Don't be shocked, but Ross has caught liberals trying to mainstream deviancy.
Actually, I'm thinking what they're really about is indicting normality. Still, that's just two sides of the same coin. Liberals conjure up these fatuous proofs that everyone is guilty so they can let real predators off the hook, while harassing the innocent. After all, if there really are so many abused children out there, then that must mean child abuse is rampant in traditional families too, just like liberals have been saying for all these years.
The problem for the left is that pretty much all the risk factors for (real) child abuse are things they vigorously support: family breakdown, drug abuse, wacky third world cultures... Meanwhile, the only way liberals can provide proof of endemic child-abuse in traditional, working, native British families is to either define abuse down to absurdity or invent loopy theories about ritual abuse out of whole cloth.
This is why it's ludicrous for the left to defend social workers in the 'Baby P' case by claiming felons are tricky. Maybe, maybe not: the point is that these felons weren't. On the contrary, anybody except an agenda-driven kook looking at this wreckage of a family would smelled trouble right from day one. But no, that would be judgemental, where as using junk science to victimise innocent families is the very definition of social work.
Actually, I'm thinking what they're really about is indicting normality. Still, that's just two sides of the same coin. Liberals conjure up these fatuous proofs that everyone is guilty so they can let real predators off the hook, while harassing the innocent. After all, if there really are so many abused children out there, then that must mean child abuse is rampant in traditional families too, just like liberals have been saying for all these years.
The problem for the left is that pretty much all the risk factors for (real) child abuse are things they vigorously support: family breakdown, drug abuse, wacky third world cultures... Meanwhile, the only way liberals can provide proof of endemic child-abuse in traditional, working, native British families is to either define abuse down to absurdity or invent loopy theories about ritual abuse out of whole cloth.
This is why it's ludicrous for the left to defend social workers in the 'Baby P' case by claiming felons are tricky. Maybe, maybe not: the point is that these felons weren't. On the contrary, anybody except an agenda-driven kook looking at this wreckage of a family would smelled trouble right from day one. But no, that would be judgemental, where as using junk science to victimise innocent families is the very definition of social work.
No comments:
Post a Comment