This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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