Minneapolis is Burning

[JimmyJames 12271]

Also if the IRS is monitoring this board I have no knowledge whatsoever about tax law and my accountant signed off on everything.

[Dahobbs 17437]

37 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

I think, if you look, I don’t get personal unless I’ve been attacked but I know you won’t look because, who gives a shit.

Honestly, the guy started a pointless fight which muddled the true issues. As for his viewpoint, as JimmyJsmes points out, he defended a flawed system which he doesn’t really understand then tried to have it both ways by saying “I don’t believe in QI”. Anyway, the dude gets shitty when called out, he needs to put the ego down and admit, maybe someone else knows a little more about the subject matter and differ. I sure as shit won’t claim to be an authority on Tax.

I've reviewed your posting history. You frequently start the ass-holeish posts, for really no reason at all near as I can tell. In this particular episode you started it as well. And, it appears to me that you're conflating your perspective on QI with the definitive perspective on QI. Sometimes you have to divorce yourself from being an advocate and just try and understand the other side, particularly here where discussion, not advocacy, is the primary goal. Twicehorn isn't your opponent. Hell, he doesn't even appear to disagree with the general position that QI, at least as it is currently applied, has been bad. I'm not sure why you think differing legal opinions amount to personal attacks, but that appears to be your default. 

Again, my recommendation is to chill out, just a little bit, if you expect to stick around. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 104561]

Don’t know why I’m wading back in here but Tort claims Act causes of action are based on negligence. Rarely are police charged with having committed neg but rather intentional torts. Respondent suoerior doesn’t apply to intentional torts. Essentially, you’d have to carve exceptions upon exceptions and Texas ain’t doing that. The Tort claims act really only applies to state actors who are negligent in auto collisions, that’s it. 

 

QI immunity needs to stripped of the onerous application Judges have designed. Make it easier and more efficient to get a trial date, lessens the standards on clearly defined constitutional right, custom and policy (to hold municipalities financially responsible) and get rid of the interlocutory appeal. You do that and the system will work well as is.

Plenty of what you say makes good sense, but getting rid of interlocutory appeal in cases where immunity from SUIT (not just from damages, but from suit altogether) makes zero sense. If I am truly immune from suit, a trial court acts in error by subjecting me to the suit and trial. The predicate question - whether I can even be tried in that court - has to be answered fully and finally first.

 

Yes, it’s a pain in the ass, but it’s the counter to the utter folly of having a full trial, verdict, and judgment, when the defendant is legally immune from being subjected to that process.

 

The concept of immunity from suit exists for a reason, and has for literally centuries. It’s not some new construct created to help racist cops. The “king” cannot even be required to answer in his own courts unless he consents. And the “king” has granted that consent/waiver in many cases, but they are deliberate and purposeful choices.

[Texaspython 231]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I've reviewed your posting history. You frequently start the ass-holeish posts, for really no reason at all near as I can tell. In this particular episode you started it as well. And, it appears to me that you're conflating your perspective on QI with the definitive perspective on QI. Sometimes you have to divorce yourself from being an advocate and just try and understand the other side, particularly here where discussion, not advocacy, is the primary goal. Twicehorn isn't your opponent. Hell, he doesn't even appear to disagree with the general position that QI, at least as it is currently applied, has been bad. I'm not sure why you think differing legal opinions amount to personal attacks, but that appears to be your default. 

Again, my recommendation is to chill out, just a little bit, if you expect to stick around. 

It’s fairly obvious I’ve actually filed these types of cases and understand the procedural realities. Even people I practice against readily admit the unfairness. I pointed out those realities (see my post about timelines). Notice he didn’t respond. I’ll call out misinformation when it’s something I actually know about.
 

Whatever man, I’ll be short with someone lecturing me about something they don’t understand, at all. I don’t take this stuff personally and if calling someone out for being full of shit is a problem, sorry. Thought that was allowed on surly.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Plenty of what you say makes good sense, but getting rid of interlocutory appeal in cases where immunity from SUIT (not just from damages, but from suit altogether) makes zero sense. If I am truly immune from suit, a trial court acts in error by subjecting me to the suit and trial. The predicate question - whether I can even be tried in that court - has to be answered fully and finally first.

 

Yes, it’s a pain in the ass, but it’s the counter to the utter folly of having a full trial, verdict, and judgment, when the defendant is legally immune from being subjected to that process.

 

The concept of immunity from suit exists for a reason, and has for literally centuries. It’s not some new construct created to help racist cops. The “king” cannot even be required to answer in his own courts unless he consents. And the “king” has granted that consent/waiver in many cases, but they are deliberate and purposeful choices.

One might even argue that on a narrow-ish, dispositive issue like immunity, having an appeal early in the process beats the snot out of trying the case, taking a judgment, defending the judgment on a wide range of issues on appeal, and getting poured out on the immunity issue.

In my practice area, there's a preliminary ruling that's potentially dispositive and sometimes the parties stipulate that the plaintiff can't win with a certain ruling and go to final judgment immediately in order to get to what amounts to an interlocutory appeal.

But yeah, I get that it sucks.  But it's the nature of immunity.  It's not like an ordinary defense, in fact it's not really a "defense."

A funny-ish thing, sovereign immunity was originally based on the idea that the "King/government can do no wrong."  But that idea quickly yielded to "yeah, it can, but it can't be bothered by all these pesky subjects and citizens."

[Dahobbs 17437]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Plenty of what you say makes good sense, but getting rid of interlocutory appeal in cases where immunity from SUIT (not just from damages, but from suit altogether) makes zero sense. If I am truly immune from suit, a trial court acts in error by subjecting me to the suit and trial. The predocate question - whether I can even be tried in that court - has to be answered fully and finally first.

Yes, it’s a pain in the ass, but it’s the counter to the utter folly of having a full trial, verdict, and judgment, when the defendant is legally immune from being subjected to that process.

The concept of immunity from suit exists for a reason, and has for literally centuries. It’s not some new construct created to help racist cops. The “king” cannot even be required to answer in his own courts unless he consents. And the “king” has granted that consent/waiver in many cases, but they are deliberate and purposeful choices.

Yep. As @TwiceHorn has previously said, you lose most of the benefits that immunity from suit is supposed to provide if it wrongfully denied at the trial level. Interlocutory appeal in that circumstance makes a ton of sense. Of course, I recognize the delay and burden that causes to plaintiffs when the defense is wrongfully asserted. Personally, I think the greater issue we have is that defendants of all stripes are not punished for frivolous motions. Instead, they are often rewarded. As Judge Ferguson once noted, if defendants are to be believed, then no plaintiff has ever successfully pled a claim or identified sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment.  Not only should motions to dismiss and for summary judgment be regularly denied, I believe many (most?) of them deserve sanctions. Defendants get a lot more leeway in making bullshit, throw stuff at the wall until it sticks arguments, and I really tire of it. We resolve that problem, and interlocutory appeal for something like immunity is no longer as problematic. Of course, I also think it is time to get rid of, or at least greatly constrain, qualified immunity. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Texaspython 231]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Plenty of what you say makes good sense, but getting rid of interlocutory appeal in cases where immunity from SUIT (not just from damages, but from suit altogether) makes zero sense. If I am truly immune from suit, a trial court acts in error by subjecting me to the suit and trial. The predicate question - whether I can even be tried in that court - has to be answered fully and finally first.

 

Yes, it’s a pain in the ass, but it’s the counter to the utter folly of having a full trial, verdict, and judgment, when the defendant is legally immune from being subjected to that process.

 

The concept of immunity from suit exists for a reason, and has for literally centuries. It’s not some new construct created to help racist cops. The “king” cannot even be required to answer in his own courts unless he consents. And the “king” has granted that consent/waiver in many cases, but they are deliberate and purposeful choices.

Certainly but it has the effect of killing good cases and making slam dunk cases extremely difficult. I don’t think it’s a mistake that the 5th circuit takes years to decide issues which are on their face frivolous (hate using that word).

I suppose that’s really what my ultimate point is. This “process” is implemented in a way to kill litigation. Making the appeal expedited might cure this but the 5th circuit sure as shit isn’t doing that.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

12 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

It’s fairly obvious I’ve actually filed these types of cases and understand the procedural realities. Even people I practice against readily admit the unfairness. I pointed out those realities (see my post about timelines). Notice he didn’t respond. I’ll call out misinformation when it’s something I actually know about.
 

Whatever man, I’ll be short with someone lecturing me about something they don’t understand, at all. I don’t take this stuff personally and if calling someone out for being full of shit is a problem, sorry. Thought that was allowed on surly.

I blew it on the Bivens/1983 thing.  Flat wrong.  I admit it.

I get shit wrong from time to time and am usually free to admit when I do.  I am also generally not going to call people flat wrong for having a different opinion.  I'll argue with them, as much to test my opinion as theirs.

But I get the issue with interlocutory appeal.  It's a pain in the ass, but it's the nature of immunity as discussed above.  I submit that you failed to get what I was saying.  It's a "secondary" wrong.  The first wrong is the standard for granting immunity.  Or the immunity itself.  If you have any type of immunity from suit, though, you're pretty much going to have to have an interlocutory appeal.

I have actually done these cases, too, but not in the cop context.  And we lost every one of them on QI, having predicted that we probably would.  Thankfully, I have never had to make a living off them.

Edited July 5, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31265]

 

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

You've been on the forum all of 2 days as far as I can tell. I suggest cooling the attacks on reasonable and popular posters. And, frankly, it seems to me that you are reading something into his comments on QI that isn't really there. 

 

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Agreed. TwiceHorn is good people and knows his shit. This new guy overreacted to something he unreasonably inferred and Twice has been pretty clear about his thoughts on QI.

Thanks, gents.  I enjoy going back and forth with you and was kind of wondering if I was taking crazy pills.

I try to clarify or restate my arguments if someone seems to be not getting them, but I guess that's belaboring the point, or dying on a hill, so I should just STFU.

Edited July 5, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31265]

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yep. As @TwiceHorn has previously said, you lose most of the benefits that immunity from suit is supposed to provide if it wrongfully denied at the trial level. Interlocutory appeal in that circumstance makes a ton of sense. Of course, I recognize the delay and burden that causes to plaintiffs when the defense is wrongfully asserted. Personally, I think the greater issue we have is that defendants of all stripes are not punished for frivolous motions. Instead, they are often rewarded. As Judge Ferguson once noted, if defendants are to be believed, then no plaintiff has ever been successfully pled a claim or identified sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment.  Not only should motions to dismiss and for summary judgment be regularly denied, I believe many (most?) of them deserve sanctions. Defendants get a lot more leeway in making bullshit, throw stuff at the wall until it sticks, arguments, and I really tire of it. We resolve that problem, and interlocutory appeal for something like immunity is no longer as problematic. Of course, I also think it is time to get rid of, or at least greatly constrain, qualified immunity. 

I loved him, was ecstatic when he came to Dallas.  Didn't stick around long, though.

[Texaspython 231]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I blew it on the Bivens/1983 thing.  Flat wrong.  I admit it.

I get shit wrong from time to time and am usually free to admit when I do.  I am also generally not going to call people flat wrong for having a different opinion.  I'll argue with them, as much to test my opinion as theirs.

But I get the issue with interlocutory appeal.  It's a pain in the ass, but it's the nature of immunity as discussed above.  I submit that you failed to get what I was saying.  It's a "secondary" wrong.  The first wrong is the standard for granting immunity.  Or the immunity itself.  If you have any type of immunity from suit, though, you're pretty much going to have to have an interlocutory appeal.

I have actually done these cases, too, but not in the cop context.  And we lost every one of them on QI, having predicted that we probably would.  Thankfully, I have never had to make a living off them.

It has the effect of killing litigation, it isn’t just a “pain in the ass”. I turn down very good cases weekly. 

[TwiceHorn 31265]

Just now, Texaspython said:

It has the effect of killing litigation, it isn’t just a “pain in the ass”. I turn down very good cases weekly. 

I am aware.

I might submit that those cases aren't very good under existing law.  And existing law sucks, but there it is.

[Texaspython 231]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am aware.

I might submit that those cases aren't very good under existing law.  And existing law sucks, but there it is.

Depends on which law you’re talking about. Procedurally bad cases only because of economic realities. Subject matter wise, good cases. Which is why these Judges are to blame. They created it out of whole cloth and it’s my opinion, they did this to kill this type of litigation. It doesn’t have to be this way, they can change it.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

Since you do attempt partially to make a living off these cases, who pays if you take a judgment or settle?

[Texaspython 231]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Since you do attempt partially to make a living off these cases, who pays if you take a judgment or settle?

Depends, obviously it’s paramount I bring suit against the municipality which has a different set of problems we don’t need to get into. But typically I only bring suit if I feel reasonably confident I can keep the city in the litigation.

Most municipalities do not pay money damages for their employees. The only one I know of is Dallas, they will pay damages on behalf of their police.  There may be others.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Texaspython

[TwiceHorn 31265]

7 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

Depends, obviously it’s paramount I bring suit against the municipality which has a different set of problems we don’t need to get into. But typically I only bring suit if I feel reasonably confident I can keep the city in the litigation.

Most municipalities do not pay money damages for their employees. The only one I know of is Dallas, they will pay damages on behalf of their police.  There may be others.

Are some municipalities insured or indemnified by TML, as far as you can tell?  Or some other insurer?

That's why I would, in fantasy-land at least, like to see some state law fixes for this problem.  Even without QI, there's quite a bit of tiptoeing that has to be done with the federal constitutional tort.

[Texaspython 231]

I’m not aware of any governmental body carrying this type of coverage.

The state of Texas barely lets you sue them when a governmental actor rear ends you. I doubt any legislation like this would ever become reality. I’d say the same thing if Dems dominated state guv. Who knows though, I’ve sure as shit been wrong before.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Texaspython

[elfenix 34171]

On 7/4/2020 at 3:13 PM, Xian said:

Any update on this?  Terrorist, drunk driver? Someone driving fast at night and not paying attention? 

summer taylor has died, diaz love is seriously injured, dawit kelete has been arrested.

https://twitter.com/i/events/1279691093521489920

Edited July 5, 2020 by elfenix

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

summer taylor has died, diaz love is seriously injured, dawit kelete has been arrested.

https://twitter.com/i/events/1279691093521489920

For fuck's sake twitter is awful.  These comments.

 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

summer taylor has died, diaz love is seriously injured, dawit kelete has been arrested.

https://twitter.com/i/events/1279691093521489920

Thanks.  I googled dawit Kelete and didn’t see anything on motive. 
I might be making a big assumption, but since it looks like he is an African immigrant it probably wasn’t race related.  Just a horrible and tragic accident.  
 

 

[elfenix 34171]

1 hour ago, Xian said:

Thanks.  I googled dawit Kelete and didn’t see anything on motive. 
I might be making a big assumption, but since it looks like he is an African immigrant it probably wasn’t race related.  Just a horrible and tragic accident.  
 

 

probably drunk.  seemed like houston had an epidemic of wrong way freeway drunks a few years ago

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2630]

6 minutes ago, elfenix said:

probably drunk.  seemed like houston had an epidemic of wrong way freeway drunks a few years ago

Including a cop 

[GRHorn 105]

On 7/4/2020 at 3:10 PM, Huckleberry said:

Where does that say that they don't want two parent households? It says that they disrupt (BUZZWORD ALERT) the prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other with a more extensive network to the degree that families are comfortable. It is not saying that two parent households are bad, it is saying that parents shouldn't feel like they have to do it alone.

There is nothing at all wrong with that paragraph. Zero.

Why would you state you want to disrupt something that you support? Again, people are making excuses for the words they write.  

We’ve seen what dissolution of the nuclear family has done to the black community. And we know what role government has played in making that happen. Very few people deny that. Hell, Trump passed criminal justice reform based on that. It’s shameful and needs to reversed in some cases and prevented from happening in the next generation. But, again the stats are the stats. We know you like go off data.

While I’m going through interesting word choices, what do you think was meant by “Western-prescribed” in front of nuclear family? I saw you omitted that when you quoted it, surely a coincidental oversight! Is the nuclear family really a “western” phenomena? There’s a lot of Asian cultures with nuclear families,  What could they have meant by “Western prescribed”?

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

26 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

While I’m going through interesting word choices, what do you think was meant by “Western-prescribed” in front of nuclear family?

Single-generation households living separate from extended family.

little boxes on the hillside
little boxes made of ticky-tacky

 

[Huckleberry 32694]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

Why would you state you want to disrupt something that you support? Again, people are making excuses for the words they write.  

We’ve seen what dissolution of the nuclear family has done to the black community. And we know what role government has played in making that happen. Very few people deny that. Hell, Trump passed criminal justice reform based on that. It’s shameful and needs to reversed in some cases and prevented from happening in the next generation. But, again the stats are the stats. We know you like go off data.

While I’m going through interesting word choices, what do you think was meant by “Western-prescribed” in front of nuclear family? I saw you omitted that when you quoted it, surely a coincidental oversight! Is the nuclear family really a “western” phenomena? There’s a lot of Asian cultures with nuclear families,  What could they have meant by “Western prescribed”?

 

You've completely lost your mind. The fear has seeped into every corner of your mind, even your ocular processing centers.

I have conveniently highlighted the location where "Western-prescribed" was not omitted when I quoted their statement.

But I'll try to help you live your life with a little less fear. Non-western cultures much more frequently consider child-rearing to be a community endeavor. "Western-prescribed" means that western cultures are far less likely to do so, and that parents in western cultures are more likely to feel like child-rearing is something they must do themselves or feel like they've failed.

And again, your entire response once again completely misses the point. Their statement is calling for community support in addition to the immediate family structure. Only a coward who fears what they don't understand would be running with your interpretation.

[NWBuck 8547]

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Their statement is calling for community support in addition to the immediate family structure. Only a coward who fears what they don't understand would be running with your interpretation.

My father just texted me about this, how BLM wanted to do away with the family structure that God created.

I sent him the direct quote, and comments along the lines of yours. He said this isn't what the Bible teaches. 

I reminded him that he used to preach from the pulpit about the Family of God, and how our congregation had a responsibility to take care of each other, including helping raise children. 

I then asked him if it would be better to follow the Biblical family values taught in Genesis, Exodus, or First and Second Samuel? 

He hasn't responded. Hannity must be on. 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

1 hour ago, NWBuck said:

My father just texted me about this, how BLM wanted to do away with the family structure that God created.

I sent him the direct quote, and comments along the lines of yours. He said this isn't what the Bible teaches. 

I reminded him that he used to preach from the pulpit about the Family of God, and how our congregation had a responsibility to take care of each other, including helping raise children. 

I then asked him if it would be better to follow the Biblical family values taught in Genesis, Exodus, or First and Second Samuel? 

He hasn't responded. Hannity must be on. 

I’m reading a book about this very myth right now. The “nuclear” family is a fairly new concept and practice in human history. It’s more or less a myth of the nostalgia of the 50s. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342]

Woman: Black people made me throw that molotov cocktail at the police:

https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/alleged-molotov-cocktail-tosser-blamed-attack-on-black-people/

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I’m reading a book about this very myth right now. The “nuclear” family is a fairly new concept and practice in human history. It’s more or less a myth of the nostalgia of the 50s. 

Yeah because before 1950 most families only had one parent....  Just a cursory look thru at statistics points out the issues faced by single parent kids especially in a modern society.

[Huckleberry 32694]

20 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah because before 1950 most families only had one parent....  Just a cursory look thru at statistics points out the issues faced by single parent kids especially in a modern society.

It's only been said a dozen times on this thread but you still don't get it.

The alternative to the nuclear family concept that is being proposed is not single parent families. It's a more community-based approach to rearing children.

Read the above two sentence paragraph. Then read it again. Then internalize it. Then think about it for a couple of hours. Then read it again. Then try to understand it.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Goodness, Onboard.  How many times does this have to be pointed out?  

Remember "It Takes a Village" by your hero Hillary Clinton?

They aren't referring to SINGLE parent families.  They are referring to one- or two-parent families who are also greatly assisted by the community.

[TXSG8R 3360]

16 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Why would you state you want to disrupt something that you support? Again, people are making excuses for the words they write.  

We’ve seen what dissolution of the nuclear family has done to the black community. And we know what role government has played in making that happen. Very few people deny that. Hell, Trump passed criminal justice reform based on that. It’s shameful and needs to reversed in some cases and prevented from happening in the next generation. But, again the stats are the stats. We know you like go off data.

While I’m going through interesting word choices, what do you think was meant by “Western-prescribed” in front of nuclear family? I saw you omitted that when you quoted it, surely a coincidental oversight! Is the nuclear family really a “western” phenomena? There’s a lot of Asian cultures with nuclear families,  What could they have meant by “Western prescribed”?

 

The way children are raised in Asia, and most of Europe, would freak conservatives the fuck out.  Way too much independence, self-reliance, and responsibility is taught and reinforced at an early age.  I think you are also overvaluing places that technically satisfy the nuclear family dynamic by having 2 parents in the household, but really rely almost entirely on one parent to raise kids while the other is supporting the household.  Dad being gone for weeks, months, or the majority of the year due to work is not uncommon in many places.  It may not be a western phenomena, but the emphasis placed on it seems to be a very christian american thing.  

[TwiceHorn 31265]

21 hours ago, Texaspython said:

I’m not aware of any governmental body carrying this type of coverage.

The state of Texas barely lets you sue them when a governmental actor rear ends you. I doubt any legislation like this would ever become reality. I’d say the same thing if Dems dominated state guv. Who knows though, I’ve sure as shit been wrong before.

TML has "pools" that include "LEO liability," but it's impossible for a non-municipality to get any details.  I've seen a few peripheral materials that indicate there may be coverage for constitutional torts, but it's really hard to tell.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

16 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Why would you state you want to disrupt something that you support? Again, people are making excuses for the words they write.  

We’ve seen what dissolution of the nuclear family has done to the black community. And we know what role government has played in making that happen. Very few people deny that. Hell, Trump passed criminal justice reform based on that. It’s shameful and needs to reversed in some cases and prevented from happening in the next generation. But, again the stats are the stats. We know you like go off data.

While I’m going through interesting word choices, what do you think was meant by “Western-prescribed” in front of nuclear family? I saw you omitted that when you quoted it, surely a coincidental oversight! Is the nuclear family really a “western” phenomena? There’s a lot of Asian cultures with nuclear families,  What could they have meant by “Western prescribed”?

 

Don't buy the hype on Trump's CJ reform.  It was about as little as could possibly be done, and with the exception of making crack disparity remedies retroactive, did very little addressed to racial issues in the CJ system.  Of course, any CJ reform assists POC.

That said, getting any CJ reform of any type through congress is like pulling teeth.  The basic bill had been pending for almost a decade.

It does appear that the only reason Trump backed Kushner on it was to curry the black vote, though.

Edited July 6, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Dahobbs 17437]

13 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

 

Questions on the above as it seems to me this is a dispute between terms and not practices.  When saying the nuclear family concept or the “western prescribed” nuclear family, is that taken to mean that solely the nuclear family participates and/or is responsible for raising children?  If so that seems like a straw man. I don’t think it is at all controversial in saying that the broader community supports the family and plays some role in helping to develop children into functioning adults.  I’ve never heard anyone who takes some issue with this.  It seems that stating the goal as “disrupting the western prescribed nuclear family” by providing broader community support is taking a non controversial idea and needlessly phrasing it to be provocative.   

 

It is a question of practice, not just terminology. The "nuclear family" as developed in the USA features extreme reliance on the parents, with fewer contributions from extended family. I don't see how this is debatable. I don't think anyone in the US is necessarily opposed to contributions by extended family (that would be an odd position to take). But, in practice, those contributions are of lesser quality and quantity here than any many other places. In other societies extended family/community is expected to take part in the raising of children. Here, it is nice if it happens, but it tends to devolve into seeing extended family at major holidays. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Bama Chick 28596]

Questions on the above as it seems to me this is a dispute between terms and not practices.  When saying the nuclear family concept or the “western prescribed” nuclear family, is that taken to mean that solely the nuclear family participates and/or is responsible for raising children?  If so that seems like a straw man. I don’t think it is at all controversial in saying that the broader community supports the family and plays some role in helping to develop children into functioning adults.  I’ve never heard anyone who takes some issue with this.  It seems that stating the goal as “disrupting the western prescribed nuclear family” by providing broader community support is taking a non controversial idea and needlessly phrasing it to be provocative.   
 

Were you asleep when Rush Limbaugh and his ilk absolutely savages Hilary Clinton for “It Takes A Village”?

The theme of the book, at least as perceived from its title, aroused immediate opposition within the United States. A well known instance of this occurred during the 1996 presidential election when, during his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Republican Party nominee Bob Dole said: "... with all due respect, I am here to tell you, it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a family to raise a child."[8] Criticism of Clinton's notion would continue to be made by American conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Andrea Tantaros, and Jonah Goldberg through the next two decades.

[Huckleberry 32694]

Yes, that's exactly what it is. And it can only be interpreted otherwise by someone being intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, or both.

Quote

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

It requires one of the two above to get so wrapped up and focused on the part in purple that you completely ignore the rest of the statement. Here, I can make the important parts that you are choosing to ignore a bit more obvious.

Quote

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Hope that helps. You left out a key word in your analysis. Their disruption statement refers to the nuclear family requirement that makes people feel like their nuclear family and only their nuclear family should help with their children. Their statement says that this requirement should be disrupted and that mothers, parents, and children should be supported by extended families and "villages" to the extent that they are comfortable.

Y'all are arguing words that are not in their statement (THEY DON'T WANT TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLDS!!!) and ignoring words that are in their statement (the "disruption" they are promoting is literally described in the second part of the statement that you're ignoring - it is extended family and community support given only to the extent that the nuclear family is comfortable in receiving). Like I said, intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, or both. You're sitting there trying to parse the word "disrupt" when the statement literally defines its usage starting with the word "by."

Edited July 6, 2020 by Huckleberry

[bad_teammate 13132]

43 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

When saying the nuclear family concept or the “western prescribed” nuclear family, is that taken to mean that solely the nuclear family participates and/or is responsible for raising children?  If so that seems like a straw man. I don’t think it is at all controversial in saying that the broader community supports the family and plays some role in helping to develop children into functioning adults.

It's an extremely Western thing to isolate from family and purposefully and explicitly eschew multi-generational households. We design our cities and suburbs to isolate from each other.

It's a thing, with data.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

11 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Family units in a very limited window of time within western civilization and in specific geographic regions tended to be more isolated from extended family and community.

Which is their point.

Glad to have you on board

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I think their point is to use empty rhetoric for obvious reasons.  

Please articulate these "obvious reasons".

[Dahobbs 17437]

32 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Family units in a very limited window of time within western civilization and in specific geographic regions tended to be more isolated from extended family and community.  I think we agree this is a bad thing. 

 

 

Well, other than the numerous published examples of people disagreeing cited above...

The only person making this an argument of terminology is you. I can't fathom why. You say agree with the broader concept that extended family/community should be involved in raising children, apparently agree that the opposite approach is a relatively recent development, yet criticize this movement and other posters for making these arguments. Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish? Who gives a shit if the terminology could be more ideally worded?

Edited July 6, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17437]

4 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I think their point is to use empty rhetoric for obvious reasons.  

Speaking of empty rhetoric. . . 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Huckleberry 32694]

36 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Yes.  I was a kid then.  Also, I've never read anything from Rush and never listened to his show and so I have no idea what he says.  But I do think there is no fundamental conceptual difference in this dispute and it comes down to merely how we word things. 

Why do you post like this?  I'm asking for clarification to begin because I have found it is often useful to do so.  For some reason you have gotten it in your head that I am a phony, fraud, dishonest, disingenuous, etc.  This is nonsense.   I could easily accuse you of intellectual cowardice when you run away when it's pointed out when you are obviously wrong.   

Regarding the notion of a "western prescribed nuclear family" this is also nonsense.  The family unit is as old as human civilization as far as we can tell, and was not developed by nor exclusive to the western world; from the anthropologist Margaret Mead:

As far back as our knowledge takes us, human beings have lived in families. We know of no period where this was not so. We know of no people who have succeeded for long in dissolving the family or displacing it ... Again and again, in spite of proposals for change and actual experiments, human societies have reaffirmed their dependence on the family as the basic unit of human living—the family of father, mother and children.

As far as only nuclear family support, there are numerous references to broader family and community support in raising children in western civilization.  One could bury this thread with references from the western cannon that give examples.  The idea that "the west" prescribed some very specific family unit as outlined above is nothing more than empty rhetoric.  Family units in a very limited window of time within western civilization and in specific geographic regions tended to be more isolated from extended family and community.  I think we agree this is a bad thing. 

 

 

There is no clarification required. All the information you need is right there in their statement. For someone to act like they need help interpreting the plainly clear meaning requires that that person either has difficulty understanding plain English, which I don't think applies to you, or they have ulterior motives. 

Tell me, in the sentence you claim not to be able to understand without clarification, do you recognize that the portion of the sentence beginning with the word "by" elaborates on the verb "disrupt" by explaining the actions which will serve as the methods by which they perform the disruption? 

In the sentence "I will travel to work by driving my car." do you understand that by driving my car defines the way in which the speaker will travel to work? In the statement "I will disrupt the meeting by chanting a slogan" are you able to deduce how the speaker will disrupt the meeting?

If you can understand those two examples, please explain how you can't understand the sentence we're discussing and instead require further clarification. 

[Huckleberry 32694]

10 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I understand the sentences we are discussing.  Sometimes when discussing with multiple participants, I will ask for them to state the base points in their own words (or accept some way I worded it) because I have had many discussions with multiple participants and after a few back and forths we come to realize we are arguing various aspects of the point or that we are talking past each other because we have some subtle difference in how we interpret the statements.  I have found that a simple initial clarification before launching a long multi party exchange is often beneficial.  In the majority of good faith discussions that I have witnessed among experts in certain philosophical disciplines, they first start with agreement on the base terms & wording of fundamental propositions, repeat back their understanding of the statements or ask for acceptance of their wording or representation of the basics, etc.  This is the case even when both parties have spent years working on the subject and know all the basics like the back of their hand.  They do this for the same set of reasons I mentioned.  Never is this viewed as some form of dishonesty.  How could asking for clarification possibly be dishonest?  Makes no sense.  So you can look for some dishonest motives or infer that I do not understand sentences if you like, but that is why.

 

So you understand that their statement is saying they want to supplement nuclear families with extended family and community support, and that they view this as disrupting the societal "requirement" that some people feel to rear their children alone as a nuclear family. And you also understand that they are saying that they support doing this only to the point that each nuclear family is comfortable and therefore they are not wishing to impose it upon them if it's unwanted.

So what was your question again? You're upset that they accurately described this societal pressure as predominantly Western? The verb disrupt was a bit too provocative for your taste? Basically you have zero issues with what they're actually saying but are offended by the way they said it, is that it?

[bad_teammate 13132]

We absolutely should disrupt the Western nuclear family concept, which is profoundly isolated socially and economically.

BLM is right.

I'm glad we all agree with BLM.

[Huckleberry 32694]

13 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Yes.  

The question I'm about to ask will be necessarily snarky simply because of the idea it's communicating. But it's 100% genuine.

Do you think the BLM movement should care that your feelings are offended by the fact they used the words "disrupt" and "Western-prescribed" in that sentence?

edited to add - I realized I should probably come back and elaborate a bit on that question the disclaimer notwithstanding.

The BLM movement feels that they are fighting for fair and equitable treatment in a country where their mistreatment extends back 244 years to the very beginning. The level of mistreatment has changed, sometimes slowly and sometimes rapidly. But the fact that they do not receive equal treatment throughout society hasn't changed in their lifetimes or the lifetimes of generations before them. So with that in mind, do you feel like hurting feelings should be anywhere on their list of concerns when formulating their mission statement? Or do you think it's possible that hurting feelings may actually be a desired tactic to make people take notice of what they're saying?

Finally, do you think it's a good thing, a bad thing, or neither that when confronted with a statement about ways they believe they can help childhood outcomes in their community that you were more concerned with pointing out that language such as "disrupting Western-prescribed" societal norms is offensive to you and others than you were concerned with actually discussing improving their childhood outcomes?

Edited July 6, 2020 by Huckleberry

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I agree that the nuclear family is fundamentally important for the raising of children and that we should provide better support in order for the nuclear family unit to thrive.  I also agree that families are too isolated in modern society. 

Excellent it's very cool that there is unity between people of your political persuasion and the BLM movement towards this shared social and familial goal to build a better world.

I'm sure you also agree that tone policing is unhelpful towards achieving the goals that you and BLM share in common.

WELCOME!

[Huckleberry 32694]

7 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Me as an individual, no.  I think if they want to get support beyond their current base, I think they should not use empty easily-dismissed rhetoric.      

You yourself have already stated on this thread that their rhetoric is not empty because you agree with its content. You have stated that you only take issue with offensive (to you) words, not the crux of their argument.

That is not empty easily-dismissed rhetoric to people who are truly paying attention to the point. The only potential mistake it represents is providing something for people who want to dismiss them to latch onto and wave in their hands as they try to distract people from the real issues. They are not looking to expand their support to people who are more concerned with not being offended than with equal treatment.

And by the way, what do you consider their "base"?

Edited July 6, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Biff Tannen 45491]

I didn't even read most of this page, but the long-winded back and forth is exactly why I didn't respond to that poster.  It's all pedantic twaddle with him.

[wildcat09 29226]

Everyone needs to stop fucking using dumb techbro lingo like "disrupt."