More Social Justice Lunacy

[Visbek]

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

Polarized people, attacking one another? Who'da thunk it?

That said, I do think Swift could have expressed his position much better. He did himself few favors with his phrasing.

 

[Zyphlin]

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.

He's saying if other kids do not get cake on their birthday, then when you give cake to your kid on your their birthday you should be sure to think about and feel horribly guilty for being able to do that for your kid when other kids don't get it in the hopes you become so guilt ridden that you run off and accept all the government social programs that he desires to "level the playing field".

He's not saying you shouldn't do it. He's suggesting people need to feel guilty about the "privilege" they're bestowing upon their child in order to get on board the big government hype train.

 

[Redress]

No.

He's saying if other kids do not get cake on their birthday, then when you give cake to your kid on your their birthday you should be sure to think about and feel horribly guilty for being able to do that for your kid when other kids don't get it in the hopes you become so guilt ridden that you run off and accept all the government social programs that he desires to "level the playing field".

He's not saying you shouldn't do it. He's suggesting people need to feel guilty about the "privilege" they're bestowing upon their child in order to get on board the big government hype train.

Even that is not quite what the point of his philosophy is. He started out with the concept of "equity of opportunity", and how if that is important, then anything that advantages one child but another does not have access to is then unfair. That includes familiar relations. And he rejected that, and tried to derive a philosophy that addressed that. It is all pure philosophy, not really real world kinda stuff. And he defends it poorly since he is not really grounded in practicality(nor do I think he desires to be).

The core idea though, the point he tries to make with his book, and in the interview, is that familiar relationships are hugely important to kids, having a major, disproportionate benefit for time invested. Reading to a kid at bedtime has a stronger correlation to positive outcomes for kids than attending a private school does. If you strip away all the stuff people looking to be outraged center on, and focus on what he thinks is important, that family activities with kids are a great benefit to kids, there is a lot of truth to that obviously.

 

[D_NATURED]

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.

Stop trying to interject reality into this right-wing make believe session. You'll ruin everything!