Kindergartens, schools, grandparents and the extended family is of course very typical. — ssu
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. — ssu
To me those that emphasize the nuclear family make the point mainly reasoning that single parenthood is bad as you agreed. — ssu
So what's the solution? MadWorld1, how would a President like Trump (rather than like Biden) help prevent single parenthood? Require single women to have abortions? Require fathers to marry their child's mother? — Michael
Unfortunately, few families voluntarily can choose that one stays home raises the children. At worst this view is depicted as being against women being in the workforce.Very typical because it's socially necessary. How's anyone expected to juggle kids and all the other responsibilities they have? Especially when you've gotta do those other responsibilities to take care of the kids. — fdrake
Basically the correlation between single parenthood and poverty.When someone believes the nuclear family is under threat, what threats do you think they're imagining? — fdrake
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and assume that it's code word for being against same-sex marriage and same-sex parents. — Michael
So what's the solution? MadWorld1, how would a President like Trump (rather than like Biden) help prevent single parenthood? Require single women to have abortions? Require fathers to marry their child's mother? — Michael
I think that many refer also to the economic environment, or with minorities incarceration rates etc. Marriage and getting children is a financial issue also. Few if any refer just to fidelity, commitment or to having the "finish school, get a haircut and get a good job" mentality. The fact is simply that environment has this effect on people: what is common in their surroundings, people will feel is normal.They'll look at ssu's graph about poverty and marriage and treat marriage, the individual choice of fidelity and commitment, as the causal factor to be manipulated in solving the problem. — fdrake
I think that many refer also to the economic environment, or with minorities incarceration rates etc. Marriage and getting children is a financial issue also. — ssu
Fdrake, for Americans their biggest threat is their antagonistic partisan ideologues dominating every sphere of policy discussion and hence crippling the ability to make any drastic changes.Absolutely. But you're still thinking about it like a reasonable human being and not an ideologue. — fdrake
American politics goes with the latter as the objective is really to polarize and divide the people. And may I add that the portrayed image about the opposing side is painted using the worst kind of stereotypes imaginable. Just take the most eccentric and ideologically driven comments and depict them to be what the other side is all about.are you going to think about social policy that removes stressors from (potential) households and provides resource access + stability, or are you condemning single mums for being horribly irresponsible welfare queens with one side of your mouth and railing on sexual degeneracy on the other? It's the latter. — fdrake
Fdrake, for Americans their biggest threat is their antagonistic partisan ideologues dominating every sphere of policy discussion and hence crippling the ability to make drastic changes. — ssu
Basically the whole thing is meant to divide the people, it is meant to be divisive. The objective is to turn you against each other, not to find the obvious common causes that people both on the left and the right would agree on, like that the political system is corrupt and geared for the extremely rich or that the health care system is hideously expensive. Or that excessive use of force by police is a problem and something ought to be done about it. — ssu
Critique how? Which side should I criticize? If I do them both, Americans will be just confused just where I stand. (That's the basic problem, because the thinking starts from that either you are with us or against us)In other words; you acknowledge the pervasiveness of ideology and how powerful it is, but you simultaneously do not critique it and simply hope that people will be able to overcome it through sufficient talking. That "principle of sufficient talking" is ultimately just ideology too; who're we talking to and what will be done? Talk, just talk. — fdrake
is born of the primitive tribalism evolution has equipped us with rather than for a good, rational reason — DingoJones
All I had to do was use a trigger phrase “us vs them” and you ignored whatever context I used in favour of this preconceived context of simplistic judgement to make a point about glass houses. — DingoJones
My point is actually shown well with your response. All I had to do was use a trigger phrase “us vs them” and you ignored whatever context I used in favour of this preconceived context of simplistic judgement to make a point about glass houses. No glass house here. — DingoJones
And is it just talk talk? Nothing is overcome just by talking but by real actions. Centrist views are viewed as a losing argument that "cave in" to the wrong side. As if people wouldn't have strong opinions. Or as some in another thread one PF member viewed with disgust the idea of consensus. . — ssu
I think you underestimate people. Or mischaracterize them. — fdrake
I did read the rest of your post. I just didn't understand that you were meaning literally a return to a mythical tribal mindset that allegedly facilitated inter-tribal war. I still suspect that you don't actually really believe we're returning to a warring tribal society fighting over exactly why Kanye is problematic, and that your meaning is mostly hyperbole by means of allusion. — fdrake
So you're quite happy to characterize me based off of an alleged trigger response, when you could've asked what I actually thought. Instead of doing so, you have lumped me in with the people who follow the simplistic "us vs them" dynamic, and are making an example of me as one of those fools you're so much better than. Great! — fdrake
It wasnt my intention to characterise you in general as a primitive “us vs them” person acting out biological tribalism, but rather to point out an instance of what I was talking about when I referenced the “minefield” of trigger words, ideas and opinions. — DingoJones
Anyway, I hope that clarifies things a bit. Im not saying you are a fool but I do think you responded to the phrase “us vs them” rather than the substance of what I said. (Which I admit, I could have been more clear about). — DingoJones
But what's the model of me in that? I'm quite happy to be seen as a stimulus->response machine of triggered by problematicness->woke signaling, you don't have to back down from the commitment because it's offensive. Maybe I really was functioning like that, maybe you are! — fdrake
It's funny really, you expected me not to be responding to the substance of what you're saying, so you responded in kind. Whereas I believe I am responding to the substance of what you're saying, I just don't think you know how your speech functions in the context you're deriding. The mob mentality sub-discussion is a popular trope in the discourse you're deriding and really only makes sense in terms of it. As does the "both sides have good points" narrative. I think you're underestimating how complicit and embedded in the discourse you're criticizing you are; to the extent you're making standard moves in it but still believe you're outside of it. — fdrake
First, various U.S. headquarters will be consolidated in locations in Europe outside of Germany, including, in some cases, collocating at the same locations as their NATO counterparts in Belgium and Italy. This will strengthen NATO and improve the operational efficiency and readiness of over 2,000 Service members in these headquarters.
Second, the nearly 4,500 members of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment will return to the United States, as other Stryker units begin continuous rotations farther east in the Black Sea region, giving us a more enduring presence to enhance deterrence and reassure allies along NATO’s southeastern flank.
Third, the 2,500 airmen based in Mildenhall, United Kingdom, who are responsible for aerial refueling and special operations, and who had been scheduled to re-base to Germany, will remain in the U.K., thus ensuring the uninterrupted readiness and responsiveness of these units.
Fourth, a fighter squadron and elements of a fighter wing will be repositioned to Italy, moving them closer to the Black Sea region and better capable of conducting dynamic force employments and rotational deployments to NATO’s southeastern flank.
In addition to these moves and the rotational forces announced by President Trump and Polish President Duda in 2019, we also plan on rotating forward the lead element of the Army’s newly established V Corps headquarters to Poland, once Warsaw signs a Defense Cooperation Agreement and burden sharing deal, as previously pledged. There are or may be other opportunities as well to move additional forces into Poland and the Baltics.
According to the account of one victim, he was walking peacefully in the downtown area, observing the chaos, when five masked men in fatigues exited an unmarked SUV, grabbed him and pulled him into the car. They tied his hands with plastic behind his back. They pulled his cap over his face. They kept him for two hours and then released him. They filed no charges against him.
They had no basis for this kidnapping.
It was a kidnapping, not an arrest. An arrest is a lawful restraint by a legitimate government authority pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge specifically naming the person to be arrested, or pursuant to probable cause of crime personally observed by the arresting officers. Neither of these was the case in Portland.
...
But there is nothing lawful or orderly about what these agents did. Their activities in Portland are unlawful, unconstitutional and harmful.
They are unlawful because federal agents are selectively arresting folks and not even pretending to be enforcing local and state laws. Under federal law, the feds may not deploy police or military domestically unless the state legislature or the state governor requests it. Neither has done so for Portland.
The feds’ activities are unconstitutional because they are using government force to arrest people without probable cause or arrest warrants. We know there is no legal basis for these “arrests,” as they have not charged anyone. Moreover, this is so harmful and terrifying — being kidnapped, handcuffed, blindfolded, not spoken to and then released, all for no stated reason — it will chill others from public dissent.
...
This is how totalitarianism begins. The feds claim that federal property needs protection and the folks assigned to do so need help. When help arrives, it does so by surprise, under cover of darkness and shielded by anonymity. Then, the reinforcements beat and arrest and harm protesters because their bosses in Washington do not approve of the protesters’ message.
Public dissent against the government is a core personal freedom. It is as American as apple pie. It was integral to the creation of our republic. Government repression of dissent is totalitarian. It is as un-American as the governments against which we fought world wars to preserve our core freedoms.
I'm not accusing you, an administrator here, of having knee jerk reactions or I'm not declaring myself to be a paragon of courtly reason. I think that the admins and the mods do abide by the site rules. And if I have knee jerk reactions, why not make the case that I have here or there a knee jerk response and perhaps I should think it over.The predominant use of "us vs them" is to do precisely what you both are doing, declaring yourselves as paragons of courtly reason and measured opinion over and above those plebs like me who only have knee jerk reactions. — fdrake
That great, then. Such self-criticism is good, because typically people see them as being the reasonable people and others being tribal.The problem with this being that "both sides" agree with you that there is a "tribal mindset" and a disastrous "us vs them" dynamic, and the entire point of using the "us vs them" group membership signifier is a total subversion of its meaning. — fdrake
?You're both reasoning from on high, lamenting the degeneration of discourse, and if only everyone else agreed with you on how to conduct debate in less than 120 characters the world would be a much better place. — fdrake
Well I don't believe that "the other side is unreasonable and won't compromise". As you yourself put me in the box of people saying " "both sides have good points, come together!". I genuinely think that a Philosophy Forum can indeed thwart the degeneration of the discourse and even if it's meaningless if just few people discuss things on this small forum, it's at least beneficial to me. I think it's healthy to hear opposing views and if those are well thought, fact based and informative, the better. Yet if that put's me in the paragons of courtly reason -category, well, sorry for not just going with ad hominems and simple answers with emojis that I don't care the shit what somebody says. Not much reason to be here if that is the function of the forum.I think you've got a choice; acknowledge the degeneration of discourse you condemn and work within it - both sides allegedly say "the other side is unreasonable and won't compromise", so that strategy is out of the window. — fdrake
Well, I'm on the other side of the Atlantic, so indeed I'm outside being just an annoying commentator.Both forms of a principle of sufficient talking which is symptomatic of the degeneration of discourse. I think you're underestimating how complicit and embedded in the discourse you're criticizing you are; to the extent you're making standard moves in it but still believe you're outside of it. — fdrake
Re-tweeted by Trump???Re-Tweeted by Trump: — Michael
Or perhaps Germany simply is now surrounded by NATO countries, not on the front line as it was during the Cold War.or, as Esper says, they are following the boundary east where the new allies are. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.