Identity based thought is a disservice to everyone, every time it's applied. It buries the person, thereby burying the real issue, whatever it is. So, a political tool is sharpened, money is lavished and the victim/patient is ignored. Way to go. Another great Marxist policy.
While Tim is at it maybe he should insure that all races are proportionately represented in the state’s prison system by arresting and sentencing innocent white people. He surely has considered that approach.
I want to understand what goes through the minds of the supporters of this bill. I sincerely would like to talk to them. Maybe I am missing something, I am willing to listen. Do they think that black children are hardier than white children and can withstand more abuse? Do they think that white parents don't need (or deserve) active efforts from social services to preserve their families? What exactly are they cheering for?
Right. I guess I am just baffled by the lack of critical thinking and logic. What's next? Reducing the racial disparity in maternal mortality (a real and serious issue, btw) by cutting the number of prenatal visits for white mothers?
As someone (albeit a white someone, alas) who used to HEAVILY push this approach and anytime before 2016 probably would have celebrated it with just a few reservations, I can try to offer some insight.
There are (and always have been) disproportionate numbers of black* children involved in the child welfare system, which is itself a "feeder" system into the criminal justice system and homelessness and all other kinds of crappy life outcomes. When folks like this (and me, formerly) ask WHY there is this disproportionality, the answer is "racism." Racism of "the system," racism of the social workers, racism of people reporting families to child welfare, etc. Just a lot of racism. And so the solution is to even out the system by weighting against the (inevitable) biases of all those levels of "triggers" into child welfare involvement, which is what laws like these are presumed to do.
*The issue of the child welfare system and American Indian families is another more complicated issue involving sovereignty and other tribally-specific concerns, and there's already a whole separate child welfare law for them.
Proposing racism as the cause of disproportions here seems like grasping at straws in 2024. Surely a much, much great causal factor is simply the home life and home circumstances of the children?
It seems bonkers, but I know plenty of highly educated people who support these types of policies because everywhere they look, they see racism and other isms. It's a worldview that has been genuinely adopted by many progressive people... especially those with multiple degrees who work in fields like medicine, psych, academia, non-profit admin, etc.
The ones I know can't seem to see even the possibility that something other than bias is behind our problems. Read about 'Theory' and you understand how they see the world. So with that worldview, they believe bias is causing black families to be unjustly separated and thus it makes sense to interrupt that. If you challenge the connection, they simply shut you down by saying you're biased.
To be clear, I don't embrace this worldview and in fact believe it is supercharging all kinds of bias and conflict while disempowering the people it supposedly helps.
Well yes, of course, but as you know, that too is attributed to racism. It's a perfect circle, and if ultimately a black child dies because he's not removed from an abusive home, they would maybe never admit it out loud but would honestly believe it would be better than the life he would have had in the horrible child welfare system and perhaps even a necessary sacrifice to save the lives of all the black children (and ultimately the black community) who'd be harmed by being removed from their families.
(I no longer think this way, but soooo many people - of all races - do. Including, as we see, people at the highest levels of state and federal governments.)
Thanks, MM. Yes, I realize that the bill stems from the desire to decrease disparity but it still frustrates and baffles me that well-meaning people don't try to think through possible consequences.
If you haven't already, read about the many theories within the critical theory arena. Get a solid overview because that is the key to understanding why they don't consider other possibilities. 'Theory' teaches that bias is behind darn near everything and people of privilege have no right to question theory... it creates a worldview that is essentially not able to be challenged despite that most average people recognize that it isn't accurate or helpful.
Yes, to my thinking the ultimate flaw in that perspective (formerly mine) is that it doesn't consider the reality of trade-offs and consequences. And as I mentioned in an above comment to FBT, ultimately if pressed on those consequences, even if these advocates would never say so out loud, they truly believe the worst consequence (dead black child) would be in some way justified "collateral damage" for the greater good. (Of course, mostly it would be pointing out all the racism that led the mom or dad to murder the child in the first place. It's never just any individual, fully morally responsible human doing anything in this ideology.)
Identity based thought is a disservice to everyone, every time it's applied. It buries the person, thereby burying the real issue, whatever it is. So, a political tool is sharpened, money is lavished and the victim/patient is ignored. Way to go. Another great Marxist policy.
While Tim is at it maybe he should insure that all races are proportionately represented in the state’s prison system by arresting and sentencing innocent white people. He surely has considered that approach.
I want to understand what goes through the minds of the supporters of this bill. I sincerely would like to talk to them. Maybe I am missing something, I am willing to listen. Do they think that black children are hardier than white children and can withstand more abuse? Do they think that white parents don't need (or deserve) active efforts from social services to preserve their families? What exactly are they cheering for?
They're cheering for a perfectly proportional representation of all the different identity groups in the foster system. That's it.
Right. I guess I am just baffled by the lack of critical thinking and logic. What's next? Reducing the racial disparity in maternal mortality (a real and serious issue, btw) by cutting the number of prenatal visits for white mothers?
That would be following through on the logic.
As someone (albeit a white someone, alas) who used to HEAVILY push this approach and anytime before 2016 probably would have celebrated it with just a few reservations, I can try to offer some insight.
There are (and always have been) disproportionate numbers of black* children involved in the child welfare system, which is itself a "feeder" system into the criminal justice system and homelessness and all other kinds of crappy life outcomes. When folks like this (and me, formerly) ask WHY there is this disproportionality, the answer is "racism." Racism of "the system," racism of the social workers, racism of people reporting families to child welfare, etc. Just a lot of racism. And so the solution is to even out the system by weighting against the (inevitable) biases of all those levels of "triggers" into child welfare involvement, which is what laws like these are presumed to do.
*The issue of the child welfare system and American Indian families is another more complicated issue involving sovereignty and other tribally-specific concerns, and there's already a whole separate child welfare law for them.
Proposing racism as the cause of disproportions here seems like grasping at straws in 2024. Surely a much, much great causal factor is simply the home life and home circumstances of the children?
It seems bonkers, but I know plenty of highly educated people who support these types of policies because everywhere they look, they see racism and other isms. It's a worldview that has been genuinely adopted by many progressive people... especially those with multiple degrees who work in fields like medicine, psych, academia, non-profit admin, etc.
The ones I know can't seem to see even the possibility that something other than bias is behind our problems. Read about 'Theory' and you understand how they see the world. So with that worldview, they believe bias is causing black families to be unjustly separated and thus it makes sense to interrupt that. If you challenge the connection, they simply shut you down by saying you're biased.
To be clear, I don't embrace this worldview and in fact believe it is supercharging all kinds of bias and conflict while disempowering the people it supposedly helps.
Well yes, of course, but as you know, that too is attributed to racism. It's a perfect circle, and if ultimately a black child dies because he's not removed from an abusive home, they would maybe never admit it out loud but would honestly believe it would be better than the life he would have had in the horrible child welfare system and perhaps even a necessary sacrifice to save the lives of all the black children (and ultimately the black community) who'd be harmed by being removed from their families.
(I no longer think this way, but soooo many people - of all races - do. Including, as we see, people at the highest levels of state and federal governments.)
Thanks, MM. Yes, I realize that the bill stems from the desire to decrease disparity but it still frustrates and baffles me that well-meaning people don't try to think through possible consequences.
If you haven't already, read about the many theories within the critical theory arena. Get a solid overview because that is the key to understanding why they don't consider other possibilities. 'Theory' teaches that bias is behind darn near everything and people of privilege have no right to question theory... it creates a worldview that is essentially not able to be challenged despite that most average people recognize that it isn't accurate or helpful.
Yes, to my thinking the ultimate flaw in that perspective (formerly mine) is that it doesn't consider the reality of trade-offs and consequences. And as I mentioned in an above comment to FBT, ultimately if pressed on those consequences, even if these advocates would never say so out loud, they truly believe the worst consequence (dead black child) would be in some way justified "collateral damage" for the greater good. (Of course, mostly it would be pointing out all the racism that led the mom or dad to murder the child in the first place. It's never just any individual, fully morally responsible human doing anything in this ideology.)
Mr. Gilbert, thank you for your perspective. In your opinion, who is the best candidate for president in our upcoming election?
I'm voting for Harris-Walz, though not enthusiastically. There are aspects of a second Trump presidency I would probably prefer.
I’d love to hear more about that decision even though you don’t feel “enthusiastic” about the decision.