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 -
Oh, so now you’re assuming away the disaster that is our foster care and adoption system. Just have the free market do it, I guess.
How many “competent well adjusted infertile” couples are there, really? Are they still champing at the bit if you slash all government involvement? If you flood the adoption pool by removing all consequences for lovin’ and leavin’?
There is actually a huge shortage of children for adoption at the moment, not just babies but also older kids without mental issues. Children moved into this system would very quickly find a new home.
More options
Context Copy link
infertile couples, as well as single people who can't have kids the old fashioned way outnumber the available adoptable children by a massive percentage.
The reason there are foster homes at all is government bureaucracy, and problem children who realistically can't be raised by anyone.
If the standards of adoption were lowered to what they were in the 1890s damn near every child under 5 would get adopted.
Only possible if you also have the populace of the 1890s who won't put pressure on politicians the first time a child is adopted then killed/mistreated by the adoptive parents. No point wishing for the laws and norms of the 1890s today. Those are downstream from your population.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Iirc there’s a ratio of about 20 families per child waiting for adoption
I’m seeing ~2 million families in the adoption process and 113,000 eligible children in 2021. So...yeah, that’s about right. Is this just CPS bureaucracy? I’d think the state would want to hand kids off ASAP.
53,500 were adopted. Contrast the >17 million children living with single mothers. Assuming an even distribution, that’s still almost a million per year. What fraction of those would be dumped into the adoption system if child support were demolished?
To start with, only about 30% of single mothers receive child support to begin with, and surely some(if not most) of those would choose not to give up their children if it gets cut off.
Lowball well over 50% of those wouldn't surrender, and if they're recieving child support then there's a father who hasn't disappeared who would presumably be willing to assume custody in again over 50% of cases...
Considering any woman getting child support is middle-class enough to have gone through the legal system and won a court case... the final number who might surrender is probably under 5% of women receiving child support.
I doubt that any woman receiving child support is necessarily out of poverty, but agree with the broader point that for most, the alternative to child support is being poorer, not surrendering their children.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Bureaucracy is part of it, but part of it is also a very uneven demand for children. Contra the claims of adoption advocates infertile couples do not regard any child as better than no child. There is very high demand for young (infant) healthy children. There is very low demand for kids who are older, or have behavioral problems, or disabilities.
Who would've thought.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link