Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]

[Myzozoa]

So what's the alternative? Letting children without parents die on the streets?

?? lol

there are in fact options aside from 'keep the current adoption system as is with marginally increased funding' and 'let children die in the streets' (which may be more like what we currently have than one would think).

is the 'concept' of adoption unethical? to me it seems like any circumstance that has come about in which a child is taken away from its birth family should be looked at w at least a bit of scrutiny. for example, if it was found that the children of native americans were being widely adopted by white settlers that would probably be something to think about a little bit. from these things i have said it would seem that the concept of adoption is itself defined by a certain type of ambiguity about how to redress the original 'wrong', i.e that the parent and child are separated.

Do you have any proof of this or are just making this up out of nothing because it fits in with your preconceived beliefs?

if you read just a bit further you would notice I have indeed provided an article on the topic, recommend reading it.

 

[faint]

Do you have any proof of this or are just making this up out of nothing because it fits in with your preconceived beliefs?

myzo's article is precisely why i framed my response from a US pov. while rare here, there is absolutely a class-based system in other countries where the rich person isn't the one carrying the child, often not because they can't, but because the "burden" of childbirth is too taxing on the body so they would rather pay someone to carry it who is likely doing so out of desperation and not a want. not to diminish the effects child birth has on a woman's body but in these cases it's often because they don't want to gain weight, want to continue their life as is, and only reap the benefit of having a child without having the quite literal labor pains

 

[Local Dog]

there are in fact options aside from 'keep the current adoption system as is with marginally increased funding' and 'let children die in the streets' (which may be more like what we currently have than one would think).

is the 'concept' of adoption unethical? to me it seems like any circumstance that has come about in which a child is taken away from its birth family should be looked at w at least a bit of scrutiny. for example, if it was found that the children of native americans were being widely adopted by white settlers that would probably be something to think about a little bit. from these things i have said it would seem that the concept of adoption is itself defined by a certain type of ambiguity about how to redress the original 'wrong', i.e that the parent and child are separated.

1) I never said to keep the existing adoption system with marginally increased funding, I have made clear that the current system is deeply flawed and should be largely renewed.
2) Not in every case are children seperated from their parents? There are cases were parents do not wish to raise or are unable to raise children and give them up for adoption, there are cases of orphaned children and even when they are seperated, do you really think there's just some apparatus that decides to take children willy-nilly for profit from parents? Do you have any idea how toothless CPS is and how difficult it is for any system to take children away from parents?

It's also really fucking weird how you try to force race and sexual orientation into this discussion. Yeah marginalized groups were and still are fucked by this system, but it almost seems like you want to blame white, straight, christian people for the problems with adoption because reasons

So again, what is your alternative? What, for example, should be done with a child whose parents are crippling drug addicts? Or with a child whose parents both passed away? Or with a child whose parents were both teenagers who didn't have access to birth control or any form of abortion?

 

[koista12]

if you read just a bit further you would notice I have indeed provided an article on the topic, recommend reading it.

The link does not open for me. Out of curiosity, does it say anything about surrogacy in America or is it just confined to surrogacy in India?

 

[Bakugames]

What, for example, should be done with a child whose parents are crippling drug addicts?

Having nuance and humanity for people with addictions challenge: impossible (btw the answer is not to take children away from them. its to legalize drugs and create safe spaces for them to acquire drugs and use them, and work through their addiction)

 

[koista12]

Having nuance and humanity for people with addictions challenge: impossible (btw the answer is not to take children away from them. its to legalize drugs and create safe spaces for them to acquire drugs and use them, and work through their addiction)

Pray tell, why do you think that the government takes custody of kids whose parents are drug addicts? Could it possibly be because drug addicts are much more likely to neglect, abuse, or otherwise endanger their children? Could if possibly be that heroin addicts make much worse parents than normal people?

The government doesn't take custody of children of drug addicts as some form of punishment, it's done to protect the children. Whatever drug policy reforms you advocate for are irrelevant to the immediate safety and wellbeing of the children in these situations.

 

[Bakugames]

Pray tell, why do you think that the government takes custody of kids whose parents are drug addicts? Could it possibly be because drug addicts are much more likely to neglect, abuse, or otherwise endanger their children? Could if possibly be that heroin addicts make much worse parents than normal people?

The policy against drug addiction not only have extreme biases (class and race), but they don't actually offer "immediate safety and wellbeing of the children". You are moving a child from an unsafe space into another unsafe space, and sometimes moving to the adoption space is much worse than staying with parents. Addiction does not turn a human into a monster as soon as you sniff 1 mg of coke, surprisingly.

Not only that, the argument falls flat when there's no actual importance of providing adopted kids with safe families. Kids end in abusive families all the time, and are used as entertainment and as stories to sell instead of real human beings.

 

[koista12]

The policy against drug addiction not only have extreme biases (class and race), but they don't actually offer "immediate safety and wellbeing of the children". You are moving a child from an unsafe space into another unsafe space, and sometimes moving to the adoption space is much worse than staying with parents. Addiction does not turn a human into a monster as soon as you sniff 1 mg of coke, surprisingly.

No, but making a living by manufacturing meth in your RV tends to be an awful situation to raise a child in. You don't get your kids taken away because you snorted coke once at a party. You don't get your kids taken away because you smoke weed once a month. The standard for taking kids away is when they are in a neglectful or abusive situation.

You're essentially saying that because not all drug use endangers children, and because a kid could end up in an abusive foster or adoptive family, the government should do nothing to protect children from abusive/neglectful parents who use drugs.

Not only that, the argument falls flat when there's no actual importance of providing adopted kids with safe families. Kids end in abusive families all the time, and are used as entertainment and as stories to sell instead of real human beings.

Yes, a child could end up in an abusive adoptive family, but it is not guaranteed that they will. I don't have hard statistics as I'm on my phone rn, but acknowledging that adoption provides a better chance at a healthy life than living with parents whose drug use got so bad that CPS was involved seems like a no-brainer. If you have the statistics to say otherwise, than yeah you have a point. However, minus that, advocating for the government to take no action to protect children because that action might result in an even worse scenario some of the time is a terrible policy.

 

[Bakugames]

You don't get your kids taken away because you snorted coke once at a party. You don't get your kids taken away because you smoke weed once a month. The standard for taking kids away is when they are in a neglectful or abusive situation.

The issue is that the threshold is not fair, and the standard differs vastly depending on the race, class, migration status etc. Kids will be taken away from non abusive families and stay in abusive ones all the time, we're not dealing with a system that always perfectly considers each case.

I'm saying that the government already doesn't protect children from abusive and neglectful parents properly. Abuse is actually very common and unchallenged, and their system of "protecting childen" is flawed and biased, and throws them into an abusive system on itself.

Criticizing the way adoption works, the way these children are acquired, the fact the targeted parents are denied support and instead support is given to these new parents, and that no one really cares about the children themselves doesn't mean I want children to explode and die. Support systems for addiction also help decrease the cases of abuse and neglect, and so does support systems for poor parents, and abortion etc. The priority is to not have childen fall onto the adoption system on itself when they don't have to, when their parents could raise them proper with support.

The adoption industry also needs to be destroyed and rebuilt again for the cases of parental death/no one to raise children (dats me #win #epic), but we can do a lot just by not treating these people like scum of the earth.

 

[koista12]

The issue is that the threshold is not fair, and the standard differs vastly depending on the race, class, migration status etc. Kids will be taken away from non abusive families and stay in abusive ones all the time, we're not dealing with a system that always perfectly considers each case.

I'm saying that the government already doesn't protect children from abusive and neglectful parents properly. Abuse is actually very common and unchallenged, and their system of "protecting childen" is flawed and biased, and throws them into an abusive system on itself.

Criticizing the way adoption works, the way these children are acquired, the fact the targeted parents are denied support and instead support is given to these new parents, and that no one really cares about the children themselves doesn't mean I want children to explode and die. Support systems for addiction also help decrease the cases of abuse and neglect, and so does support systems for poor parents, and abortion etc. The priority is to not have childen fall onto the adoption system on itself when they don't have to, when their parents could raise them proper with support.

The adoption industry also needs to be destroyed and rebuilt again for the cases of parental death/no one to raise children (dats me #win #epic), but we can do a lot just by not treating these people like scum of the earth.

Those are all fair points! Ultimately, I think that adoption laws in a state like New York already go a long way towards ensuring that adoption outcomes are positive for children. Both biological parents have to give consent and social services conduct thorough investigations of the adoptive family.

 

[Local Dog]

Having nuance and humanity for people with addictions challenge: impossible (btw the answer is not to take children away from them. its to legalize drugs and create safe spaces for them to acquire drugs and use them, and work through their addiction)

Legalizing drugs may help but legal drugs like alcohol can make people unable to take care of their children

I don't want to be without nuance towards addicts, most of my extended family are drug addicts, but it's an ailment that can make people unable to live, let alone take care of anyone

 

[Myzozoa]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...gia-prosecuting-cop-city-activists-rico-trump

"There is a growing conspiracy to use violence and coercion to take over the country, but the instigators are figures of the right like Trump and Ron DeSantis and organizations like the Proud Boys. As prices and temperatures rise, leftwing movements will be necessary for our collective survival. Framing progressive activists as equivalent to gangsters and rightwing insurrectionists is a dangerous path that will birth a system even worse than our already cracking capitalism."

it's getting birthed all right, the democrats myopically set up the infrastructure so it's ready for the authoritarians to use when the time comes.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Insert obligatory post shilling for the Socialist Rifle Association and other leftist armed resistance and mutual aid groups (John Brown Gun Club/Redneck Revolt, Pink Pistols, Latino Rifle Association, Huey P. Newton gun club, etc) here.

If you consider yourself left-leaning and aren’t comfortable or able to carry a firearm, at least invest in some other means of personal protection. Pepper spray and tasers/stun guns are great if you can legally carry them (check your local laws). Cable whips (like the Stinger, although you can get them for a much more reasonable price from other brands or even make one yourself from hardware store supplies) are also great force multipliers in self-defense scenarios and are legal to carry pretty much everywhere. Avoid knives, kubatons, brass knuckles, spikes, collapsible batons, and pretty much all other forms of hand-to-hand “self-defense” weapons; these tools are basically useless without considerable training, and only likely to escalate a violent encounter.

Look into a first aid class, specifically one geared towards trauma care (Stop-The-Bleed). In a lot of cases you can find these classes for cheap to free as they’re often subsidized by government programs, and even if you never end up needing these skills, having them is better than not having them. If nothing else, it’s something you can use to fluff up your resumes. Carry a basic trauma care kit somewhere on your person, or store kits in your vehicle, at your home, and in your workplace. Each kit should have basic medical supplies such as bandages, rubbing alcohol, gloves, etc., but also a tourniquet and chest seal. Learn how to use properly apply these.

If you’re a centrist, or you otherwise think I’m overreacting, kindly go fuck yourself.

 

[Platinum God n1n1]

you sound like 1 step away from being the type of person to pull some weather underground type shit

 

[GatoDelFuego]

that makes no sense how can there be weather underground theres not even any air there

 

[Divine Retribution]

you sound like 1 step away from being the type of person to pull some weather underground type shit

Please ask your English teacher for a refund.

 

[Myzozoa]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lice-brave-cave-baton-rouge-warehouse-torture

police departments across america have torture rooms like this, which get exposed every so often in lawsuits. hope someday americans can live without fear of police gangs, but it's unlikely to occur anytime soon d/t widespread denial that there is even a problem.

 

[Divine Retribution]

War Incarnate I’m glad to see police brutality makes you angry. Perhaps you could expand on your thoughts on the matter, as it would seem we have some common ground in this regard?

 

[Myzozoa]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...nches-attack-on-israel-with-5000-rockets-live

All I see from US-EU core block politicians is lines abt Israel's 'right to self-defense'. Well what about Palestinian's right to self-defense? If people in the US had to go through check points and be interrogated and strip-searched on their way to work everyday they'd undoubtedly call it terrorism, particularly if a hostile foreign government, under which they are denied equal protection under the law, was organizing said check points. And that is only the beginning of the indignities and excesses the Israeli state has wrought upon Palestinians. Sadly, I reckon this type of uprising against the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is unlikely to achieve more than a huge militarized backlash and sustained Israeli campaign to further dispossess the indigenous population.

 

[MrHands]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...nches-attack-on-israel-with-5000-rockets-live

All I see from US-EU core block politicians is lines abt Israel's 'right to self-defense'. Well what about Palestinian's right to self-defense? If people in the US had to go through check points and be interrogated and strip-searched on their way to work everyday they'd undoubtedly call it terrorism, particularly if a hostile foreign government, under which they are denied equal protection under the law, was organizing said check points. And that is only the beginning of the indignities and excesses the Israeli state has wrought upon Palestinians. Sadly, I reckon this type of uprising against the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is unlikely to achieve more than a huge militarized backlash and sustained Israeli campaign to further dispossess the indigenous population.

Hamas is slaughtering civilians in the streets by the hundreds (currently, this is still happening). It is absolutely possible to criticize the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel while also saying a wide scale terrorist attack against innocent civilians is terrible.

The bodies of people killed by the terrorists are still warm, yeah no shit the international community is going to criticize Hamas. There's been plenty of criticism of Israel over the past few decades as well, but it's gone a little quiet over the past few hours. Can you guess why?

I doubt Hamas is going to exist as a political entity in a few months so we'll see where this goes. But while "Israel bad" might be an objectively correct statement getting offended that the US and European leaders aren't saying it after like 10 hours into an ongoing mass slaughter of civilians is so hilariously tone deaf.

 

[Myzozoa]

Hamas is slaughtering civilians in the streets by the hundreds (currently, this is still happening). It is absolutely possible to criticize the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel while also saying a wide scale terrorist attack against innocent civilians is terrible.

The bodies of people killed by the terrorists are still warm, yeah no shit the international community is going to criticize Hamas. There's been plenty of criticism of Israel over the past few decades as well, but it's gone a little quiet over the past few hours. Can you guess why?

I doubt Hamas is going to exist as a political entity in a few months so we'll see where this goes. But while "Israel bad" might be an objectively correct statement getting offended that the US and European leaders aren't saying it after like 10 hours into an ongoing mass slaughter of civilians is so hilariously tone deaf.

?? Even as I type this, the Israel counter attack has already killed/injured more Palestinians than Israeli settlers and soldiers etc etc. IMO, criticism of Israel has been p quiet for decades, i.e, no one can deny the permissive obsequiousness of 'the international community' to Israel's ethnic cleansing project.

Lastly, many Palestinian factions appear to be working in coordination on this uprising so I'm not sure what precisely Hamas in particular 'as a political entity existing' has to do w it.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Nobody is justifying Hamas murdering civilians, get real. At the end of the day, Hamas’s existence is intrinsically tied to Israel’s colonialism. While I absolutely feel for civilians caught in the crossfire, pretending like this is some kind of “both sides” issue is just a naked denial of the circumstances that lead to this. Israel held all the cards this entire time; a group like Hamas emerging from the cesspit they created should surprise nobody. Acknowledging this is not tantamount to endorsing Hamas committing violence against civilians.

 

[Myzozoa]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveb...ywhere-it-operates-gazans-should-get-out-now/

"Israel will target Hamas everywhere — turning the places it “hides and operates” into “cities of ruin.”

[Netanyahu] tells the “residents of Gaza” to “get out now because we will operate everywhere and with full force.”

But of course: Palestinians aren't allowed to 'leave Gaza', Israel controls all entrances and exits. The Israeli PM knows this perfectly well, and is calling for an indiscriminate massacre of civilians held captive by the occupation. (I guess the 'Palestinian civilians are human shields for Hamas' line, is no longer testing as well as previous years).

Finally, not that I would wring my hands so much about "Hamas", but note that Israel did fight a whole war in 2006 where at the end they placed Hamas in power in Gaza. Now it appears they will try to cash out the spectre of 'Hamas terrorism'/Islamism, that the Israeli state itself brought about, as justification for further ethnic cleansing acts.

 

[gvmgvm40]

I mean if you force people to live in poverty in what's essentially an open air prison, keep them under a strict blockade, limit their access to things like basic consumption goods, construction material, fuel and healthcare, and bomb them every other year or so on top of this, they're going to attempt to lash out in any way they can. I dislike seeing civillians kidnapped and murdered as much as the next person but clearly you cannot sustain treatment like this forever

 

[hs]

Hamas is slaughtering civilians in the streets by the hundreds (currently, this is still happening). It is absolutely possible to criticize the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel while also saying a wide scale terrorist attack against innocent civilians is terrible.

The bodies of people killed by the terrorists are still warm, yeah no shit the international community is going to criticize Hamas. There's been plenty of criticism of Israel over the past few decades as well, but it's gone a little quiet over the past few hours. Can you guess why?

I doubt Hamas is going to exist as a political entity in a few months so we'll see where this goes. But while "Israel bad" might be an objectively correct statement getting offended that the US and European leaders aren't saying it after like 10 hours into an ongoing mass slaughter of civilians is so hilariously tone deaf.

decolonization is not a peaceful process. in fact, the actions you are putting (yourself) as "violence against innocents" is the retaliation (not even close to 1% of what they've gone/are going through) for almost a century of oppression, and anyone who opposes the palestine resistance, mainly led by the hamas (which, as ideologically abominable and corrupt, are still progressive and not capitulationists), are in favor of apartheid. don't come up with this "against violence" bullshit as if historical processes of national liberation haven't happened that way in forever (and p much always will), it's not like israeli settlers are civilians either way. as the saying goes "u chop woods - chips fly".