https://comicskingdom.com/darrin-bell/2022-02-03/
I posted this and it got hit as spam.
We have received your request for review
It was in response to this.
You ignore a number of facts and aspects. It appears that your understanding of the “nuclear family” is dominated by the concept of “partiarchy”, i.e. that men would suppress women. And you are overly focused on the economic situation, which is how Marxists see the world. That is not my understanding. The nuclear family is a concept based on commitment. It has little to do with there being just one breadwinner. That may be one manifestation of commitment, but the main point is that the members of the family understand the responsibilties they have for one another, especially the parents for the children. Women in the work force are not the antagonist of the nuclear family. In fact, the “liberation” of women had less to do with some sui generis social force and all the more with the technological changes of the modern age, i.e. that maintaining a household became less of a full-time job.
Regarding the color-blind impact of misguided welfare implementation, I agree with you. Note how I referred to “poor neighborhoods”. The destruction of family values wreaks havoc across the board, as can be seen by the high drug use among poor white people.
I completely disagree with your contention that education as a path out of poverty would somehow be racist. That doesn’t make sense and contradicts the facts, i.e. that one’s chances of economic success are very strongly correlated with your level of education and the character qualities that go along with obtaining a degree, namely the capacity to set a goal and work until it has been achieved.
I also completely disagree with the simplistic notion that family breakdown has something to do with the tax-code. Most western countries have progressive tax systems, i.e. the more you earn, the more you pay. And if it is carried interest that you are looking at, then you might want to rethink your political affiliations. Or do you think that Nancy Pelosi and Co., who just keep getting richer with stock investments, are going to do anything about that? I wouldn’t hold my breath.
I am getting really discouraged to even try to respond even to normal conversations.
Scottie's Playtime 
These folks live in a protective bubble where thoughts or discourse which doesn’t echo their own are disallowed. Their belief and value systems are fragile, and they can not tolerate anything or anyone that doesn’t agree with them. Thus, they “spam” your comments. Your comments scare them. They do not have the integrity or testicular fortitude to reasonably reply to them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello Jeff. It is hard for me because I love discourse, conversations that are based in reality. Disagreement is not a problem for me, but outright lies and made up crap is. Plus I grew out of the crowd loves my insults so I win mentality around fourth grade. I go into these discussions with good faith and intent, but these people go in with bad intentions from the start. Most of them couldn’t careless about the facts, and anything that disagrees with them must be destroyed, as you said. Have a great weekend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once a prolific commentor, I’m down to about four, five tops blogs I’ll comment at. I tried to be reasonable, afterall, I started this adventure moderating bulletin boards, was blogging before blogging was blogging. Then for a long time I went hunting, would expose them as often as I could, published a bunch of stuff on how to. Then I trolled them, trolled the trolls. And then I quit. Cutting back on commenting where I do comment. It isn’t worth it.
I’ll admit, I’ve marked a few as spam …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Ten Bears. I admit I love the discourse. I love the conversations with people who honestly have a different opinion and voice it. I can even agree to disagree. I also am new to commenting on Disqus on these cartoon comments. I think over the years before this I left only four or five comments. But the last month or two I have enjoyed commenting on them. At first it was OK but now so many of my comments get flagged or just removed I am frustrated and thinking it is a waste of time. One person admitted to me they just like to do the insults and have no idea of the real facts or information. And I know it really doesn’t matter in the long run, even as I post my comment more for the reader than the one I am responding to. I am finding that the situation is expanding my own information looking up facts and writing coherent reasoned replies but also a waste of time as no one cares and so many get deleted.
LikeLike
A big part of it is what I call the Facebooking of the blogs ~ so many people have migrated to the comments sections from Zuckerberg’s Famous Pig and brought their behavior with them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scottie, if your comment is being marked as spam, then the blogger is marking it as spam. It’s not Discus, it’s the blogger himself. He doesn’t want to hear what you have to say.
I have marked some responders as spam but they’re the ones who are nasty & call me nasty names & have nothing to contribute. I don’t know why anyone would do that to you. You are always polite. We may not agree but you never call me names & you are always polite.
As for your answer, the US does not have a progressive tax code & hasn’t had one for a long time.
The so-called “breakdown” of the family is a myth. Families have always been breaking down. Men have always abandoned their wives & kids. This is an old story. Men left their families in the Old World & then they left their families back east to go west … women have always had to bring up their children on their own, or with the help of their families, if they had them.
& it’s also a myth that a single mother can’t bring up a family successfully. Especially sons. I brought my son as a single mother quite successfully. He graduated from high school, while working a part-time job & then he went on to join the roofer’s union & then he went to the State University of New York at Buffalo & got a BA in English & Film studies (a dual degree). & now he’s in the Army, in the 101st Airborne. He just got an achievement medal.
Don’t let the assholes get you down. There’s always assholes. You’re a beautiful soul & lots of people love you. Hang in there. Hugs
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello Polly. I have always felt if you resort to name calling you have already lost the argument. The other side mostly stops listening and you have run out of meaningful arguments. It is the strategy of losers. For me it is the facts of the discussion that are important, plus it is not my job in life to convince anyone I am right, and that they are wrong. No one can make anyone else think as they demand. The job or goal is to leave the other person with the information that hopefully will lead them to rethink what they believe, to change their own mind. So again, being nasty is against that goal. If you say the moon landing is fake and there is a dome over the earth I can’t just scream at you that you’re an idiot and you must change your mind. I must find ways to make you question things just enough to change your own mind.
The issue can become one of semantics and it is not always an insult that one side claims it might be. For examples, I call tRump followers a cult, some people call me queer, and there are people that get offended when you call them a racist. But if they are being openly racist it is fair to call them racist. So the idea is to play fair but to use terms that are correct even if the person objects that it is an insult. Use me for example, calling me a faggot meaning a gay person may be a word that I find unpleasant with undertones of possible insult it is still acceptable as it is the word for homosexual males. On the other hand calling me a pedophile just because I am gay is a clear insult because it is not true and shows clear bigotry and is unacceptable.
I agree that families were breaking apart for as long as there were nuclear families. In fact the idea of the nuclear family was more about male control than anything else. It is not even religiously based as most religions let the male have as many sex partners as he wanted while restricting the female to just the male in charge. The interesting thing is that is not how they think we developed as a species. Men and women lived together for safety and common assistance, and everyone belonged to the group. There was not my kid or your kid, it was the kids. The idea of couples staying together monogamously forever was not something they would have done.
But on the “break down of the nuclear family” there were examples of both sexes leaving their families, but don’t you think that increased when it became easier for a woman to live either on her own or with her children? I think the ones that would have been forced to stay in a bad marriage at one time were able to leave those situations as more progressive policies were instituted. It was not only financial but also the stigma of being a single mother was not socially ostracized.
Now yes as the population grew it would normally mean more people separating. But normal population growth doesn’t explain the increase in separations. I could quote the numbers, but I don’t think that is the really important question. To me the question is why should people be forced into a “marriage” to have the benefits of society or to be able to provide for their children? Ron and I had been together since 1990 and did not get married until 2015. We did it at that time not because we suddenly loved each other more, our relationship had not changed. We did it because I had lost my insurance and needed to be covered under his insurance which required us to be married. I know people in great three or four people relationships. Until recently they had to disguise or hide that and still do when child custody or other legal matters come up. Why when their relationship is just as valid as mine or as anyone else’s.
I also agree with you that a single parent can bring up children. But again that is much easier and better for all when stigma is removed and support from the community or government is provided. Such as child care. In other developed countries government sponsored childcare is normal and accepted. It is felt to be something the government does for the citizens that benefits all. The idea that being a single parent is somehow wrong or less is a throwback to the traditionalists who want to maintain some feeling of superiority over the single parent.
Have a great weekend. I have to go start the roundup. I never started it yesterday until about 2 PM and was working on it until way after supper.
LikeLiked by 1 person