a thing, I received a PM today from Outlander demanding that I “hush” because he fears that you are suicidal. — praxis

Aww, you're worried about me? Am I your daddy now?

Is that a hoax or should I be the one reassuring you? — praxis

Parroting again huh? Say it with me praxis: "Projecting my insecurities won't make them go away".

I would freely divulge my conscious insecurities but I don’t want to bore anyone, and we’ve stayed far enough from the topic as it is.

You shouldn’t be ashamed of your condition, I will add. Many of us have been there and worked through it. The trick is learning how to relax.

@praxis @MadWorld1

If you're gonna flame each other about politics, please make sure you're burning something substantive.

Anyway Madworld, why do you have preserving "the nuclear family" as a political goal? What threats is it under?

How did you grow up, fdrake? You're a mod so you're open to more scrutiny of course. Did you enjoy it? Eitherhow, others who did, usually do.

How did you grow up, fdrake? You're a mod so you're open to more scrutiny of course. Did you enjoy it? Eitherhow, others who did, usually do. — Outlander

Not in a traditional nuclear family!

People who really defend it have a load of crossed wires in their heads, in my experience anyway. It's all mixed up with feelings of home and security, with parents it's close to their belief that they're "good parents", some people think that all those gays and queeros raising children is going to destroy society because it's "attacking" the nuclear family structure - as if daddy and mummy fucking In The Missionary Position while thinking of England is what's keeping the world afloat.

I do think the nuclear family has some horrible design problems. Parents honestly want the complete and total responsibility over the flourishing of their child - really? Two people? Are they both that confident in their blindspots? They wanna make the kid dependent on a romantic relationship that the kid's presence interacts with? Predicating a child's safety on the single point of failure of their parents' romantic relationship is a fucking huge design flaw. No redundancy in it. Things being as structurally fragile as they are, the slack of the nuclear family's childcare has to be picked up by close relatives and the state.

I mean think about it, the nuclear family is so ill adapted to the current requirements of society in the political north that (1) the kids get sent away as soon as they're able to socialize, on pain of stunting their social development (IE: mummy and daddy alone are never enough) and (2) the kid's gotta be elsewhere so much to enable the parents to work, they do not even have the luxury of deciding that one partner will be the primary care giver - both have to work otherwise the situation of providing for at least three people on one income rears itself. And that's fragile, so fragile.

I think of someone who wants to make a politics of the nuclear family as being armed with a shotgun and highly agitated. I expect everything they say is rooted in emotional attachment if not blind and unexamined prejudice, a theological noncognitivism with the nuclear family as God.

the slack of the nuclear family's childcare has to be picked up by close relatives and the state. — fdrake

On the other end of life, things aren’t looking good for eldercare, with the working class losing ground in recent decades and entitlements or “free things,” as some conservatives say, being cut.

Attorney General Barr is testifying in front of the house judiciary committee on the federal response to riots and violent protests. A lot of roaming at the mouth going on here.

Ummmm OK, thank for your personal output. :brow:

But wasn't this thread was about Trump?

Yes. @MadWorld1 wants to vote Trump because he will allegedly protect the nuclear family. You never see arguments against the nuclear family, so I thought I'd provide one. If it turns into a thing, I'll split the thread.

An excellent post. We've shattered the family as a social unit, replacing it with the impersonal social structure of schools, workplaces and nursing homes, and all under a pretence of this being "natural".

Examples like both parents usually have to work are not arguments against the nuclear family in my view. Usually the argument is made for the nuclear family because we have seen the problems that rise from widespread single parenting (usually by the mother). Of course you can be against the idea that it's good for children to have both a father and a mother. I still view that having a family as a social net where people take care of each other is a good thing.

Examples like both parents usually have to work are not arguments against the nuclear family in my view. — ssu

The fragility and insufficiency of the nuclear family as a child raising strategy in the modern world aren't arguments against it because...

Usually the argument is made for the nuclear family because we have seen the problems that rise from widespread single parenting (usually by the mother). — ssu

Single parenting is bad. And:

I still view that having a family as a social net where people take care of each other is a good thing. — ssu

The nuclear family is a better child raising strategy than leaving a baby alone in the woods.

That's not a very good argument. Here's why: the alternatives to the nuclear family as the predominant child raising strategy aren't just single parenthood and leaving a baby alone in the woods (having no social net); it's having multiple parent figures who collectively raise kids and thus have a larger social safety net. You agree that having a reliable and large social safety net is a massive benefit for a kid, why stop at the nuclear family?

Nuclear families don't even stop at the nuclear family; they depend on nurseries and elderly relatives. Parents know intimately that two parents aren't enough to raise a kid; the kids don't get socialized in that structure, the parents need time off from being nuclear parents to recover, the parents can't even commit to raising the child together because they need to work. So; nurseries. Two authority figures that must remain in some kind of love aren't enough, they get bored and tired, and offload the kid to their friends and family, the state and businesses. The nuclear family requires being embedded in a larger social network to function well; IE, other people and institutions must pick up its slack.

It isn't the social safety net we're both agreeing is good; the nuclear family requires a large one to limp along like it does already.

I grew up at a boarding school (from 7 years old) and alternating between two different homes on the weekends and holidays (divorced parents) and I think I grew up to be a well-adjusted adult.

:up:

The nuclear family is neither sufficient nor necessary for well adjusted adults.

Debatable. :razz:

Other than that as a parent with two kids; I rely heavily on extended family (1 day a week 1 kid, 1 day a week 2 kids 1/2 day), child care (2 days a week 1 kid), school (3 full days, 2 half days for 1 kid) and neighbours (all the time) to take care of my kids. Seems natural to me.

You agree that having a reliable and large social safety net is a massive benefit for a kid, why stop at the nuclear family? — fdrake

Sure. And in the way you describe it:

Nuclear families don't even stop at the nuclear family; they depend on nurseries and elderly relatives. — fdrake

Kindergartens, schools, grandparents and the extended family is of course very typical. And in many parts of the World where there aren't other social safety nets the only thing people can rely is to a far more extended family than just the nuclear family. Social relations differ as for example in Latin American countries the extended family is more important than in let's say the Nordic countries.

To me those that emphasize the nuclear family make the point mainly reasoning that single parenthood is bad as you agreed. I neither think that the proponents of the nuclear families are against the extended families either, likely they just admit that the extended family has broken up.

Yes, there are other groups who view the issue from a religious point of view and those conservatives that simply oppose alternative families. Of course then being against alternative families is a bit different: just saying that nuclear families are important doesn't mean that you are against alternative families.