More Social Justice Lunacy

[Fishking]

The drive of the social justice ideology is really starting to unravel. Many of us could observe the trends and know that this type of thing was inevitable and will become more widespread. Some really smart people saw this coming a long time ago. So now we are disadvantaging other kids if we read our own kids bedtime stories, because other kids might not get that? It's ridiculous, and just goes to show you how this whole farce of "privilege" is more insidious than what many admit to.

| National Review

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes: “I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said. But Swift also added that some other things parents do to give their kids the best education possible — like sending them to “an elite private school” — “cannot be justified” in this way. “Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,” he said.

”It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realize these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school,” he continued, adding that “we could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to elite family relationships.” At one point, Swift even flirted with the idea of “simply abolishing the family” as a way of “solving the social justice problem” because “there would be a more level playing field” if we did, but ultimately concluded that “it is in the child’s interest to be parented” and that “parenting a child makes for what we call a distinctive and special contribution to the flourishing and well-being of adults.”

 

[Fishking]

And for a satirical view from someone who saw this type of thing before I ever thought it would be on the radar. Though it's scary that this could almost be more of a prophecy than satire, or close to it.

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

n the year 2081, amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, radios inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic.

One April, 14-year-old Harrison Bergeron, an intelligent and athletic teenager, is taken away from his parents, George and Hazel Bergeron, by the government. They are barely aware of the tragedy, as Hazel has "average" intelligence (a euphemism for stupidity), and George has a handicap radio installed by the government to regulate his above-average intelligence.

Hazel and George watch ballet on television. They comment on the dancers, who are weighed down to counteract their gracefulness and masked to hide their attractiveness. George's thoughts are continually interrupted by the different noises emitted by his handicap radio, which piques Hazel's curiosity and imagination regarding handicaps. Noticing his exhaustion, Hazel urges George to lie down and rest his "handicap bag", 47 pounds (21 kg) of weights locked around George's neck. She suggests taking a few of the weights out of the bag, but George resists, aware of the illegality of such an action.

On television, a news reporter struggles to read the bulletin and hands it to the ballerina wearing the most grotesque mask and heaviest weights. She begins reading in her unacceptably natural, beautiful voice, then apologizes before switching to a more unpleasant voice. Harrison's escape from prison is announced, and a full-body photograph of Harrison is shown, indicating that he is seven feet (2.1 m) tall and burdened by three hundred pounds (140 kg) of handicaps.

 

[eohrnberger]

You read reports like these and you wonder where on Earth these people's heads are, up their asses or what?

Then read the post #2, yes it's fiction, and it's also so very scarily close to the current news report.

 

[cabse5]

These crazy a holes run amok in our educational system.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The drive of the social justice ideology is really starting to unravel. Many of us could observe the trends and know that this type of thing was inevitable and will become more widespread. Some really smart people saw this coming a long time ago. So now we are disadvantaging other kids if we read our own kids bedtime stories, because other kids might not get that? It's ridiculous, and just goes to show you how this whole farce of "privilege" is more insidious than what many admit to.

| National Review

Yawn. One clown in the UK doesn't signal much of anything 'unraveling', or anything of significance whatsoever.

Moutain, meet microscopic gnat feces ball.

You should find something of more substance to wring your hands over and worry about.

 

[Fishking]

Yawn. One clown in the UK doesn't signal much of anything 'unraveling', or anything of significance whatsoever.

Moutain, meet microscopic gnat feces ball.

You should find something of more substance to wring your hands over and worry about.

This is just the front edge of the movement. Of course this type of thing ins't want starts out of the gates because it would never have gained any ground as the ridiculousness would be readily apparent. The reality is that much of what is more "mainstream" social justice really isn't much more sound in logic and ideology.

And this "clown" is a professor so he's involved with the indoctrination of the youth, which has significant impact. He will be pushing his message to the next generation and what you call "clown" now will be met with nodding and bobbing of heads by those of you who are programmed by this type of thing.

 

[Fishking]

You read reports like these and you wonder where on Earth these people's heads are, up their asses or what?

Then read the post #2, yes it's fiction, and it's also so very scarily close to the current news report.

Yup. That's the interesting thing and I thought that short story fit(s) very well when looking at the social justice movement, and it was written in 1961. I didn't think that would be something that would be a concept that far back. That man was ahead of his time in this regard.

 

[Redress]

Yawn. One clown in the UK doesn't signal much of anything 'unraveling', or anything of significance whatsoever.

Moutain, meet microscopic gnat feces ball.

You should find something of more substance to wring your hands over and worry about.

It is also not an accurate representation of what he said. This is an old story, it was based on deceptive framing and taking comments out of context. Not that this should be surprising. Here is the original story, not the mutilated mess that is in the OP: Is having a loving family an unfair advantage? - The Philosopher's Zone - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

On reading to kids at bedtime:

‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’ he says.

This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted. In Swift’s mind this is where the evaluation of familial relationship goods goes up a notch.

‘You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.’

His theories are all in philosophy, and very theoretical kinda stuff. But ultimately, his ideas are a defense of family and family activities(from other very theoretical philosophies).

 

[Fishking]

It is also not an accurate representation of what he said. This is an old story, it was based on deceptive framing and taking comments out of context. Not that this should be surprising. Here is the original story, not the mutilated mess that is in the OP: Is having a loving family an unfair advantage? - The Philosopher's Zone - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

On reading to kids at bedtime:

His theories are all in philosophy, and very theoretical kinda stuff. But ultimately, his ideas are a defense of family and family activities(from other very theoretical philosophies).

That didn't refute the OP. Those things were still said and while *of course* he wouldn't support banning those things *ha ha* it would level the playing field, right? *wink* *wink*

Things always start out being vocalized as "just and idea/philosophy". Then, once you've said it enough times, people get used to the idea and then you start slipping it in as a real thing.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

This is just the front edge of the movement. Of course this type of thing ins't want starts out of the gates because it would never have gained any ground as the ridiculousness would be readily apparent. The reality is that much of what is more "mainstream" social justice really isn't much more sound in logic and ideology.

Then why can't you prove that?

And this "clown" is a professor so he's involved with the indoctrination of the youth, which has significant impact. He will be pushing his message to the next generation and what you call "clown" now will be met with nodding and bobbing of heads by those of you who are programmed by this type of thing.

Your paranoid fantasies are irrelevant here.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

It is also not an accurate representation of what he said. This is an old story, it was based on deceptive framing and taking comments out of context. Not that this should be surprising. Here is the original story, not the mutilated mess that is in the OP: Is having a loving family an unfair advantage? - The Philosopher's Zone - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

On reading to kids at bedtime:



His theories are all in philosophy, and very theoretical kinda stuff. But ultimately, his ideas are a defense of family and family activities(from other very theoretical philosophies).

Holy cow! Fishking lied?

Astounded, I am!

 

[Redress]

That didn't refute the OP. Those things were still said and while *of course* he wouldn't support banning those things *ha ha* it would level the playing field, right? *wink* *wink*

Things always start out being vocalized as "just and idea/philosophy". Then, once you've said it enough times, people get used to the idea and then you start slipping it in as a real thing.

Sp basically you have no clue what he was saying, and don't want to learn, so you say stupid things. His argument is that you should not use leveling the playing field as an reason to stop familial activities, as they are too important to the wellbeing of the children. Read and learn.

 

[Fishking]

Then why can't you prove that?

Prove what? That's how ideas spread. :shrug:

Your paranoid fantasies are irrelevant here.

Lol...it's not a paranoid fantasy to think that college professors have an impact on the lives of the youth.

 

[cabse5]

Holy cow! Fishking lied?

Astounded, I am!

An iamyoda clone?

 

[cabse5]

Prove what? That's how ideas spread. :shrug:



Lol...it's not a paranoid fantasy to think that college professors have an impact on the lives of the youth.

All one has to do is look at the majority of the makeup of Sanders supporters consisting primarily of college age socialists.

These student ideological metamorphoses originate at the public school level. Happening early on, from all indications. Allowed by teachers' unions promotion by seniority. Not by merits. In other words, a teacher (and their teaching ideology) is promoted by the teachers' unions and not by society.

 

[matchlight]

Holy cow! Fishking lied?

Astounded, I am!

I'm anything but astounded to see you accuse another poster of lying, for no reason except that what he wrote makes you feel pouty. That kind of incivility is standard procedure on these forums for people who share your views.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I'm anything but astounded to see you accuse another poster of lying, for no reason except that what he wrote makes you feel pouty. That kind of incivility is standard procedure on these forums for people who share your views.

LOL! He was clearly demonstrated to have purposefully misstated and obfuscated what the truth was. No pouting involved whatsoever. Not at all surprised you neglected to mention that bit.

Sorry that upsets you so. Perhaps you should retreat to your safe space.

 

[justabubba]

that so many seem unable to recognize that Swift was advocating child development thru the night-time stories causes me to conclude that maybe these same people were not exposed to such stories ... as something needs to explain how they could read his words and then present as his conclusions something 180 degrees opposite of what he was actually expressing

 

[EvaPeron]

It reminds me once of a debate with a very liberal thinking friend. The conversation went something like this - if you shot a man inside your house when he was breaking in and killed him - you'd feel bad. And my reply was - yes, I'd feel bad because he was bleeding all over my rug and now I was going to have to clean it up.

If it makes me a horrible person because I read to my children, want them to get the best education possible and would shoot at a thug breaking into my house to do me harm - then so be it. I can live with that, even if he doesn't.

 

[soot]

His argument is that you should not use leveling the playing field as an reason to stop familial activities, as they are too important to the wellbeing of the children.

His "argument" is also that:

"I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally"

What?

Is this dude retarded?

I'm not "unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children" by reading to mine.

They're "unfairly disadvantaging" their own children by not reading to them.

The only "thought" I might "occasionally" have is, "Damn, those poor kids, you sure suck at life".

But his "argument", beyond that is:

"Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realize these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.'

‘We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life."

Again, what?

Just because I give my kids all the advantages I can, I'm somehow in the wrong because there are other people who suck at life and can't or more likely won't make the sacrifices necessary to give their kids the same advantages?

This idiot can suck a dick.

 

[Visbek]

The drive of the social justice ideology is really starting to unravel.

If you say so

Rather than present a defense of his comments, perhaps it's best to let the man (Adam Swift) speak for himself.

Careless polemical journalism around an interview I did for an Australian radio programme has resulted in serious misrepresentation of the views put forward in my book Family Values: The Ethics of Parent-Child Relationships (Princeton UP 2014), (with Harry Brighouse).

At no point do we suggest that parents should not read bedtime stories to their children. Quite the contrary. Of course they should! All children should get bedtime stories! But it is easy for parents to think only about their own children and forget about or ignore the way in which things they do with and for their children - some of which it is entirely appropriate (indeed morally required) for them to be doing - may have various kinds of effect on other people's children. Perhaps if they kept those effects in mind, they might be more willing to support policies and initiatives that would enable all children to enjoy things like bedtime stories.

In our view it is unfair that some children enjoy the benefits of loving family life, including things like bedtime stories, and some do not. Children who do not receive those benefits have done nothing wrong and do not deserve to be worse off than those who do. Children who enjoy those benefits are better positioned in various competitive contexts than those who do not. In that sense, those who do not enjoy those benefits are unfairly disadvantaged by other children enjoying them. (In other senses, those who do not enjoy those benefits may be better off as a result of other children enjoying them.)

Suppose we are right that parents doing things like reading bedtime stories to their children unfairly disadvantages other children (in the sense of putting them at an unfair disadvantage compared to the children who are receiving the bedtime stories). That does not mean they should not do it. Our book is all about how important it is that they do indeed do things like that. But in our view it would be a good thing if they occasionally reflected on the unfairness suffered by other children, and maybe even took some steps to do something about it.

In our book, we contrast the reading of bedtime stories with the sending of children to elite private schools. We argue that there are much stronger reasons - 'family values' reasons - to protect the former than the latter.

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/swift/

P.S. In case you missed the date, his book came out in 2014, and I'm sure he was saying this stuff before then. But hey, don't let any of this get in the way of a good rant.

P.P.S. Let me know any time you want me to post some random extreme utterly ridiculous thing stated by some Right Wing Social Injustice Warrior. :mrgreen:

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

so basically...if other kids do not get cake on their birthday, then you should not give your kid any cake on theirs...right?

 

[Redress]

so basically...if other kids do not get cake on their birthday, then you should not give your kid any cake on theirs...right?

Well, that is impressive. He exactly and without any equivocation says the exact opposite.

 

[Visbek]

so basically...if other kids do not get cake on their birthday, then you should not give your kid any cake on theirs...right?

No.

You should think, for a moment, about those less fortunate than you. And maybe do a little something about it. What a kook, huh?

 

[roughdraft274]

No.

You should think, for a moment, about those less fortunate than you. And maybe do a little something about it. What a kook, huh?

This thread is such a shining example of the mental gymnastics some will go through to demonize the other side.

A "He said this!"
B "...No he didn't. See here?"
A "Well that's what he meant!"
B "No, he explains very clearly what he meant right here"
A "Well of course thats what he says, but...."



****ing insanity.