Archive | Memetics RSS for this section

The First Policy – Expulsion

One of the most exciting about working on the Point A project is that we get to work with lots of different communities.  Several of these communities are young, so unlike the places i live (Twin Oaks and Acorn), they don’t have a long history and well established culture of how to handle tricky situations.  Also, a number of these places are anarchist identified, so they often think that they don’t need policies or pre-existing agreements.  They think they will just figure out what they need to do when it comes up. This is naive. Trick_or_Treaty There are a handful of completely predictable community crises in which a relatively small amount of work in advance can save you tremendous heartache and damage.  And, in the case of how to manage the expulsion of a member, if you don’t design the policy/agreements before you need it, your entire community can fail the first time you have to decide if you are going to throw someone out.

Why?  Communities are not like jobs where you can relatively easily fire someone or lay them off (and even this is often not easy). Communities generally start with friends who have come together because they want to live together.  It is hard enough to create community so that these friends have to be fairly heavily invested in each other to be able to get the community off the ground in the first place.  Strong friendships and trust are the thing good communities are made of.  And when these break they don’t break evenly.

It never said

It never said, “Don’t eat the apples.”

Almost always, if something goes terribly wrong in a community and there is a need for some type of expulsion process, there are some people in the community who don’t want to lose their friend by throwing them out.  If the person that could be expelled has no friends or has done something so bad that no one wants them to stay, then that person generally recognizes that they have poisoned their relationship with the collective and no process is needed because often they just up and leave, before a process could start.

Even Acorn, which tries to avoid fixed policies as much as possible, takes on this problem with the ironically named “Peace and Love Accords“.  If you look at this anarchist policy (yes, this is not an oxymoron), you will find a lot of it has to do with protecting the rights of the focus person and making transitions smooth, even if there have been serious problems.  And as with all good anarchist policy, it gives the group the right to bail on the policy and do something different, if everyone agrees. The advantage of having this type of policy is that in the trickiest expulsion cases often not everyone agrees and then, rather than fight about what you should do, the policy creates an agreed upon fall back position which can keep the group from descending into chaos. When you are designing an expulsion process often you will want to figure out what appropriate grounds are for expulsion.

Can't we all just get along? Sometimes no.

Can’t we all just get along? Sometimes no.

Here is what Twin Oaks has decided are valid ground to consider expulsion: [Twin Oaks uses “co” as a gender neutral pronoun to replace “she or he”.]

Expulsion of a full member may, but need not, take place for any of the following reasons:

1. Co openly repudiates the principles of the Community and works against their implementation.

2. Co is found guilty by local, state, or federal authorities of some crime or misdemeanor and the Community therefore feels it is no longer appropriate for co to remain a member.

3. Co consistently does less than cos share of the Community work.

4. Co absents coself from the Community for more than three weeks beyond the point of legitimate vacation according to current Community policy or without having made satisfactory arrangements with the Community with regard to cos absence.

5. Co physically, sexually and/or mentally abuses another member or guest of the Community, or any child, by any aggressive action and/or words which the Community interprets as sufficiently serious and/or likely to be repeated to warrant expulsion. The application of the foregoing provision to abusive words is not intended to inhibit the free expression of information, opinion, belief or emotion. It is intended to apply when oral or written language is presented in a threatening, harassing, or violent manner such that it would be reasonably expected to cause physical, sexual or mental harm. Guidelines for Applying the Mental Abuse Provision of the Bylaws

6. Co repeatedly and/or flagrantly violates the equality principle by appropriating to cos use items (including but not limited to cash) intended for the use of the Community as a whole or property designated for other use; or co repeatedly or flagrantly steals property belonging to someone else;

7. Co is discovered to have made bad faith declarations of the extent or disposition of cos property when entering the Community or subsequently, or co grossly violates the Community Property Code (Article IV below) with regard to the disposition of said property or the disposition of any income co received while a member.

8. Co deliberately and overtly attempts to destroy or disband the Community by any legal, extralegal, or financial means or in any other manner, provided that this shall not be broadly interpreted to refer to the holding of disapproved opinions or to behavior which from time to time might be considered dangerous. It is intended to refer specifically to deliberately making trouble between the Community and civil authorities, involving the Community in a lawsuit, involving the Community in unauthorized financial obligations, and such similar hostile acts or attempted hostile acts. The above provisions shall not be taken as requiring the Community to expel a member, even for these reasons. The Community may, but need not, expel a member for any of the above reasons. The Community also has the option of substituting other remedies or sanctions.

Expulsion Mechanism. The procedure for expulsion shall be as follows: Expulsion may be proposed by any voting member. The Planners and/or such other body of members as the Planner may authorize either ad hoc or as a matter of policy, shall hold a public meeting or meetings on the proposed expulsion — provided, however, that at one meeting or another the member in question shall be given full opportunity to answer any accusations or to explain cos conduct or view and express cos desires concerning cos membership, if possible. If, after the member in question has been heard, the Community desires cos expulsion, if possible co shall be so informed, at which time co will normally be allowed at least three days before co is required to leave the Community premises. Extensions of this period may be made at the discretion of the Community.

So, if you have a new community, and you don’t have time to design your own expulsion policy, you could look at these, hack them up to make them fit your circumstances, and then make them yours until you have time to do it right.

The ass you save may be your own.

Energy Futures – Riyadh, London and Austin

Different countries and cities select different energy solutions for myriad reasons and examining these can help us understand why different options are being selected.  There is news from various capitals around the world which i want to examine briefly.

Austin, Texas:  As reported in SafeEnergy.Org, the city of Austin has just locked in 600 MW of solar power for under $0.04/kwh.  Utilities have not been able to buy power at these prices since the 1960s, even without correcting for inflation (which makes it an even better deal).  They asked electricity suppliers for solar power specifically and got over 8000 MW of bids (this is the equivalent, after reducing for capacity factor, of 2 or 3 full size nuclear reactors).

A compelling combination

A compelling combination

Before you start harping on the intermittency (or as the nuclear boosters like to call it “unreliability”) of solar power, please get your facts straight.  It is no longer 2005.  Inexpensive utility scale battery technology, like those offered by Tesla Energy, is bringing the cost of storage in at around 2 US cents/kwh.  What this means for Austin and other cities with reasonable sunshine is that “base load” solar power is going to be cheaper than almost anything else.

In a reasonable world, this would mean the end of new nuclear power construction, because it is much slower to build, far more expensive and fraught with problems from waste handling, to proliferation issues, to liability nightmares, to decommissioning costs to lack of private investors.  Sadly, we live in nothing like a reasonable world.

London, England:  Austria is challenging the EUs approval of 108 billion British pound (US$166 billion) in subsidies for the UK’s plan to build two new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point.   This legal challenge has been joined by a collection of German and other renewable energy providers.  Austria is objecting to both the price of power from these reactors being set at twice the current wholesale price for power for 35 years and insuring profits for the constructing company even in the event that the reactor is closed early.

hinkley-point-c

While it is unlikely the Austrian challenge alone will stop this ill advised project, it might be one of many factors which scuttles the deal.  The other reactors of this design in France and Finland are over a decade late in construction.  The French reactor had almost tripled in price, before this expensive failure was reported. The pressure vessel for Hinkley had already been forged, by the same plant which forged the pressure vessel for the French reactor which just failed its safety tests.  This one will now be used for destructive tests, adding more hundreds of millions in cost presumably to the French reactor company.

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia:  In the last few months Saudi Arabia has inked deals for new nuclear power plants with South Korea, France, China, Argentina and Russia.  The Saudis are hoping to build 16 reactors by 2032.  The French deal (which is really an agreement to investigate possibilities) has a price tag of US$12 billion on it.  Saudi Arabia seems to be living in the dream world in which they think they can build reactors for US$ 2 billion each.  The west is looking at prices 3 to 5 times this high.

It should be recognized as a triumph of money over politics.  And that in fact nuclear power is secondary, what Riyadh really wants is nuclear weapons, and they are unapologetic about it.  Especially in the case of Russia, Saudi Arabia is making a deal with a political opponent (on support for Iran and Syria particularly) so that it can have access to weapons fabrication technology.  Saudi Arabia (unlike Iran) is making no effort to hide it’s nuclear weapons ambitions, in fact it is celebrating them in what they call the “nuclear defense doctrine“.  There is already talk of an accelerated Middle Eastern arms race between Saudi Arabia and Iran.  What could go wrong?

Want to be part of our club?

Want to be part of our club?

And since there is no sun in Iran or Saudi Arabia, there is clearly no alternative to nuclear power.

Utopia Child Rearing – By Keenan

[This is an article originally blogged by Keenan.  I have not simply re-blogged it for two reasons.  First is that i have added links to it, to places where Keenan’s philosophy and mine run parallel.  And the second is that i have added some pictures to it, a tragic omission (which also reduces readership) in Keenan’s original post.  I would still encourage you to check out his blog, especially if parenting and Twin Oaks community politics and culture are of interest to you.  It is an excellent source.]

Twin Oaks is a great place to raise children. At Twin Oaks almost every parent likes their kid(s) and likes being a parent.  Almost every parent is raising their children deliberately and consciously.  Although not all of us parents agree with each other, we all concur that there are many bad mainstream child-rearing theories and practices that we want to avoid/overcome.

Some of the Dakota's - Keenan, Kristen and Rowan (at an age that is not yet 18)

Some of the Dakota’s – Keenan, Kristen and Rowan (at an age that is not yet 18)

Kristen and I just celebrated the milestone of our youngest having his 18th birthday.  We have been reflecting recently on our journey as parents, and we are very pleased with how the kids have turned out—pleased and relieved.  Why relieved? Our parenting practices were at odds with almost every mainstream child-rearing theory we read.  We weren’t so confident that we could know for sure that the kids would turn out great. According to those other theories, our bizarre parenting practices should have resulted in kids who are emotionally crippled sociopaths. But they aren’t—in fact, the kids are, by all accounts, altogether fine human beings.  I don’t want to gloat or embarrass the kids by describing how great they are—but take my word for it.

Kristen and I both had lots of experience with kids prior to having our own, so we were already quite skilled, or, at least, opinionated by the time we were holding a newborn. As the kids grew, we talked fairly constantly about how the kids were doing. We wanted to do things right; we would immediately work on any behavior problem that started to crop up, or, even better, recognize an interest early so we could kindle it. Through our experience as parents, our belief in the fundamental wrongness of how children are treated in the mainstream culture solidified.  If you want to try to give your child a utopian childhood the hardest part is letting go of lots of misguided mainstream beliefs about children. Honestly, doing things right is a lot of work, but if you want to know what we did and why, without further ado, here is the “Dakota theory” of how to give children a utopian childhood:

Rowan on his 18th birthday having lit the fire behind him with a bowdrill.

Rowan on his 18th birthday having lit the fire behind him with a bowdrill.

[Kristen and I have the last name “Dakota.”  This has nothing to do with any Native American people]

Current belief: Children are lesser beings who should not expect or receive the same polite and considerate treatment that adults give each other.

Dakota theory: Children have the same intrinsic value that all humans have and should be listened to and treated with respect. Specifically, parents should like their children.

Conclusion: Children behave well when they are treated as though they are deserving of respect.

Current belief: Children should obey authority figures.

Dakota theory: Children should be taught that they are responsible human beings and they should learn to negotiate for what they want.

Conclusion: Children who are taught to obey, learn to distrust their own judgment.  They also demonstrate less personal motivation. Children who are taught to negotiate show more task persistence and have a strong sense of self-esteem.  Unfortunately, raising a child who negotiates requires more time and effort from parents.

Current belief: Children need peers to develop normal social skills.

Dakota theory: Children develop better social skills without same-age peers.

Conclusion: Children learn social skills from the people they are around. Children in groups and in institutional settings are sometimes inconsiderate or cruel to each other.  Children who are around other children for much of the time, often develop dysfunctional behaviors  from being with other, partially socialized, children.   Children who are around adults for most of their formative years develop better social skills than children who are in group child care for most of their formative years.

Current belief: Children need to go to school to 1) develop social skills and 2) to absorb a body of knowledge.

Dakota theory: School exposes children to bad social behaviors. The body of knowledge in school is often outdated, inadequate, and inaccurate. Additionally, it doesn’t take much time to learn that body of knowledge at home.

Conclusion: Many children are exposed to unhealthy social behaviors from the bad behavior that inevitably results from large-scale institutionalization.  The body of knowledge that schools pass along is easily gained at home.  Typically, parents have other interests and values that schools don’t teach.

Current belief:  Children need to be punished, they need to be disciplined and they need consequences for their bad behavior.

Dakota theory:  Never punish or discipline children. Normal life provides enough consequences, no additional consequences are needed.

Conclusion:   Punishment has been proven to be ineffective at teaching children a new behavior.  Children feel punished merely from a parent’s disapproval—nothing more is necessary.  An effective “punishment” is making a child stop playing in order to explain why it’s not OK to hit, or take another kid’s toy.  Frequently, merely calmly pointing out what the problem is to the child can make a child feel bad enough to stop the bad behavior and/or make restitution. Encouraging a distraught child to take a time-out is good advice for anyone having emotional trouble and isn’t really a punishment.

Current belief:  Misbehavior is due to a poorly disciplined child.

Dakota theory: Misbehavior is due to a poorly designed environment.

Conclusion: A toddler, set down in front of a coffee table with a lot of breakable glassware on the table will, inevitably, drop and break something.  This is not bad behavior.   Don’t punish the child; move the glassware. It is more likely that children will hang up their clothes on pegs than on hangers.  A yard with two swings and three kids creates ongoing strife. Often a child’s “bad” behavior is due to normal child-like behavior in an environment that is designed for normal adult behavior.  The easiest way to have a well-behaved child, is to change the environment to suit the child’s behavior. For instance, if there is only healthy food in the house, then “food wars” become much less likely.

Current belief: Children demand an adult’s attention—and that’s bad

Dakota theory: Children demand an adult’s attention—and that’s OK.

or perhaps not

or perhaps not

Conclusion: “He’s just doing that to get attention!” is a statement some adults make to indict a child’s motives and to grant the adult permission to punish the child for bothering the adult. But, attention from an adult is essential sustenance for a child’s emotional well-being. Once a child receives an adequate amount of attention, they are full, and will go off and play, only to return later for another helping of attention. If we say with scorn of a child who’s crying, “he’s just crying because he’s hungry, I’m going to spank him” it sounds cruel .  “He’s just doing it to get attention,” should sound equally heartless.

Current belief:  A child’s chronic behavior problems can best be dealt with through psychoactive medication.

Dakota theory:  A child’s chronic behavior problems can best be dealt with through counseling and behaviorist reinforcement/extinguishing techniques.

Conclusion:  Psychoactive drugs have immediate side-effects and long-term physiological consequences. Changing a child’s chronic behavior problem without drugs is vastly more time consuming, but results in a more emotionally healthy child.

Current belief: A child might become emotionally crippled from spending too much time with a parent (or parents).

Dakota theory:  strong family connections help create an emotionally healthy child.

Conclusion: Studies of poverty, mental illness and crime consistently show that parents who physically or emotionally abandon their children create the pathology that leads to dysfunctional adults.  On the other hand, outstanding and high-performing athletes typically have at least one engaged and supportive parent. There is not a bell curve here; it’s linear; the stronger the family connections, the more emotionally stable the children are as adults.

Current belief:  Children should be kept protected and secluded from real-world experiences. They should live in a separate world called “childhood” until they are completed with their schooling and are able to enter the adult world.

Dakota theory: Children are part of the world. It is healthier for children and the world for children to be included in almost all aspects of the adult world.

Conclusion:  Children in their early teens want to distinguish themselves from younger children; they want to act like grown-ups.  Mainstream culture allows few opportunities to show their maturity, so these young teens turn to bed behavior, smoking, drinking, doing drugs, swearing and having sex as ways to show their “maturity.” However, teens who have the ability to take on real responsibility, like, for instance having a part-time paying job demonstrate their adult-ness through taking on these healthier parts of being a grown up. Throughout their teen years, teenagers should have the opportunity to do part-time, intern, and volunteer work to explore their interests. This serves several useful functions; it keeps teens busy, it allows teens to develop maturity and responsibility, and it gives teens a wide range of real-life experiences which should help prevent the all-too-frequent situation where a young adult goes into debt to pursue a degree only to discover after graduation that they hate the work that they have spent years training for.

 Give your child a utopian childhood in just 10 easy steps:

1)     Enjoy the company of your children. (That’s really the main one, since so many parents don’t really enjoy the company of their children, and the children know that, so they misbehave. No child-rearing theory can overcome parents who don’t like their kids.)

2)     Accept every request as legitimate. (default to yes, rather than default to no).

me negotiating with Willow - Circa 2011

me negotiating with Willow – Circa 2011

3)     Don’t punish.  Don’t discipline. But, rather, explain.

4)     No sarcasm. Don’t laugh at kids.

5)     Learn what your kids like.

6)     Laugh at kids’ jokes, listen to their stories.

7)     Try to understand their emotions.  Have empathy.

8)     No school; homeschool.

9)     Talk to the kids about the adult world.  Encourage discussion.  Explain values through story telling using real examples. Let them know fairly often what you think is right and wrong.

10) Share whatever you are passionate about with your children. Expect them to be interested in your life.

Posted 28th April 2014 by keenan

Double Duty: Supporting Muslims Rebuilding Burn Black Churches

I had decided that i would give something to the first crowd funding campaign designed to support the rebuilding of the 8 recently burned black churches that appeared in any way interesting.  I was not disappointed.

Some of the most impressive scenes to come out of the Arab Spring uprisings were alternating displays of support from one religion to another. Christian defended Mosques.  Muslims protecting churches during services.

egypt-muslims-protect-church

Three Muslim groups have had a smashingly successful crowd funding effort.  With a short time horizon (designed to end with at the end of Ramadan) the initial $20K goal was quickly exceeded and now they are well on their way to $75K, with 8 days left in the campaign.  You can donate here.

i am not a Muslim, nor a Christian, nor black.  So why should i even care?

Hate crime is especially insidious and vexing.  Pushing back against it is critically important.  Muslims are targets in this country of endless discrimination large and small.  I see it when every visually identifiable Muslim in an airport goes to secondary search.  The ACLU has documented systematic discrimination by the NYPD.  Simple minded americans (which there are a fair few in this country) are fond of making sweeping generalizations about Muslims that are both untrue and racist.

hatecrime_002

Muslims taking the lead in helping to reconstruct black churches builds bonds between oppressed groups.  It shows that the country is not simply going to drift into a race war because some lone gunman wanted it to happen.  It is a constructive response to this spate of arson and shows solidarity in the face of trouble.

#WhoIsBurningBlackChurches and the Mainstream Media Racial Bias

Unlike Yahoo, Google does not run a new service.  They run an aggregator.  It scans 4000 sources and creates listings for news stories based on a number of factors, including the reliability of sources and the popularity of the story. There are no editors at Google News; it is all done using algorithms.  Thus, in some crude way, Google News is the mainstream news (MSM).  Yesterday, I bumped into this internet meme (sic):

Is the MSM ignoring this story?

Is the MSM ignoring this story?

So i went to Google News’ US section for today (July 2) and, in the 30 top stories listed on the page, there is not a single mention of these churches being burned.  Nothing on the investigations, nothing on local protests about this arson, nothing about these churches having been targets before, nothing about the apparent race war which is raging in this country.  Simply nothing.

Why is this map so hard to find?

Why is this map so hard to find?

It would be wrong to say that there has been no coverage about this at all.  The BBC, NY Times and Buzzfeed have run stories on it before #BlackLivesMatter started raising public awareness about these incidents.  But the 24 hour new services on US television (Fox and CNN) had vanished the story.

To combat this silence, the twitter feed #WhoIsBurningBlackChurches was created by #BlackLivesMatter.  The twitter feed is an organizing platform where concerned citizens can post about these fires and read the latest news about this under-reported story.  But really the purpose of this hashtag is not to replace the failed FBI efforts to find the domestic terrorists, it is to shame the media into covering the story.  And it is working.  The BBC reports:

A Google News search about the fires returned more than 1,400 stories, up from just over 300 on Tuesday. Although news of a seventh church fire broke later Tuesday, and could explain the increase, Masri claimed that the Twitter action worked.

So far, however, the 24 hour TV news stations have remained largely silent (CNN has 4 stories, one explaining claiming one fire was from lightning).   If you put “Black Churches Arson” into Fox News’ search, there are no results found.  Salon magazine’s article on the media’s failure to cover  all this arson as an issue of domestic terrorism listed the following set of likely future Fox News stories on the church burnings from #WhoIsBurningBlackChurches:

  1. Apparently all those black churches used the same electrician.
  2. “Affirmative action” is to blame. Somehow.
  3. “Race hustlers” just want to get attention and make white people look bad.
  4. You see this is really a war on Christians!
  5. Do the math: Churches burn down all the time. Why are black race hustlers and liberals making such a big deal about simple math!
  6. What if Black racists want to hurt white firefighters!
  7. This is a scorched earth strategy to start a race war against white people.
  8. This is what happens when the SCOTUS allows gay marriage!
  9. Rap music! Rappers are always talking about “being on fire” and “making it hot up in here.” Let’s lay the blame where it deserves. What about personal responsibility!
  10. What if this was caused by, like, solar flares? How can the sun be racist?
  11. We need to talk about the broken Black family, and how black kids love playing with lighters.
  12. What do the liberals want to do now? Ban lighters.
  13. And really, where are black fathers?!
  14. Barack Obama is to blame.
But as pathetic as this list is, i do want to land on this last point.  Were Obama to hold a press conference, announce a special investigation, and highlight the problem, Fox and others could not avoid the story.  Certainly, there is a giant problem with the structural racism in the MSM.  But also saddening is the failure of the first black president of the US to take on the largely silent race war waging in this country.

Sexually Transmitted Responsibility

Transmission of Responsibility

Transmission of Responsibility

It was a great meeting.  Port was facilitating, and he was afraid of the meta-discussion on the topic of what Acorn thinks its labor is about/for.    He had been afraid that this digression would lead us to a world of complaining and depressed talk.  But it is hard to restrain the hippies, especially when it comes to meta-discussions.

And a funny thing happened on the way to reviewing our labor situation.   People did not think huge changes were needed and many of the suggestions (like doing our clearnesses on time and using existing structures to solve problems) felt genuinely helpful.    The group identified the individuals who felt overworked and overwhelmed.  [This did not include Ira and me, who only know how to function if we are overworked – by things we are excited about doing.]

Then Jayne spoke:

 I agree that the measure of the labor system should be how happy are we?  It sounds like people feel they live interesting, enriching, and productive lives.  Going around, I do catch a common frustration that it is too difficult to pass on a job you’d like to be done with.  I think about this thing Nightshade said three months into my membership: “If you want to get involved in a labor area at Acorn, just sleep with the person who’s already doing it.”  It’s sort of horrifying how often this is kind of true.  Aside from sleeping with them, how can you learn to pass responsibility to new people?

In community responsibility is communicable

In community responsibility is sexually communicable

This brought on a whole raft of jokes about Sexually Transmitted Responsibility and it quickly became clear that Jayne was right.  All manner of lovers had dragged their partners into work areas which needed help.  Many intimates had decided one of the better ways to spend time together was to share the tasks that the community needs to function.

Acorn functions as an Adhocracy (a flexible, adaptable and informal form of organization that is defined by a lack of formal structure. It operates in an opposite fashion to a bureaucracy).  When we need something done, we form a group of volunteers to do it and give them significant power at least of analysis and often of decision making and purse strings.  When your intimate joins one of these temporary groups, you are often enticed to be part as well.

Can we value creativity and flexibility over structure and efficiency?

Can we value creativity and flexibility over structure and efficiency?

Momentarily Viral – Don’t read the Comments

I wrote yesterday about the recent Yahoo Parenting article about the community.  Turns out this piece had over 3 million hits in the first 24 hours.   This generated so much traffic to the Twinoaks.org website that our web host server crashed. Even my blog, which is not mentioned in the article at all, got over 1000 hits in two days.

Does this hype actually go anywhere?

Does this hype actually go anywhere?

And the media contacted us also.  We got three requests from conventional news sources (including my first ever request for an exclusive) and two excited reality show producers.  We have considered working with Reality TV as an income engine for new community start ups and i floated it by the Point A DC folks, who rejected it overwhelmingly. This did not stop there being animated discussion about the possibility at Acorn last night at dinner.  The chances we will be able to work with reality TV are vanishingly small.

There were over 500 comments to the Yahoo article.  There were quite a few positive ones, some from people who had lived in community which worked for them or they appreciated, some from folks who had visited us at some point and felt the need to dispel the false statements which were being made.  But perhaps half the comments on this Yahoo article were negative or critical.  They came in a few flavors:

Communism is Bad:  My favorite of this ilk was “Why hasn’t someone called the National Guard to rid us of these communists?”  Unlike past articles i have read, there were not any direct “Go back to Russia!” suggestions.  Many came from Libertarians who feel a need to attack anything which does not look like their version of free market capitalism. Libertarianism Cartoon There was our personal chapter of the endless Tea Party debates in which all ills are blamed on Obama and each of the two main political parties are attacked for the Democrats being Communists and the Republicans (in the long run) being anarchists.  News flash folks, there are two pro-business parties in the US.  Look at who funds their campaigns. There are also a whole slew of comments contenting that we 1) Don’t pay taxes.  In fact we are the second largest tax payer in the county. 2) Are on Food Stamps and Welfare. In fact none of the membership uses these government assistance programs.

Polyamory is wrong: There was the expected amount of slut shaming and name calling. I should not have been surprised at the frequently expressed concern that pedophiles would have easy access to our kids, when in fact the opposite is the case. polyamory_is_wrongThere were a refreshing number of people who felt like this was an acceptable choice, only not right for them personally.  For many critics this simply feed their notion of moral decay on the commune.  There was a prevalent opinion that this reflected an easy way to have lots of sex partners, when actually the form of polyamory most often practiced in the communities requires lots of discussion, negotiations and process.

Too often too true

Too often too true

This can never work:  Despite the article mentioning that we had been around for nearly 50 years, there were a surprising number of comments predicting our imminent demise or our failure in the long term.  I chalk this up to people not wanting the story to be true, so they lash out against it in ways that don’t make much sense.  Because the article was focused on parenting and not pension, there were many comments about what happens when people reach retirement age.  In fact our pension program is far more robust than the default one in the mainstream.

Applying for Pregnancy !?!?! It is true this is very odd and i totally get why this flips people out.  And when you read why we do it, it will make a whole lot more sense to you.  This linked article also has the bonus section that it includes the only (to my knowledge) exhaustive list of Twin Oaks prohibitions.

Eeww you have Lice!:  Apparently, only the community suffers from lice.  Every couple of years we have a lice outbreak.  We fight some, internally, about the use of chemicals to push it back.  We clean a ton of laundry, some people dramatically shave their heads to avoid having to treat or retreat.  Frankly, they are more psychologically problematic than actually physically problematic, but try telling that to someone who is freaking out.

One way to solve the problem

One way to solve the problem

While i had a good time going thru the comments and correcting people misconceptions and laughing about the haters, i counseled everyone who was actually in the article not to read the comments.    They don’t yet show the thoughtful dialog we would hope to find on the digital pages of the internet.

What the article did not mention is that:

1) Twin Oaks has had a waiting list for more than 7 years now.  So if you are in a rush to find a new place, we are a poor choice.

2) It is far harder for families to become members than individuals.  In the last 10 years there has only been three families accepted (and perhaps a dozen who have tried to come).  The visitor period is longer, the waiting list is tougher and every member of the family must be accepted or none of them can come.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,994 other followers