Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
dionidium | on: The UK's war on anonymity has come to America
> Whatever argument they make should be simply ignored and dismissed.

This makes very little sense. People sometimes appeal to the safety of children cynically, but it's very often sincere, since parents genuinely do worry a lot about their kids.

You can tell people to ignore these appeals, but it won't work, and you'll be leaving better arguments on the table.

cobbzilla | parent | next
Yes it’s normal to worry about your kids. It’s normal for family and friends to worry about your kids.

When a politician is worried about your kids, you should be worried about your rights and freedoms. Not only for your own sake but for your kids too!

adrianN | root | parent | next
There are many scenarios in which politicians can be legitimately worried about the kids. For example if they want to install crosswalks and enforce speed limits around a school, or if they want to increase funding for social services.

I do believe we should allow for a lot more nuance in our political opinions and avoid most statements that can be made in the constraints of a short comment on social media.

slg | root | parent | next
>When a politician is worried about your kids, you should be worried about your rights and freedoms. Not only for your own sake but for your kids too!

What rights and freedoms should I worry about when a politician wants to make sure my child is fed by supporting food stamp programs or free hot lunches at school?

The idea that any attempt to help a child is inherently suspect honestly says something distrubing about your own worldview. You can't imagine someone genuinely caring for a child that isn't there own?

loading story #49256236
inigyou | root | parent | next
You should be worried the politician is going to enslave people to make the food for the children.
GiorgioG | root | parent | next
Politicians don’t care about your kids, they only care about your vote.
slg | root | parent | next
This level of cynicism is only possible if someone has never interacted with people on a local political level. Once again, it's more a reflection of your own worldview than an accurate reflection of all of humanity. There are some people who genuinely have empathy for others and want to do good. The way some of you refuse to believe that is truly disturbing.
stressback | root | parent
There are some people who have genuine empathy for others and want to do good, and they aren't politicians. The only thing disturbing about this is you don't see it.
cortesoft | root | parent
So you should just oppose everything any politician proposes?
zmgsabst | root | parent
In the case of food stamps, that was the leverage by which social engineers destroyed the black family via incentives for single mothers — collapsing from 75% married (circa 1950s) to 25% married (modern).

The “Welfare State” is nothing but modern share cropping from the party of Jim Crow.

slg | root | parent | next
Just so I'm clear here, you think half of Black moms have pushed their child's father away for the lucrative reward of food stamps? And that scenario was preplanned by some unnamed "social engineers"?
loading story #49253389
tadfisher | root | parent | next
Your narrative is embellished and does not correlate strongly with the data [1].

Embellished: marriage rates are 33.8% for Black women and 37.8% for Black men, neither of which I would round to 25%.

Uncorrelated: marriage rates dropped sharply among people of all single races on the Census except for Asians. It has dropped more sharply for Black respondents, but anything disproportionately affecting the lower and middle economic classes would disproportionately affect Black families.

Show me some data, and not outdated welfare policies from the 1980s, that supports the "social engineers" causal narrative better than plain deindustrialization. Or deindustrialization combined with good old American racism and mass incarceration. I am willing to change my position on this.

1: https://usafacts.org/articles/state-relationships-marriages-...

red_admiral | root | parent | next
Politicians often have kids too, and what parent does not worry about their own kids? Is it that much worse if a politician genuinely cares about other people's kids too?
inigyou | root | parent
There are no politicians worried about kids. There are politicians worried about the votes of people who worry about kids, which is effectively the same thing.
loading story #49256845
slg | parent | next
The main example that comes to mind is anything having to do with the environment. “The kids” will face the brunt of our actions (or inactions) on that front so a “for the kids” argument is completely valid. Dismissing a proposal simply because of a “for the kids” element is incredibly reductive and will genuinely end up harming kids.
cgriswald | root | parent
“For the kids” arguments are distinct from arguments worrying about future generations in that they are almost entirely focused (ostensibly) on preventing harm to children while they are children rather than “all our descendants including the adults”.
slg | root | parent | next
Then let's ban child safety locks, child labor laws, and any law that distinguishes child abuse from other forms of abuse. Let's also allow minors to buy tobacco and alcohol while we're at it if we're claiming that any law that exists to protect children as children is inherently misguided.
cgriswald | root | parent
I think if you spoke to the people actually making the claim they’d define it a little better to include only cases where adults are being asked to give up rights, freedoms, or privileges. But you can ask them.

I didn’t take a position on the argument. I pointed out a distinction.

inigyou | root | parent
Child safety locks make adults give up freedom because the lock has to be unlocked, which is like asking for ID.

At least that's the anti-AB1043 logic. AB1043 says every phone must have a child safety lock.

| root | parent
{"deleted":true,"id":49252842,"parent":49252819,"time":1786417040,"type":"comment"}
loading story #49254242
throwaway69123 | parent | next
I have no problem parenting my own kids, why do I have to give up my rights because others cant.
loading story #49253437
matheusmoreira | parent | next
Sincere or not, their arguments are automatically voided by the simple fact they are building a dystopian cyberpunk panopticon. Nothing justifies that oppression. Not even children.
dmitrygr | parent

  > parents genuinely do worry a lot about their kids
As they should. Perhaps they can put their efforts into parenting and not into limiting our freedoms?
loading story #49253463
loading story #49254218