Captain Monkey posted:

hmmm bet we can figure out which one you are ranting about then, buddy.


I don't disagree with you at all, I'm not defending the mother. I'm rolling my eyes at the way that stairs tried to twist the conversation into 'well she didn't want him anymore so she hit the off switch!!'

The situation is hosed up, none of what the mother did is right, but it's not as cut and dry as stairs wanted to pretend. A moment of anger followed by panic that leads to bad decision making is incredibly different than the level of sociopathy that stairs tried to paint onto her.

A thing is allowed to be bad, and a mother is allowed to be a 'bad parent' without inventing a mustache-twirling scenario where they're gleefully murdering their kid to deny them to an adoptive family because 'mah kids!' Don't misconstrue my rolling my eyes at stairs as me condoning the behavior of the mother, that's lazy and reductive.

Captain Monkey posted:

hmmm bet we can figure out which one you are ranting about then, buddy.

Stairs posted:

So ...you didn't read the article or several others where she'd done similar before? Because she'd done similar things before and did it again. I'm not mustache twirling I'm starting the fact that a lot of people fight to get their kids back, and then go right back to being awful. White people do it just as much or more than POC so I'm pretty sure you're just trolling. It's really great when parents can truly change and they do every day but this lady didn't and she knew what she was like and should have taken actions to stop herself from doing it again.

Captain Monkey posted:

Anyway - I'm not going to continue with you, you're refusing to acknowledge even the most basic parts of the article, you can win if its that important. Also, I shouldn't have suggested you were racist, that was just me being annoyed at the very lovely way you phrased your initial post. This feels very pointed at 'bad mothers who should know better!' which often has a racist/colonialist vibe to it. Mea culpa.

Captain Monkey posted:

This feels very pointed at 'bad mothers who should know better!' which often has a racist/colonialist vibe to it. Mea culpa.

Captain Monkey posted:

hmmm bet we can figure out which one you are ranting about then, buddy.

Veni Vidi Ameche! posted:

Wow. Did that exchange really happen, or do I need to have my medications adjusted?

Antivehicular posted:

por que no los dos

Scarodactyl posted:

Aleph Null posted:

"bad mothers who should know better" seems like a white trash thing to me which I guess is also racist.

Chillbro Baggins posted:

It's definitely classist, but I'm pretty sure you can't be racist against white people, because we're traditionally the oppressors. Even in the extremist armed rebellions/race riots, it's usually more "taking the protests a little too far," vs. white peole's excuse of "Them [insert slur here] are subhumans takin' our jerbs."

Chillbro Baggins posted:

It's definitely classist, but I'm pretty sure you can't be racist against white people, because we're traditionally the oppressors. Even in the extremist armed rebellions/race riots, it's usually more "taking the protests a little too far," vs. white peole's excuse of "Them [insert slur here] are subhumans takin' our jerbs."

JGdmn posted:

I'm questioning your rank, Captain Monkey.

We may need to bust you down.

Terrible Opinions posted:

White trash is definitely racist by both old and new definitions. White trash is specifically noting people who are white skinned but do not fit into the cultural or power dynamics of the ruling class and thus are othered from other whites because "white" has no actual physical basis, and only means that the ruling class has identified you as white.

A CRUNK BIRD posted:

I’ve noticed that this thread is forever alternating between 2 phases

Phase 1: content that someone might want to read

Phase 2: tons of posts about stupid poo poo nobody but a dipshit would care to read

The person who posted before you tried to return it to phase one but you kept rolling with phase two. Please shut the gently caress up

quote:

So the eugenicists were partly behind the 1924 Immigration Law. There were laws that prevented people from marrying if they were deemed hereditarily unworthy. There were laws that allowed people considered feebleminded to be isolated in institutions in the U.S. What was the logic behind institutionalizing people who were deemed feebleminded?

quote:

And, you know, when you think about what we want the Supreme Court to be, what the founders wanted the Supreme Court to be, it was supposed to be our temple of justice, the place that people could go when all the other parts of our society, all the other parts of the government were not treating them right. So Carrie Buck, this poor woman who has been raped, who has been wrongly designated feebleminded, who has had her baby taken from her, who is being held as a prisoner in his horrible colony, goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. And we all know what the court should've done.

quote:

...the justice who wrote the decision later said, yeah, we wanted to keep Buck v. Bell in place. And it is still being used. In 2001, a sterilization was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals - one step below the Supreme Court - citing Buck v. Bell. So it's still there and it's still being used. And, you know, honestly, we're living in strange times now. I think we all see that every time we, you know, turn on the news or pick up the newspaper.

Solice Kirsk posted:

Eugenics always sounded like an idea a grade school kid came up with after learning about genetics.

"We could just use all the good genes!"

ToxicSlurpee posted:

It's one of those things that's fine in theory because, you know, genetic diseases exist. It'd be awesome if we could do something like, say, completely eliminate type 1 diabetes caused by a genetic defect that turns your pancreas off.

In practice it leads to Nazis.

POOL IS CLOSED posted:

If you're dissatisfied, you can also provide some unnerving content.

quote:

In 2001, a sterilization was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals - one step below the Supreme Court - citing Buck v. Bell.

quote:

It is undisputed that Margaret was not given any procedural protections before the sterilization occurred. Ruoff argues that even without procedural protections, the sterilization was justified. It is true that involuntary sterilization is not always unconstitutional if it is a narrowly tailored means to achieve a compelling government interest. See Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207-08, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed. 1000 (rejecting due process and equal protection challenges to compelled sterilization of mentally handicapped woman). It is also true that the mentally handicapped, depending on their circumstances, may be subjected to various degrees of government intrusion that would be unjustified if directed at other segments of society. See Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 442-47, 105 S.Ct. 3249; Buck, 274 U.S. at 207-08, 47 S.Ct. 584. It does not follow, however, that the State can dispense with procedural protections, coerce an individual into sterilization, and then after the fact argue that it was justified. If it did, it would invite conduct, like that alleged in this case, that is ripe for abuse and error. See Buck, 274 U.S. at 206, 47 S.Ct. 584 (noting that Virginia's sterilization law required the state to comply with its "very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse"). Even assuming Missouri had a compelling interest in preventing further births by Margaret, such a compelling interest does not justify dispensing with procedural protections. Sterilization results in the irreversible loss of one of a person's most fundamental rights, a loss that must be preceded by procedural protections. Ruoff's conduct violated Margaret's Due Process Clause right to be free from coerced sterilization without appropriate procedures.

POOL IS CLOSED posted:

Just to pluck out the heart of that last quote...

Buck v. Bell is still the law of the land.

quote:

It is true that involuntary sterilization is not always unconstitutional if it is a narrowly tailored means to achieve a compelling government interest. See Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207-08, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed. 1000 (rejecting due process and equal protection challenges to compelled sterilization of mentally handicapped women).

quote:

It does not follow, however, that the State can dispense with procedural protections, coerce an individual into sterilization, and then after the fact argue that it was justified. If it did, it would invite conduct, like that alleged in this case, that is ripe for abuse and error. See Buck, 274 U.S. at 206, 47 S.Ct. 584 (noting that Virginia's sterilization law required the state to comply with its "very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse").

POOL IS CLOSED posted:

That's really interesting about Vaughn, thank you. Her experience is another unnerving tale in its own right and it's fair to say that quotation is misleading.

This part of the decision you quoted, though, doesn't seem to contradict that the Buck v. Bell decision hasn't been struck down:

Phanatic posted:

I didn't intend to say it had been struck down. It hasn't. I said it wasn't being cited to "uphold" a sterilization.

Solice Kirsk posted:

Eugenics always sounded like an idea a grade school kid came up with after learning about genetics.

"We could just use all the good genes!"

chitoryu12 posted:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/justice-story-new-yorker-prison-term-landed-guinness-book-world-records-article-1.1004749

Paul Geidel Jr. served the longest ever prison sentence for a released inmate. He was going to be released after 15 years for murdering an old man at the hotel he worked in for his money, but was declared legally insane and put in a psychiatric ward. He was returned to general population...and stayed there.

From the time he was 17, Geidel lived his entire life in prison. He even refused release for 6 years, as the prison had become his home and he would never survive the real world. After finally being released, he went straight to a nursing home before dying at the age of 93 without ever spending a day of his adult life as a free adult.