I drink a couple times a year. I generally get in the mood for it a handful of times a year, but beyond that I just have no desire.
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 390
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 390
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- JumpNSFW Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Nah, the hollywood portrayal, outside of everyone looking like 25 year old models, and having stylized dialogue, was pretty on point from my experience.
Back in the satanic panic era, we had a 7th grade math teacher that played dnd, every friday, as the class assignment. He started doing it because he said it was the best way he had found to get his classes to be able to do basic math, quickly, in their heads, with confidence. It worked.
A few years later, when I was in university, I ran into him, and his wife, at a local games shop, and we started playing dnd again, with a mutual friend we realized we both had after meeting again. It always blows my mind he got away with this, because the school he worked at was a conservative nightmare. He said they left it alone because it was really hard to find a primary school math teacher with an actual math degree, as well as academic background on teaching. So he was somewhat untouchable. The sad part was that like 1/2 the class had to hide the fact we did this from their parents.
yeah, and when you point this out, even with evidence of connections with the media and russian oligarchs and russian money going to media personalities they just yell about how the west's favorite scapegoat blah blah
like do I think russia created a right wing populist movement in the west? no, however they are the reason they are all toeing the same line on issues important to them, and repeating, word for word, the same propaganda
On the chance this isn't a joke, no it isn't, Linus has said so himself
While it didnt kill the right wing populist parties, it did stall many of their efforts to get their chosen leaders into office. We shall see how the all shakes out.
Yeah, with a few exceptions, if you are in Europe you can likely look at our news media and be like "Ha, well, at least I am not there"
They dissolved MAREZ, and while they still operate their community help centers, they no longer govern the area. While the whole list of reasons for this is unknown to anyone but the Counsels of Good Government, the greater issues they spoke about was a combination of the government bodies of Mexico applying more pressure, at the same time Cartel territory has expanded into their area, and the violence, and threats to the counsel that came from this.
So the Zapatistas are not in a good way at the moment.
Yeah, NP. Not my thing as it is "dark fantasy" but has a somewhat interesting plot, and the girl I am dating REALLY liked it.
He wrote a book that is fairly well liked called Winterset Hollow
Hey, maybe a new muppets movie with pascal would kick off the purging of the billionair class, and the GOP?
to serve himself.
Yeah I agree, to an extent. My extended family has had a LOT of interaction with CS over the years. Some bad, some good, some just, well they seem to be completely unconcerned about how my cousin's daughter got pregnant when she was 12. The lady told my aunt to see it as a blessing from god. Police know the guy, but just sorta shrugged their shoulders about it, even knowing his is 21. We are still fighting about this, but this is rural florida... and florida has always seemed to be worse that other states. However knowing something bad is happening, and you being able to do something about it, should definitely be a considered factor in ethics. A lot of horrific things have flown under the radar because everyone takes the "not my business" stance. My experience over all though has been CS tends to be far more likely to miss a case where a child is being badly abused, than it is to take a child, at least long term, from a household where they may have done better.
As far as we can see with conclusive data, most of the time the predictor of a child's long term success is heavily correlated to the very early part of their lives. So when CS generally get involved that ship has often sailed. Also, like I talked about before, the two groups are selected by what CS investigators have determined to be bad enough to justify long term loss of parental rights, and those who weren't. The only way these researchers can know that a child is in a bad home is from third party report, IE CS. So that kind of undermines the whole idea right there, and most of these people recognize that. My data is about 10 years out of date now, but when I was doing data analysis for the corrections system, our department crossed paths with data, and reports, from CYS on the regular. At that time evidence of abuse/neglect among foster homes, and group homes, had a significantly lower per capita rating than the general public. CYS taking short term custody of children always seemed to be where most of the issues arose from. More often then not there wasn't anything significant happening, at least there was no proof of such. However taking a kid, from their family, even if it is just like over night to be reviewed by medical staff, is stressful and potentially traumatizing event. Most places would get a report, and if it didn't have like a laundry list of reporters, or some other stronger evidence, they mostly just wanted to see the condition of the house, and ask the child about it without their parents there. Rarely was this more than voluntary. However, we did have notable hot spots where this activity was way higher than normal. That was a political matter though, and my role was done, but they do investigate cases where things seem to be out of alignment with norms.
Nothing is perfect though, and when you are dealing with tens of millions of people, you will no doubt get thousands of errors, enough errors to make it seem like this is way more common than it is. There really isn't a good solution to this.
There are actually 7 studies in that article, and a link to more, however this particular article was written because of the one study that was done, and cited, 3 times.
All of these studies have the same problems, and have lots of criticism about their methodology, particularly in how to get this data. One of the biggest critiques being that they studied kids in bad homes the CS decided to not take in, vs ones they did. This is how they know a child is in a bad home, but not being ethically responsible for them staying. This automatically selects for less severe cases being the stay at homes, and the more severe being the ones taken. Then there are this issues in my last comment, like their estimations being wide. There are also many more when I started finding when putting the titles of these studies into google scholar and adding critique.
Basically these studies aren't particularly useful because the data is hard to get (privacy laws, parents not wanting to participate, retraction of participation agreements before conclusion of data gathering, etc), the different groupings are already selected based on a varying scales of abuse severity, that it would not be ethical to select groups in a different fashion, and any experimental trials would be unethical. These foundational problems also make meta research faulty from the start. While they can pose some interesting questions, they are not able to make reliable qualitative calls on kids being removed from abusive homes because the ability to conduct this research is just not there in a way it would need to be.
So I went and clicked on the study this article is written about, and it does not conclude that children going into the system are more likely to suffer abuse, or turn out worse, than those left with their abusers. It even cautions that "the point estimates are large and relatively imprecisely estimated, with only the delinquency and earnings results statistically significantly different from zero and none statistically different from the conditional mean comparison"
They also said that CS investigators who have higher rates of child removals, have higher rates of long term placement of the children, but that this is more of a function of how much work they do vs colleagues, rather than some sort of personal bias. They further say that the estimates against the median statistics for the general population are not far off from those of kids within abusive households, in terms of long term wealth, and delinquency, which they mention another paper that concludes that most of the long term affects are achieved in early childhood, so by the time the system receives them they are already statistically more likely to end up this way from the abuse already suffered.
They also spend a portion of the study explaining how there are major problems with their study, but that is because most of the data they would need is either very difficult to get, or can only be gotten via unethical means. (laws around privacy make it difficult to get data from organizations, and solid experimental evidence would require knowingly allowing a group of children to be abused)
So this study isn't saying what you are making it to say. Really even the article from a organization against government interventions of families is saying, which isn't really surprising either.
This is all such a circus. But we are not getting the bread, well a very small portion of us are getting it all, and a few places are holding the vast majority of the rest of the wealth among their peons.
I do not believe that stripping them of IP rights can go off without disrupting the system in place. I am not saying we should never do anything again. I am saying we are going to have to shift ownership from the private entity, to the public. This will cause a lot of corporations to shut down, leave industries, etc. They will also use their ability to manipulate vital technologies, like drugs, and dialysis, etc., to cause pain in order to scare people into compliance with them. The longer we wait to stop them from owning everything, the more catastrophic this change could be.
I personally witnessed kids running wild in restaurants my whole life, I even witnessed a few straight, fists thrown, fights when they were either told to get their kids under control, or leave.
I ain’t saying it is
Except that you are specifically claiming these things didn't happen before the pandemic. YOU didn't notice, but they were happening. Yes I agree the cost of childcare has to do with many of the reasons we are experience this phenomenon in the way we currently are. Sure, back when my parents were kids, and young adults, hell even when I was young to a lesser extent, you didn't see this but rarely, but you also rarely ever saw kids in normal restaurants. If you went to McDonalds, or one of the places selling themselves specifically as places to take kids, you saw kids being terrors. I have an aunt that worked at a local place, sold as a place for kids, back in the 70s, and to this day she talks about how awful it was, and how bad the parents, and kids, were. But the loss of restaurants as adults only places does not mean kids being wild, because parents suck, is a new thing. It is just the contemporary expression of something that has always been a problem. Some periods we can statistically see things get worse, sometimes better, but it has never been good. We just can't hide it from public view like we used to.
When people my age, that are in my social circle, talk about when we were in high school with their gen A kids, they are absolutely shocked at how much violence there was at the time. At first some assumed we must have attended school in a really bad district, and when they find out it was largely in "good" schools, even private schools, they are further shocked. Even when I read about the drop in academic performance, largely noted in literacy, I often see they are comparing the back slide putting them at the level of kids graduating in the late 90s to the early/mid 2000s. So yeah, it is a backslide, but it isn't like they are a historic precedent of illiteracy in modern times. They basically dropped back a generation's worth of progress. Is this something to be concerned about? Yes, of course. Is this something we should do something about? Yes, of course. But none of this is new, it is just expressing its self in contemporary fashion.
Shifting the goal post from "it is not a new phenomenon" to "you are defending it"
I have been watching parents let their kids run wild my whole life, and I am a middle aged. I can look to historical record to see it too. This is not a new thing. This the old thing in modern clothes. Do we need to do something? Yeah, but I also remember roving gangs of kids casually committing crime to entertain themselves when I was a child. This is not the fault of a specific generation, it has been a perpetual failing of humanity.
The dotcom bubble destroyed a lot of retirement accounts people had no ability to choose the companies invested in as they were often generic, broad, investment portfolios. It also killed a lot of lower end white collar jobs, and damaged a lot of local government investments, leading to steep declines in those services. There are numerous other ways non-tech people were affected, but I don't feel like writing a bunch.
I am interested to know how old you were when that dotcom bubble popped, though.