Cafety always seemed more on the ball than this site as far as getting regulation going in the right direction.
Horseshit.... Screw you for claiming something like that on here. :on phone:
Fornits rules!!! :fuckoff:
I don't see CAFETY making any claims about Ken Huey's good intentions, or doing his bidding regarding moderation of their forums, or going to speak at Natsap, no less. Where's the vomit emoticon?
Ah, well, nothing can be perfect, I supose.
Curious, why do you think speaking at NATSAP is a bad idea?
I know why I do and have more of less noted it, but wondering what is of concern to others.
Beyond that, I feel compelled to say that there's a way to express disagreement w/o being disrespectful/sarcastic. I get that this is not the standard set by most on fornit, we all know this... which it the primary reason I stay away from the toxicity... but doesn't that it get old?
I think any noted “survivor's” presence will be exploited by NATAP to gain credibility. I think any notable survivor publicly treating them like a group of reasonable people interested in helping people—which is what will happen during this meeting—will have the unfortunate effect of bestowing on them credibility.
I also think NATSAP is a collection of predators working together to promote the desires of predators. Meeting with NATAP would be like meeting with the leaders of various heads of child-slaving companies. Nothing good can possibly come of it. The predators are not suddenly going to see "the light."
Cafety always seemed more on the ball than this site as far as getting regulation going in the right direction.
Horseshit.... Screw you for claiming something like that on here. :on phone:
Fornits rules!!! :fuckoff:
I don't see CAFETY making any claims about Ken Huey's good intentions, or doing his bidding regarding moderation of their forums, or going to speak at Natsap, no less. Where's the vomit emoticon?
Ah, well, nothing can be perfect, I supose.
Curious, why do you think speaking at NATSAP is a bad idea?
I know why I do and have more of less noted it, but wondering what is of concern to others.
Beyond that, I feel compelled to say that there's a way to express disagreement w/o being disrespectful/sarcastic. I get that this is not the standard set by most on fornit, we all know this... which it the primary reason I stay away from the toxicity... but doesn't that it get old?
I think any noted “survivor's” presence will be exploited by NATAP to gain credibility. I think any notable survivor publicly treating them like a group of reasonable people interested in helping people—which is what will happen during this meeting—will have the unfortunate effect of bestowing on them credibility.
I also think NATSAP is a collection of predators working together to promote the desires of predators. Meeting with NATAP would be like meeting with the leaders of various heads of child-slaving companies. Nothing good can possibly come of it. The predators are not suddenly going to see "the light."
Yea... word. Hm. Though I think Mike and Ginger are simply testing out the waters, with some advocacy idea in tow, but more or less are looking to share their experiences ( I think?). Looking to reach a few moral minds, not really change NATSAP.
I think what you say is mostly true (re: child predators), and that such folks wouldn't make up so much of their membership AND leadership if they were in the place to make serious changes. If CAFETY's were to present at NATSAP (which I'm pretty sure will happen one day), my suggestions to my colleagues would be that a discussion be had around such concerns occur BEFORE presenting, for the reasons you mention above. This has been my concern re: initiating any dialogue w/ NATSAP, much less presenting at a conference. W/o thorough research that includes understanding of the politics of other orgs that resemble NATSAP and some level of sophistication and savvy in that respect, advocacy efforts and suggested change will lose credibility.
It is not in CAFETY's interest to engage w/o being prepared to move beyond our typical advocacy positions to discuss NATSAP's strategic position and inferiority, having some data to present with well thought our recommendations.
The one point that I may disagree with you on, though not quite yet (NATSAP may prove me wrong) is NATSAP may be an org whose practices can be addressed with some degree of receptivity. And that some degree I suspect will be very little, having working w/ CAFETY and observed other trade orgs that are FAR more child friendly that NATSAP and yet seeing significantly disappointing lack of follow through. I think strategically they have to be ready (I don't think they are) and so do advocates (I haven't heard anything that would convince me this is the case either, though we're prepared to address other groups - NATSAP is like the Cartman, from South Park, of rep trade orgs). I think other orgs have to board the change train as well... Basically, I think the landscape of youth residential programs trade orgs have to be rapidly headed towards the point of convergence - as the BBI is working towards, but seems to still require the growth of an organized movement to push it along. In conjunction with this, work must be done around ensuring EVERY community has care services available... b/c w/o that, programs are catering to the demands of stressed out parents and certainly NATSAP will shrug and say: 'supply, demand'. While this may be temporarily 'ok' if we somehow get them to work towards ameliorating abuse, we still run into the problems that come from inappropriate, highly restrictive institutionalization and the dignity youth lose in that process - something they will never cease to participate in w/o legislative change and/or a change in demand.
Working to integrate consumers into their agenda is a start... but where NATSAP is I do suspect they're just throwing the dog (survivors, in this case Ginger and Mike) a bone ... my fear is that it is a far more sinister that than... (the noted hope he won't even notice that there's no meat on it...)
CAFETY will hold off a year, at least. Maybe more. We'll be in the position to better assess where they're at and what makes sense after the IECA conference. We'll also have data, the support of additional members and real sustainability funding when that time comes.
