Kindergartens, schools, grandparents and the extended family is of course very typical. — ssu

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.

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

When someone believes the nuclear family is under threat, what threats do you think they're imagining? Hint: it's absolutely nothing to do with nurseries, schools and close friends + family helping out with raising kids. The "nuclear family" already requires alloparenting networks, one wonders if alloparenting isn't a threat (indeed, is socially necessary), what possibly could be...

It's about "family values", you don't want your kid becoming one of those degenerates. Or horrible virtue signalling (dog whistles) regarding "single mums" (old welfare queen shit).

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 men to marry the women they impregnate?

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

The obvious answer is that Trump is heavily committed towards taking funding from police and military budgets and creating social programs, good quality cheap housing and good quality education in poor communities + instituting or raising a living minimum wage.

Oh wait, no. That's absolutely not what he's about. Good question!

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

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.

When someone believes the nuclear family is under threat, what threats do you think they're imagining? — fdrake

Basically the correlation between single parenthood and poverty.



I think this above is the main reason. That single moms raising children on their own have it worse shouldn't be any surprise to people.

Basically the correlation between single parenthood and poverty. — ssu

I really really wish that was what was engendered by "the nuclear family is under threat", however it absolutely is not.

I really really wish that was what was engendered by "the nuclear family is under threat", however it absolutely is not. — fdrake

I'm going to take a wild stab in the (not so) dark and assume that it's code word for being against same-sex marriage and same-sex parents.

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

Yes. But also more. These conservative talking points don't function like actual policy suggestions, they're signifiers that condense and reaffirm a worldview. The nuclear family is under threat by sexually degenerate relationships between parents, but also single parenthood; and it's not because single parenthood correlates with poverty, it's that single parents are welfare queens and can't possibly transmit "our cultural values" to their children while being such scroungers.

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. But no matter what you do, you're not gonna be able to make kids' welfare - dependent upon the functioning of parents' relationship - better by making people marry or stay married, it's the social problems that inflate the risk of trauma, relationship breakdown, single parenthood and poverty together. Keeping a contract signed between parents is just a bit of paper.

What makes it worse is that the sheer unreasonableness of this structure will be blamed on whoever points it out, rather than on the person who's using the stupid talking points as described. *sniff sniff* Pure ideology.

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

First issue is naturally having an economy where people can get jobs and prosper themselves, that gives also the government that ability to have programs and incentives. Avoiding that huge areas fall into wastelands that have no jobs, few services, meager tax income and hence a poor and not working public sector creates the environment where social problems start to emerge.

Then of course coming from Finland I think that our programs are rather good, personally having enjoyed them as I have two kids. Unlike in the US (I believe) where having maternal or paternal leave depends on the job contract, here it's a law and I think in Sweden they have longer maternal leaves. Paternal leave for the father is 54 days. Programs that help young couples to plan and ease the burden of parenthood I would see as important. And things like a Finnish maternity package is great. Even if you have the money to buy all that stuff, a well thought package of everything helps a lot. The worse issue is if the government programs would incite single parenthood.

Even if there's a cultural / political component to this (which fdrake emphasizes), I would say that good social politics can make a difference and do something to prevent future problems. Unfortunately the discussion typically when we are talking about the US falls into the usual divide to conservative-liberal or GOP/Democrat lines. Emphasizing that fathers do have a role and a responsibility about the upbringing of children as mothers do I think is important. Yet the parents having the ability to give a good childhood to a child is a question more about economic issues than about social norms.

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. 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.



Rich people are more likely to be married and even if the divorce rates are higher with the more wealthy, it's not the more affluent divorced single parents that are the problem people observe.

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

Absolutely. But you're still thinking about it like a reasonable human being and not an ideologue. If you're on the right and supporting Trump and talking about the "threats to the nuclear family", 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.

Absolutely. But you're still thinking about it like a reasonable human being and not an ideologue. — 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 any drastic changes.

The simple fact is that policy debate CAN BE REASONABLE between leftist and right wing politicians! If only they don't perceive the policies always to be surrender of their core cause, if they would go along what the other side purposes or would find acceptable.

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

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.

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.

So let's not talk about those issues. Let's talk about if it's OK or not to topple a statue of George Washington because he was a slave owner. :roll:

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

The biggest problem in American politics is that there is no political neutral ground...

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

So let's talk about the neutral ground. Yes, there are political opportunities, but they are not discursive ones.

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.

Well said, its nearly impossible for discussion because of the minefield of words, ideas and specific opinions that trigger attack mode in one side or the other. Its a disaster, because no ones really trying to move forward anymore. Its all either becoming entrenched and immovable or moving backwards (giving into the primitive, tribal “us vs them” trap.

Us, we who do not do the "us vs them", are so much better than them, those who do "us vs them".

No more Othering, more Mothering.

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

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)

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. .

What people need is a mental rewind. If they either support the GOP or the Democrats, can they think of policies implemented by the other side that have been good and worked?

No, I prefaced my use of “us vs them” with other words that exclude such a simplistic point. Its not just “us vs them” i was speaking about, I tied that “us vs them” to moving backwards and primitive tribalism. Thats when its a problem, when the “us vs them” is born of the primitive tribalism evolution has equipped us with rather than for a good, rational reason. (Such as the case of “us vs nazis” to use an easy example).
So no, your point falls short of what im actually saying.
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.

is born of the primitive tribalism evolution has equipped us with rather than for a good, rational reason — DingoJones

I think you underestimate people. Or mischaracterize them.

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

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.

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

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! Now we're both on the same lowbrow page!

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

For both of you, "us vs them" is a caricature - it's one of those floating signifiers with a nebulously defined referent. 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.

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. 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. It's THEM that need to accommodate YOU. You're both actually internal to this process, rather than outside of it. Distancing yourself from the reactionary nature of discourse through superficial reaction is part of its movement.

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. Or alternatively acknowledge that you're both moments of superficial reactionary discourse, only the bemoaning the superficial reactionary discourse flavour. (Psst, it tastes like over boiled vegetables)

I think you underestimate people. Or mischaracterize them. — fdrake

Its grounded in evolutionary psychology, its part of being human. It becomes a problem when people fail to recognise it for what it is, just like when we let primitive emotions like anger control us or a failure to recognise the irrational jealousy our monkey brains fill us with at times.

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

Well Im not talking about that, its a biology thing not a sociological thing (although related of course, like the two fields I just mentioned).
Thats my mistake, I could have been more clear.

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.
When it comes right down to it its not about fools so much as people bring foolish. Like I said, its a human thing, an inconvenient and sometimes dangerous part of our evolution.
A “mob mentality” is a good example of this. People get caught up in something and do things they wouldnt normally do. Thats the monkey brain, the part of us that responds to the energy of crowds and that same tribal instinct we all have.
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).

Also, im a human, so Im not claiming some exalted status as you claim. There is no superiority to what Im saying, no high horse. Its about being aware of something that taunts discourse, thats all.

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

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!

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

It's funny really, you expected me not to be responding to the substance of what you're saying, so you responded in kind. You were triggered by the expectation I was triggered! 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, come together!" narrative @ssu favours. 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.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens if Biden wins, if he’ll try to make inroads with the opposition party or if it will be all Tea Party gone wild.

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

Well you had offered an example of what I was talking about so I pointed it out. Im not backing down, like I said I think you were functioning that way in that instance. Sure, it could be me tomorrow. We must be vigilant against our monkey brains.

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

I did respond to the substance of what you are saying excepting where the substance was based off of a misunderstanding or error. You are the one trying to force labels and tropes into what im saying and thereby further reinforcing my point, again.
I do not think im imbedded in poor method of discourse. Im the one pointing the problem out. I think you are over estimating how much I remove myself from the “other” here. Im human too, I make mistakes and have emotions and monkey brain shit like everyone else. My awareness of that is helpful to overcome it and sharing that awareness is intended to help discourse in general, or at least point out the problem others seem to fail to recognise.

Big military moves announced by the administration.

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.

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/2292081/us-european-command-force-posture-policy-press-conference-secretary-espers-open/

Perhaps Germany isn’t paying their NATO dues, or, as Esper says, they are following the boundary east where the new allies are.

Trump rescinds AFHH rule.

How will rescinding a rule that requires "cities and towns that receive federal funding to examine local housing patterns for racial bias and design a plan to address any measurable bias" lead to house prices going up and crime going down?

Re-Tweeted by Trump:

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.

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

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 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

That great, then. Such self-criticism is good, because typically people see them as being the reasonable people and others being tribal.

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

?
I genuinely look forward to long thoughtful answers that I can learn something from. I've learnt much from people in this sight, so I do respect them. So I don't get your point.

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 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.

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

Well, I'm on the other side of the Atlantic, so indeed I'm outside being just an annoying commentator.

Re-Tweeted by Trump: — Michael

Re-tweeted by Trump???

Had to check, yeah, it's true.

Quite confused old man, have to say.

or, as Esper says, they are following the boundary east where the new allies are. — NOS4A2

Or perhaps Germany simply is now surrounded by NATO countries, not on the front line as it was during the Cold War.

Apparently Trump isn't doing well with suburban housewives so we'll probably be seeing more of this sort of thing. Fuck the poor!