Whether or not ppl cutting off their parents is an actual phenomenon (is it, really?) or just clicky outrage bait, anti-estrangement is a paternalistic, socially regressive position — it’s so similar to being anti-divorce that the two are virtually indistinguishable.

Show Post

It is fascistic and misogynistic and honestly also pretty embarrassing to argue that familial relationships should be the moral exception to freedom of association!

Show Post

It’s bonus mega embarrassing that the overwhelming tack of these articles is concern for the feelings & experiences of the cut-off—giving them personhood and agency, while withholding same from the people doing the cutting off. (I also simply do not care if some cutting-offers are “overreacting”!)

Show Post

As with anti-divorce arguments, the underlying premise here is that any explicit break in the family is a grave moral violation. And the underlying premise *there* is that some family members get to be immune to consequence, and others are prevented from complaint. Imagine defending that!

Show Post

So I disagree, I think there’s a distinction between LYING and MANIPULATING. Manipulating is harder, and involves getting inside someone’s head. It requires a theory of mind. What is unsettling about Holmes is how easy it is to con people without a good theory of mind - simple lying is enough.

Show Post