"Destroying the family to create a "level playing field."

a reply to: coop039

Every time I hear opinions like this I can't help but be reminded of this short story.

Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut

archive.org...

Please read this, it is absolutely prophetic.

a reply to: infolurker

This explains things pretty well and it's rather difficult to refute.

originally posted by: theMediator
I didn't think this thread would become an excuse to bash socialism.

I'm very liberal myself and I don't want people to live the by the lowest denominator. I would certainly want to lowest denominator to be enhanced and given the chance but not by removing the chances of the people that succeed.

Once again, ATS poster really really don't understand how liberals think.

This thread is in fact about socialist interventionism.

There is nothing philosophical about it, it is an hypothesis which endeavors to explore the viability of supplanting parental control by force (as is always implied) with state control of child rearing, nothing more and nothing less.

I am not saying this to pick on you but, I couldn't let that misunderstanding go unchallenged for all of our sakes.

a reply to: greencmp

Wasn't the whole "Life of Julia" meme about government from cradle to grave?

We've got government telling parents what they should feed their kids, what they should teach their kids, we have universities that are incubators for this mindset.

Entitlement mentality coupled with a victim-class and everyone gets a trophy cultivates this kind of mindset.

"Government is smarter than you."
"You didn't build that"

All these types of subtle hints into what they really desire.

a reply to: beezzer

a reply to: Bluesma

The problem I see is that the proponents of cultural Marxism are always tentatively advancing a given set of ideas. You can be sure that if given half the chance they would seize the power to dismantle the family in lieu for increased influence from whatever Orwellian institution that they would seek to replace the family with. This misguided and frankly, immature belief in some kind of universal equality that doesn't really exist all founded on a mountain of flawed reason and self-deceptive emotional manipulation.

I really think of it as a sickness, this ideology, this blatant fantasy. And I'm surprised that they aren't rightly challenged by either the media or the public in a consistent way, with reason and logic. Because there's so many crazy ideas out there like this that it's really getting quite outrageous that anyone would even give them the time of the day. Yet they are the dominant ideology, the modern dogma and religion of the West. Be a saint, fight for justice, you're a social justice warrior!(So much better than all those lowly bigots).

I think the cognitive dissonance and the outright delusions, contradictions and inconsistencies that are so fundamental to this line of thinking ought to be so obvious that any reasonably adult would dismiss this and similar ideas categorically. These people really don't even argue with reason in the public sphere or on the internet. Their favorite tool is sanctimoniousness and ad-hominem attacks, always sitting on their high horse. They'll just grind on and on calling all their opponents names and they'll still make progress. And it's gotten this bad because they aren't sufficiently challenged and they're supported by the majority of the media as well as most Western governments, education and even the corporate World.

This kind of skewed worldview is now mainstream politics and every nook and cranny of our modern civilisation is now saturated by this degenerated ideology. Always pushing the envelope just a little bit further.

Ultimately I don't think TPTB are completely in support of this however. I think they mean to continue exaggerating and blowing up this disaster until it spawns an equal and opposite reaction. A reaction they would seek to control the evolution of. Their wished for synthesis will probably be a nightmare though. Of course, this reaction will initially have many legitimate grievances just like the progressivism of yesteryear but they'll probably try to polarize both ideologies to extreme levels therefore barring any real political unity.

In Silicon Valley they've already got intellectual nerds of the "new right"(neo-reaction) preaching monarchy and ideologies diametrically opposed to classical liberalism in itself. I can't help but feel concerned about where that might take us eventually. Extremism will breed more extremism.

Just some conspiracy speculation towards the end there eh. I do think there's a vast agenda unfolding but I would be hesitant in really trying to define it in detail.

originally posted by: coop039
This is just crazy. So if your raising a child in a loving home your giving him/her an unfair advantage?
This is a radio clip from ABC news in Australia.

soundcloud.com...

What do you think the so-called `child support system`is all about in Western nations ..?
It's designed to destroy the family unit at the grass roots level .. while the corrupt cronies on top profit from our misery .. thats how you create a welfare state .. where children are kidnapped literally by the government and sold back to the so called 'non-custodial' parent at gunpoint ..and threats of jail, fines, reaching into their bank accounts and stealing all their money .. it's all happening every day .. and for some reason, MEN never seem to complain or rise up to this in full force .. the irony is fascinating .. when faced with a threat to their children, MEN would normally kill anyone .. but in this case, where the Government empowers the women (for the most part), using them to keep the children away from the father .. thus, leaving the father helpless .. some sick-fcuk came up with this sick idea and it's still going on today ..barbaric to say the least ..

a reply to: coop039

Very typical socialist view, don't fix what is the problem, destroy the whole and set lower standards for all. There can be no elites of any kind. I think that the guy chose a poor example. Something Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory would do, he and Mr. Spock.

a reply to: Bluesma

Thing is that he isn't simple saying "be mindful" of those differences; he goes way beyond that by proposing a solution. His solution would have been for you to not have a family at all, but to be raised by the state in some kind of state institution with all the other children for your whole life.

That way, all would be equal and know only what they want you to know.

I'm sure that would fix all the problems. Right?

a reply to: Bluesma

Oh, he says that now ... but he floats the idea. It's there. It's what they want. If you listen, it circulates out there in various guises.

The less of our own we have to depend on, the more isolated we are and the more we turn to them to take care of us. It's part of the design and the means of taking power.

You can indeed look at the inner cities and other welfare bastions as social engineering experiments to see where they are trying to take us. Do you see much family there? No.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe



How exactly do you interpret this then:

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

I think I already answered that. That he says people should be aware that it is a good thing for children, and that not all children get that. You can feel good or bad about that. I personally would feel good, that I have done something beneficial for my child, and I would feel mindful about other children, for whom, I do not know the conditions of their upbringing.

He basically put emphasis upon our thinking about what "advantages" are for a childs development. That it is not as important that they have expensive clothes, objects, or even an expensive school. That what is most important is the loving family relationships. It is a plea towards being less superficial in our attitudes about parenting.

He doesn't say that going to an exclusive school systematically means they've had less quality family relations. He said that it is a mistake to systematically consider that they have a huge advantage simply because they went to an exclusive school!

There are parents (like I said, I know some intimately...) who will make less effort to spend the time with the child because they feel comforted that they have done "good parenting" in having gotten the child into an exclusive expensive school.

His suggestion of solution to this problem is to perhaps eliminate the expensive exclusive schools, so that all kids can only go to the same basic public schooling. The parents would have to consider that to give their child advantages, they'd have to do something else. He specifically said he encourages and is for, activities such as bedtime stories.

The idea is not insane to me, though I would not vote for it today. It is an interesting idea. I would consider it even more valid if an increase in the quality of public education would be part of such a concept. Being aware that all children need good education, as well as quality loving time with their parents, isn't such a bad value;

But this guy is in Australia, no? I have no idea about the current quality of public education there.

They want to tell your kids right from wrong. Their belief in the concept is better than yours or so they think. Don't fall for the BS.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bluesma

Thing is that he isn't simple saying "be mindful" of those differences; he goes way beyond that by proposing a solution. His solution would have been for you to not have a family at all, but to be raised by the state in some kind of state institution with all the other children for your whole life.

That way, all would be equal and know only what they want you to know.

I'm sure that would fix all the problems. Right?

No , that is not what he said. He mentioned that that is a solution that could be thought of, theoretically, but specifically said he is AGAINST that.

Often when speaking of a philosophical position, it is common to include possible criticisms and varied arguments, that could potentially be offered up against your theory, and your answers to that.

When forming your view, you must consider those, and include them in your construction. That was all he did.

I have learned the hard way that in forums such as this, it is better to leave those out and simply wait for them to be posted in response, then give your answer that you already thought of. Because including it just confuses people who don't read carefully, and the more confused they get, the more suspicious they are. "If I don't get it, it must be something evil." seems to be a common human assumption.... fear of unknown?

I don't know. But he was not writing on a forum, he was speaking, and probably thought only other philosophical minded people might be listening. He probably didn't form it with conspiracy theory forum members in mind!

Let's be clear about one thing here.
This isn't just about America.
There is a war waged secretly trying to ruin the most important institution known to ma .
Family.

Second to that is community.

a reply to: Bluesma



What about family?

This guy floats the idea of not letting parents raise their children, and this woman wants to abolish marriage so that she can have her ... pentouple?

So much for family. I told you that this idea of getting rid of families is being floated out there. You can argue she wants her family, but how do you have family when two of your "parents" are apparently in Russia?

a reply to: coop039

Well thank God I never had any children, mine would be WAAAAYYYY TOOOO advantaged.

a reply to: hammanderr
no I am questioning just how they are investing the money that are already taking from us!! of which well got to say we'd be better off if they just stopped investing in war and perks for their corp buddies and left us keep our money!

What in the hell did I just listen to? I'm amazed that someone could actually think those things would do good....it's like the movie "The Giver"

a reply to: NiZZiM

Progressive Liberalism is a mental disease.