Rant on.
When a social worker says "well I'm a believer in basic human rights" in a discussion about...well, a discussion about anything, but this was advocacy for a patient who is an undermedicated schizophrenic (because we are afraid to confront him, and pretend he can be reasoned with) at present but when treated is a violent sociopath, to have independent privileges again after repeated victimizations (at least three rapes, two male one female; theft; extortion; drug offenses) of others...they should just be released from their duties and not allowed to work in human services ever again. Go do something socially useful, like telemarketing, or porn films, or lobbying.
There are no people more fucking dangerous than posing, self-righteous do-gooders. So generous with other people's safety, other people's money, other people's neighborhoods, other people's time. They destroy the social fabric and make generosity less likely.
Rant over.
9 comments:
This may be my favorite thing you have ever written.
Sorry 'bout that. ;-)
Still breathing heavily from Tuesday's meeting, thanks.
Related....did you see the Washington Post article about how the housing market collapse was having a greater impact on minorities than Caucasians? It took them a page and a half to mention that it was a federal government backed idea to extend credit to those of ethnic minorities despite questionable credit ratings.
That got me pretty heated, for the same reason. It was really like "this may have contributed, but not all that much, because the intentions of that were really good".
You should perhaps suggest to them that it might be helpful if they were to take this person home for a home-cooked dinner and an overnight stay...
The housing price collapse was concentrated in 5 states. I can remember that four of them were CA, AZ, NV, and FL.
I believe in basic human rights, too. Is that supposed to have something to do with the question of whether some predators are too dangerous to stay on the streets? I'm with Sam L.: go ahead and take this sucker home with you, and assume legal and financial responsibility for anything bad he does when you let him out of your sight, you squishy-headed little preener.
That must have been some meeting.
No, this was just a particularly bad example, perhaps even a bit of a slip as the no-privileges side was getting testy. But it's not unusual.
"There are no people more fucking dangerous than posing, self-righteous do-gooders. So generous with other people's safety, other people's money, other people's neighborhoods, other people's time. They destroy the social fabric and make generosity less likely."
And they take no responsibility for any results thereof.
Post a Comment