SSCReader
21hr ago
Even if you don’t accept any hereditarian claims, you still have to worry about things like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, childhood malnutrition, and even neglect/abuse leading to stunted cognitive/physical development, etc. Again, these things are not guaranteed to make the child a ticking time bomb, but the likelihood is far from zero.
This is true, but exactly why the claim that nature had stomped nurture was untrue in the original post. It's not an invasive species. It's a damaged plant. It's a small tomato plant that you got from your neighbor who alternately overwatered and underwatered it, the pot was too small and the dirt was mostly bark, and they gave it crazy amounts of plant food and also somehow meth.
You can't draw a conclusion that it's a virulent invasive species when it overgrows its pot and grows tomatoes with blossom end rot. It may not be able to give you tomatoes you can eat. It may simply grow and take up space your other plants might need, but it doesn't necessarily tell you a lot about nurture vs nature. And it's reasonable to expect people to know that. So if they do in fact treat it like it is an invasive species not a damaged one, it does still tell you something about them. Especially when:
Or to put it another way, I've worked in social care, many of the babies taken for adoption or fostering(and this was in the UK so they were mostly white), have huge problems, as you point out, fetal alcohol syndrome being a huge one. And my colleagues would spend extensive time warning prospective adoptive parents and foster parents and trying their best to prepare them for the idea this was going to be a long painful slog in many cases. We're not nurturing an invasive species, we're trying to rescue a damaged baby we have decided we ought not let die or be neglected. Even when we know that it is likely that baby will have many problems and may in fact cause problems and pain for their new parents.
It's horrible for the parents involved and many of them hand kids back when they can't cope with them, but that was the job they signed up for. To give a kid a shot. You are deliberately choosing to trade your time and effort and yes pain in exchange for possibly healing and raising a wounded child. It's not invasive, you deliberately brought it into your home. Yes absolutely do so with open eyes, about the issues they may well be facing, but it's not an invasive species, or even a cuckoo left in your nest against your will (as the most recent clarification by Coil) it's a burden that was chosen. Recognize that it is a burden yes, but you don't then get to pretend it was an invasive species.
The ghetto infant didn't just hop the wall one day and end up in your garden. He or she didn't have a choice where they ended up, you made that choice for them. If you as the adults didn't think carefully enough about what looking after them was going to entail, then that is on you, not the infant.
SSCReader
23hr ago
The Khmer Rogue can get back to disarming traps, we're paying him to get us into the Zhentarim vault, not for his opinions on child rearing.
SSCReader
1d ago
The difference is with kids is that someone has to raise them. We don't eradicate them like we do knotweed or whatever. For the good of the kid and society efforts must be made to get them to adulthood. A group home is unlikely to do as good a job as a family with resources. It may well be horrible and difficult for that family, but it must be done by someone. Which is why we don't force people to adopt or foster generally. It's going to be tough in a lot of ways.
It's supererogatory work, so it's not very helpful to talk about these kids as invasive species. In addition the whole rant about nature vs nurture is flawed. by the time a kid is an infant in need of adoption from a poor area like a ghetto, almost always nature has been confounded by maternal alcohol or drug use, maternal or infant malnutrition, you have lead exposure in pipes, a high stress environment for the mother, quite probable early birth and low birth weight. Likely lack of doctor's care and feeding post-birth. Possible neglect and abuse post-birth. Because if they had those things or were looked after properly, they are unlikely to be put up for adoption in the first place. May not make their behavior as they age any better for the parents of course. But it isn't possible to declare it nature and therefore the behavior of an invasive species.
SSCReader
3d ago
Guns aren't banned in Scotland though either. You just need a license which is fairly easy to get for someone with a clean record. Handguns are banned though (with some exceptions). May not materially impact your point, but just clarifying as lots of people seem to think guns are banned in the UK entirely.
You could of course also look at murder rates among my Ulster-Scots brethren in Northern Ireland as handguns are legal there. Also getting hold of illegal guns is pretty easy. There are other confounding factors of course.
The old joke about Northern Ireland being the best preparation for any Brit moving to the US: guns, flags, religion and armed police on the streets.
SSCReader
5d ago
British ex-pats (of which I am one) and some wealthy Malaysian British educated people STILL call it Maxwell Hill to this day. I've been there, which is how I know. I wasn't stationed in Malaysia but it was close enough I've visited (and hung out with said British ex pat community myself). That's not impossible to find out of course, so doesn't prove anything.
But you know him being a retired or semi retired ex-pat of an age close to my own is also not impossible. People born before 1979 do exist here. Indeed to blow your mind. I was born before the moon landing in 1969! I've been on the internet since it was Usenet and Muds.
Its not impossible Maxwell picked maxwell hill as part of her name and the house she grew up in, found out that it was also a place in Malaysia and was still called that by some people based her character on that, dropping hints over time she was Malaysian connected (remember though the Malaysian connection is based in part on posts by maxwellhill), not just a post hoc discovery, so it would probably have to be a deliberate choice by her.
It's not proof. But reading the maxwellhill posts it's either a British educated person with good knowledge of Malaysian ex pat/Brit educated communities or a very good imitation. For me its enough to suggest the Ghislaine connection is less likely. YMMV.
SSCReader
5d ago
Maxwell hill is a location in Malaysia. The posters habits interests and grammar indicate either a British ex pat with connections to Malaysia, or a British educated Malaysian. That could be faked but the name is a Malaysian connection on its own.
SSCReader
7d ago
Yeah Timpson is a notable prison reform advocate who famously (or infamously) thinks 2/3rds of all prisoners should not be in prison. He's talking about women here because the prison in question is a woman's prison, but he has said exactly the same thing about the prison population in general (which is like 90% male). The only difference is that women prisoners who are mothers usually means the state is paying to jail the woman and then pay to put her kids in foster care etc.
SSCReader
9d ago
unless Remmick is talking about when the Normans invaded - but Ireland was already Christian by then and after a bit of pillaging and dispossessing the Normans settled down to assimilate into the native society, hence "more Irish than the Irish themselves"; it fits better with a later historical period, say the Tudor era or later, especially the 17th century when land was taken and efforts to anglicise the Irish were very pronounced.
Yeah the implication seems to be 5th century or earlier. He doesn't specify who it was who stole his fathers lands or make any claim about how widespread it was, so could be a Christianized vs non-Christianized neighbor dispute for all we know. I think if he were just pre-Norman or Tudor it wouldn't quite fit the way he talks about it because it's the Christian bit he is stuck on specifically. But as you say who knows how much research effort was put forth.
SSCReader
9d ago
Well it depends who you are talking about, in general ADOS want it to help ADOS so from their perspective it is not helping the people it was "meant" to help. Which is the perspective I was taking.
If you mean that the people implementing it never meant it to help ADOS (or perhaps never meant it to primarily benefit ADOS at least) then you might be on firmer ground. But then you'd have to address why they wanted to help rich Nigerians or what have you, but not ADOS. I think I might suggest they meant it to look like it would help ADOS as part of a sop towards previous discrimination but were not too bothered if it actually did or did not.
SSCReader
9d ago
And if you were a black parent to a black child, how much of a cost would you say you and your people have borne only to end up (statistically) at the bottom of the ladder?
Words and laws do mean things. They mean what the people interpreting them thnk they mean, no more and no less. Just as "all men are created equal" didn't stop race based slavery because all men didn't really mean all men.
I completely agree that two wrongs do not make a right. If we could wave a magic wand and be done with race based issues, I would. But we don't live in that world. And in this world the sins of the fathers appear to be visited on the children whether we want it or not. Our options are constrained by human pyschology and the dynamics thereof.
I'm ok with headwinds for my kids, they'll be fine either way. My bigger concern is that Affirmative action et al doesn't actually primarily help the people its meant to help. I'd take a much more narrowly tailored version if I had the power.
SSCReader
9d ago
And her granddaughter's (or great-granddaughters) peers not only believe that, they have scientific studies PROVING that white physicians are killing black babies.
Don't confuse what white progressives might say and what black people believe. They may be allied politically but they are very different groups. As far as I can tell approximately zero of the younger group believe that. In fact they don't believe a white doctor tried to kill their great-grandmothers/great aunts baby at all, last time it came up they expressed a great deal of skepticism, because they can't even conceive of experiencing that level of personal racism.
What is commonish is the idea that white doctors may still be slightly biased in the ways they treat and diagnose black mothers (particularly around pain management) but that is very different from the belief that they are outright murdering black children for racist reasons. And they may be right about that, when my wife was in hospital, I had to intervene several times because they were not taking her levels of pain seriously at all.
That's an improvement! From outright murderous racist doctors to doctors can be biased in how they deliver treatment is a downgrade in levels of racial resentment/belief! Time is on your side here.
Heck even in the Floyd riots many (most?) of the rioters were in fact not black. If we look at Rittenhouse, of the three people who he shot, none of them were black. If you watch the videos of that night most of the people we see are white. Michael Reinoehl and Aaron Danielson, both white. More people were killed in the LA riots than the Floyd riots, even though one was much more widespread.
Whatever people say, the facts on the ground do not appear to validate the idea that things are worse. Interracial marriage rates are increasing, which is a key measure of integration. "Since 1980, the share who married someone of a different race or ethnicity has more than tripled from 5% to 18%"
As for timescales. Look I'm Northern Irish, we're still beefing about King William vs King James in 1690 and whether the Brits can be blamed for the Norman invasion of Ireland in the 1170's. Give it another couple hundred years and see where you are. You're young yet.
SSCReader
9d ago
But the resentments of blacks alone, along with the sympathy for those resentments among one party of whites, will keep those convulsions going indefinitely.
Well that's the question isn't it? From Founding to the Civil Rights movement was near 200 years. It's been about 80 since then. Timescales for nations are measured in centuries. In 120 years will those convulsions still be ongoing or not? Or will American blacks and whites have banded together to fight our AI overlords or an alien invader, or Chinese communism or just all be rich, fat and happy on automated cruise liners in space?
It seems clear to me, having significant contact with black Americans that the level of fear and anger in younger generations is significantly less than in older ones. Even my wife's grandmother on her deathbed recanted her ban on "dating out". And she had lived through Jim Crow in the South before migrating North and believed a white doctor had tried to kill one of her children in the womb.
SSCReader
9d ago
Tiers of justice, ceding the commons to the lowest common denominator, deciding that racism (or sexism) is good so long as you target it at the right people, restricting the right of association based on certain protected classes but not other categories of those classes, so on and so forth are also bad. Less so. Does that make them reasonable prices to pay for moral improvement? Does that make a functional multicultural society? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?
Maybe, that's the point. It might be once it committed to slavery that America had no good outcomes. Either genocide or hundreds of years of racial animosity and war or affirmative action and critical theory. As you say the best option would likely to have been not enslaved a bunch of people. Once you do that as Jefferson noted, you have no good options.
So it might be that (hopefully not!) the price that must be paid for moral improvement is what you see today forever. Or it might (and hopefully will) decline over time. How long the racial wound of slavery and discrimination takes to heal is an open question. The question is given we can't change the past, is this the best option we have of those available to us? From Founding to the Civil Rights movement was what 200 years give or take? So maybe roughly 200 years is what it will take to heal. Would 200 years of the things you don't like now worth 200 years of what black people had to go through in their 200 years? Or is that too great a moral price to pay?
There is no objective answer to that, really. I'd sway to the idea that yes that would be a reasonable price to pay. But that is also predicated on the fact, I think being a white man in the US is pretty good even with whatever headwinds being faced. So I don't really view it as much of a cost at all. I'd choose to be white over than black in a heartbeat from a flourishing point of view in the US right now and I don't see that changing particularly.
But how much of a cost (if any at all) anyone person is willing to bear for the mistakes of Americans past, is going to be invariably a very personal thing.
SSCReader
9d ago
How is that racist in any way? If i say Japanese people in Japan are the ones who can enable immigration into Japan thats just a statement of fact.
Anybody who wants to complain about the level of immigration in Japan (whether too high or too low) is complaining about decisions made by Japanese people.
Remember we're responding in the frame of a person who thinks Indians, Mexicans and the like are replacing white people and therefore wants to take action and pointing out his own people (from his own framework!) are the ones primarily doing the things he does not like.
I have no clue how you think pointing that out makes me racist.
SSCReader
10d ago
This plus the Faculty were two of his major inspirations according to Coogler himself.
SSCReader
10d ago
I think that's fair. The coda is a little at odds tonally, because vampirism goes from this horrible thing the main characters are willing to die to fight off, to being portrayed as not that bad after all. But Buddy Guy is a great choice for an aged Sammie so it's hard to complain too much.
SSCReader
10d ago
so it really is "black culture being absorbed into white mainstream society and being altered and taken over as belonging there"
Possibly. Except Remmick makes an offer that if the black people join him willingly, they will be able to get rid of bigotry and racism entirely. He knows the Klan (because he turned a Klan member) are planning to kill the twins the next day anyway and he calls them bigots. So another way at looking at it is that Remmick is offering a pan-American assimilation. Blacks, Irish, Octaroons (like Mary), White Klan members, Chinese, all one big happy bloodsucking murderous musical family, in a way mainstream society will not tolerate. So an assimilation yes, but not into mainstream white society. (Note: Vampires are a little odd here because it seems that everyone they feed on is turned into a vampire, which seems like it should leave any area overrun with vampires in fairly short order, and the Klansmen vampires seem totally fine with the black vampires so parts of the personality seem subsumed, while others remain, vampires are not racist apparently!). Remmick wants Sammie's powers so that he can see his people again, as Sammie can bring forth the spirits of the past and future through music, and because Remmick is a pre-Christian Irishman (They steal his fathers lands and forcibly convert him apparently) his people and culture no longer exist, he can only see them again through Sammie.
Coogler said he made the vampire Irish because they too had suffered oppression which may also lean towards that idea. Now of course Remmick is happy to turn everyone forcibly to get what he wants but he does seem (as do the others he turns) to see it as a gift.
It's a reasonably good movie with great music, so I would say it is worth a watch overall. My wife didn't like the sex scenes though for what that is worth.
SSCReader
10d ago
And if you can persuade more people to vote for the reasons you do, then you potentially affect change. Unfortunately most voters are short termists, so most politicians are short termists.
I did some consultancy work for Reform at the last election, so I have nothing against them per se. I quite like Nigel Farage personally (as politicians go). But I heavily suspect you'll find that even were they to form a government they might not do as much as you'll like about immigration. Even for natural Reform voters the economy featured highly in internal polls. Nigel knows that.
SSCReader
10d ago
But white people don't have the power to enable it
The people with power are mostly white. Ergo white people DO have that ability. Not necessarily ALL white people (though see below). If a subset of white people is the problem, then that is an intra-racial issue.
As for the other I'll refer to my previous answer. White (all voters really) voters repeatedly show they rank the economy over limiting immigration. So if limiting immigration and spending billions deporting immigrants hurts the economy (and even Trump agrees it will) then they have different goals both of which cannot be fulfilled and repeatedly they show by flip-flopping that they prize an economy that makes them wealthier over really limiting immigration.
If white voters in the US REALLY wanted to limit immigration above all else they do actually have the power to do so. They just have to repeatedly vote for the people who want to do so, even when the economy is bad. Instead of flip-flopping. But there aren't enough people who do that. It isn't that they don't have the power it is that when it comes down to it they have other priorities. That they don't doesn't mean they can't.
Again compare to Brexit. The Tories (or a subset of them) were the ones mainly driving Brexit. Boris gets rewarded by becoming PM, but then as the economy starts to struggle as Brexit headwinds kick in, they vote out the Tories. The lesson politicians correctly take from that is that giving people what they say they want should be secondary to maintaining a strong economy, because a weak economy means they lose power no matter what else they deliver. Short term politicians are driven by short term voters. And most voters are short term.
This isn't a lack of power, it's a lack of cohesion. Too many voters prize economic wellbeing over anything else. Doesn't matter if in opinion polls say they want less immigration with a 90% majority. What matters is how many of them will stick to that in face of a poor economy. If every single white person voted for a Republican every 4 years come rain or shine, recession or boom they have the power to curb immigration. But to date they do not. It ISN'T a power issue at all. They have the power, they just use that power for other things they value more.
I'm also not sure what you mean by advanced racism in the first place, but hopefully my answer here has helped clarify?
SSCReader
10d ago
"Even assuming I agree, that only goes for Blacks. How does it go for Indians, Jews, Asians, Arabs, Mexicans and every other nationality colonizing America and carving it's founding stock out of it?"
Coils initial post I responded to was about white people specifically starting to choose to hire white people only (among other things) and discriminate against other races, I pointed out that had been done before and led to where we are now. He then countered that the founding stock was being carved out by other races (quoted above). At which point I pointed out that only white people generally have the power of enabling that to happen, so the issue is not with Indians or Mexicans and so forth. He then countered that actually white people voted against more immigration but the government gave it to them anyway, at which point I countered by pointing out most of said government was white as well.
So the race of the people making decisions is very relevant in the conversation we are having. Anyway you slice it, it is white people who are carrying out the agenda he doesn't like. And it is them he needs to persuade/stop if wants that to change. No point targeting black or Mexican communities, they don't have the power to force affirmative action or immigration if the mainly white ruling class doesn't want it.
SSCReader
10d ago
If the rule brought you to this, of what use was the rule?
I mean America is pretty great in my opinion.
Moral improvement should have costs surely? If being moral was easy and cheap then everyone would do it. If you want to be moral you are explicitly making decisions that are worse practically, because if they were better practically you wouldn't have to be moral to choose them. Being moral mean soften looking at the most efficient choice and not making it. You risk your life to dive into the river to save the child and so on and so forth.
The ancestors of America brought the wolf in (as per Jefferson), they could later have chosen to be immoral and kill/deport all the wolves. Or moral and have to contend with what enslaving a race means for race relations and the future when you let them go. They chose the latter. That means their descendants have to deal with that choice, for better or for ill. Being immoral is often better practically. But it isn't what America was founded to aspire to. I don't think that's a nasty lesson in as much as a lesson about reality. Choices have consequences. Being better than you were does not immunize you against previous choices. It's easy to go back and think we should have just killed them all. It probably would be easier. But morality isn't about being easier it's about being better, however you measure that.
"Jefferson wrote that maintaining slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.”17 He thought that his cherished federal union, the world’s first democratic experiment, would be destroyed by slavery. To emancipate slaves on American soil, Jefferson thought, would result in a large-scale race war that would be as brutal and deadly as the slave revolt in Haiti in 1791. But he also believed that to keep slaves in bondage, with part of America in favor of abolition and part of America in favor of perpetuating slavery, could only result in a civil war that would destroy the union."
America you will note, managed to not have the union destroyed, not have a full scale race war and has not as yet been destroyed. And part of the reason for that is because efforts were made to make up for slavery. The Civil Rights Act, Affirmative Action and the like were promises to ADOS that they didn't need to resort to a race war to get their place in America. The white guilt you speak of as a mental illness was vital in charting a course that has made great strides.
Is it perfect? Not at all. Racial resentment did not vanish. Black people are still poor compared to whites. But assuming you think genocide is bad, the outcome has to be measured against that. Not against perfection.
SSCReader
10d ago
Can you expand on this? I said white people were making the decisions, Coil said the call was not coming from inside the house, I pointed out that the politicians were also primarily white (the house in question). Being white was the house we were talking about as far as I can tell.
SSCReader
10d ago
David Cameron could have reduced non-EU immigration to literally zero and still have hundreds of thousands of EU workers coming in every year to flood the labour market.
Precisely! That's why Brexit will allow us to control immigration was such a blatant lie. We could always have done so. And that article also notes my view. I think he misrepresents it though. It is not that British workers won't do those jobs it is because they will want more money which will then make those services and products more expensive thus slowing growth. He comes close to it here: In reality, the demand for work is potentially infinite: it’s like trying to fill a bottomless well with buckets of water — the more you throw in, the more you need to keep throwing.
What he is talking about is expansion, more immigrants, means more jobs, means more GDP, means the line goes up. That is the driving factor.
I can tell you from direct experience David Cameron and Boris Johnson have barely a committed ideological bone in their body. They aren't allowing more immigrants in because of some love of global Britain or for other elites. They aren't committed enough to anything to sacrifice for that.
SSCReader
10d ago
Right, but those politicians are white themselves overwhelmingly right? 75% of Congress is white. Its not black people or Asians or whatever making those choices. They don't have the numbers or power. If you want to say elite whites are making different choices than non elite whites want then perhaps you have a point. But its still white people making those choices.
And even there i'll point again to the discrepancy that haunted the Tories, people say they want less immigration, but they also punish any party that oversees an economic downturn.
If you want politicians to really drop immigration you have to show you will vote for them when the economy tanks. And mostly people don't. That was our finding when I worked for the Tories. All our modelling showed that doing what people said they wanted, would lose us votes. Same with Brexit, as soon as the economic winds started to bite, voters turned on the Tories. What lesson does that teach your politicians?
We get the politicians we deserve. People may say they want lower immigration, but they are not prepared to pay the costs that involves. I'll bet dollars to donuts that in 2028, if Trump really has made a dent in numbers of illegal immigrants and the economy has suffered that Republicans lose, even if they did what most people wanted. And politicians learn that lesson.
More people rate the economy as their most important political issue than immigration. Therefore spending billions on immigration enforcement, driving up costs of food, cutting other programs for Americans to pay for it, is a losing proposition. Thats why even Trump was going back and forth on enforcement for illegal farm workers.
Its not that the call is coming from inside the building. Its that there are 300 million calls all saying contradictory things, reduce immigration, make my food cheaper, make American goods, make me able to buy a truck and a TV, and so on and so forth. Trump to his credit, is trying to stick to some of these, but even he admits it will make things worse in the short term.
That means you need to persuade people in 2028 to vote Republican even if, especially if! the economy sucks. If they do, then you are creating a new signal. If they don't then they are telling politicians what their revealed preferences really are.
Again though this isn't the point because 1) You can't tell as an infant what his genetic destiny was or is or how impacted it was by malnutrition, or fetal alcohol syndrome, or a drug addicted mother, or lead or what have you. And how much of that can be overcome. No-one can. Because there are plenty of adopted kids from "bad" parents who do in fact go on to live good if not great lives. No-one can tell in advance. Again someone has to raise them because we are not going to kill them. and 2) Were they lied too? Are you sure the social workers and so on involved with the adoption did not say "hey you know this is going to be difficult? You know adopting someone from this background, they may well have unknown issues? They're likely underweight malnourished that is going to have potentially long term consequences, to health and behavior? and so on and so forth.? Because in my experience the main issue is that prospective adoptive parents don't take warnings seriously, not that they are not given them. 3) You are robbing these adoptive parents of their agency. You claim that they were lied to, that they didn't understand, but they're adults. They made a choice, a good moral choice, that sounds like it hurt them long term, I am sympathetic to that. I spent enough time working in social care to really understand that. The moral imperative of blank slatism did not rob them of anything. They chose of their own free will to take on a moral burden. They sound like good people. But moral burdens have costs. If doing the moral thing was easy, everyone would do it. If they think it is too much for them, and have to hand the child back, then I won't judge them for that, because at least they tried. But the child did not choose to be brought into their home. They chose it. It is their responsibility until that point. He is not in any way invasive. He's damaged by the sound of it. That isn't the same thing. And he may well be so damaged that he needs 24 hour care in a professional setting. That happens. Again believe me, I've seen horrible things, done by parents and by children. I'm not advocating that they must keep the child regardless of the harm he is doing to them.
Blank slatism is nothing to do with this, because you have no way of knowing whether the nurture or nature part was the issue. And you don't know in advance how he will turn out, regardless of his lineage. That's the issue with your position. You build off your assumption that this was predictable. But most adopted kids, even black ones, even damaged ones, do in fact go on to lead reasonable lives. Yes with more difficulties and more criminality statistically. But unless you are literally going to kill them as children, they MUST be raised somehow. And adoptive families seem to give the best possible outcomes of the options we have.
This isn't a situation where we either nurture the invasive species or burn it, like if we were dealing with plants. We either nurture it and hope it grows up to have some quality of life for itself and others around it, or we don't nurture it and it will be even more likely to have lesser quality of life and to contribute negatively.
Or to put it another way, even if blank slatism is 100% false. What else can be done? The child must be raised. It's either going to be (in your scenario), be by the original mother (presumably neglectful or abusive, hence the adoption), the state in a facility, or an adopted family. Which of these is MOST likely to lead to some kind of positive outcome for child and society do you think? How can we tell for sure which is best for any given child as an infant? Our current system is to try and get as many adopted or fostered as possible, as this seems to give the kids the best possible chance, and then if we can't, or if they turn out to be too much for the foster/adoptive family we raise them in a group home or similar. And if they are too much for that, then..well there just aren't great options. Institutionalized and drugged or put in juvie or the equivalent really.
What should have been done with the infant in your scenario do you think? What percentage chance of turning out reasonably does he need to have before an adoptive family should be given the option to try?
I do have sympathy for your mother in law as well. Most of my time was in adult social care, so I am intimately familiar with violent adult children and the various broken cycles of attachment and how reluctant/fearful parents can be sometimes to admit that the behavior of their offspring goes beyond just acting out and is actually dangerous criminality. Getting them into care and treatment can be difficult. And of course many parents don't want to call the cops because they (often rightly) think mental illness is not coped well with by the justice system. It's a horrible situation I am sure, and I am sorry your family is experiencing it. If you were in the UK, I would probably have professional contacts who might be able to help. As it is, I'll simply hope that your mother and father in law do realize the extent of the issues before something worse happens.
More options
Context Copy link