Jump to content
IGNORED

Trace Bates 2: Dating A Poor Persecuted Refugee with A Purpose?


nelliebelle1197
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, SeekingAdventure said:

@BeccaGrim yeah, when I read it in the news, I was torn between laughter and disbelief. But since I am really getting sick of this whole pandemic and people who think taking horse dewormer or drinking bleach is helpful, while also thinking that the vaccine would be harmful and tracking them, I decided to just laugh about it. Most people who are afraid to be tracked etc love to share their location on Facebook, whenever they can.

I really can't with people anymore..

I could never understand location sharing. I could never.  But I also don’t put my life on social media. Never have.  I most certainly don’t share my kids’ pics  either.  Just privately. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so sad but I rarely location share on  FB because I’m rarely outside if my neighborhood. I wish I could travel more. If I did, I might location share. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't get it either. I don't share my location either, only way to know where I am is to ask me. Or sometimes if I post a pic on Instagram, and I don't post it delayed (which I usually do)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The region where I work is going to cause the whole province to go back into lockdown. I had a client yammering on about all the research he did that is now scrubbed from the internet, the prime minister is using us as test subjects for social control and that positive test results are all fake. So sick of the stupid!! How can otherwise intelligent people buy into this garbage?! 

  • Upvote 7
  • Rufus Bless 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, SeekingAdventure said:

Ah, I feel like we have enough nutjobs in Austria, I'm happy that we're missing out on a few.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't want to inflict them on you. I just picked Austria, because afaik you're allowed to homeschool there, and the Romeikes wouldn't even have had to learn a different language, had they chosen to move there. But I suspect this was about much more than just homeschooling...

  • Upvote 7
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Expectopatronus said:

The region where I work is going to cause the whole province to go back into lockdown. I had a client yammering on about all the research he did that is now scrubbed from the internet, the prime minister is using us as test subjects for social control and that positive test results are all fake. So sick of the stupid!! How can otherwise intelligent people buy into this garbage?! 

I think because they don't understand science, but they understand the garbage conspiracy theories. They don't want to admit they don't understand the science between vaccines, viruses, climate change etc, so it is easier to just stick with what you understand (the conspiracy theories). 

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2021 at 1:14 PM, Nothing if not critical said:

On a side note, fundie wiki has this about the Romeike family: "In August 2008 the Romeike Family left Germany, to come to America because they were being persecuted for homeschooling their children. [...] facing fines, forcible removal of their children and possible imprisonment due to this" (emphasis mine).

I mean, yeah, that's what they claim. But I'm pretty sure they weren't persecuted for homeschooling. They refused to comply with a law that applies to everyone and had to face the consequences, which yes, may have included fines. I checked an where they lived, imprisonment is not an option. And it is very, very unlikely, that anyone would have forcibly removed their children because of the homeschooling, unless there was evidence of abuse or neglect. Plus, as a number of people here have pointed out, they could  just have moved across the border to Austria and homeschooled there.

The text on fundie wiki appears to have been copied straight from the HSLDA website, so I guess the lack of objective facts is not surprising.

Actually “imprisonment” is a real option. BUT it’s called coercive detention. It’s not as if they throw you in jail like a criminal. There are two options. If you didn’t pay a fine (the detention can go from max six weeks for one fine, to three months for several accumulated fines) or if you refuse to give a (witness) statement to the court (detention ends either after the case is closed or latest six months after it started). My guess is they couldn’t pay the fines anymore- if they really had to deal with a detention. Taking the children out if the family is also one of the last options. I think even after detention. Before that they rather use police resources and pick them at home and drive them to school. There is another form of detention - it’s basically like my first example but purely used in administrative law context. Maybe it fits their case even better. Detention is always the last straw if you don’t get the people to comply by a whole set of other measures. It’s a technicality. Because they don’t commit a “bad” crime we wouldn’t really sent them to prison but basically we do, for a very short time though and as a substitute for the “real” punishment. So yeah, it’s not a lie but completely glosses over the fine differences and nuances of the law.

 

Edited by just_ordinary
  • Thank You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Actually “imprisonment” is a real option. BUT it’s called coercive detention. It’s not as if they throw you in jail like a criminal. There are two options. If you didn’t pay a fine (the detention can go from max six weeks for one fine, to three months for several accumulated fines) or if you refuse to give a (witness) statement to the court (detention ends either after the case is closed or latest six months after it started). My guess is they couldn’t pay the fines anymore- if they really had to deal with a detention. Taking the children out if the family is also one of the last options. I think even after detention. Before that they rather use police resources and pick them at home and drive them to school. There is another form of detention - it’s basically like my first example but purely used in administrative law context. Maybe it fits their case even better. Detention is always the last straw if you don’t get the people to comply by a whole set of other measures. It’s a technicality. Because they don’t commit a “bad” crime we wouldn’t really sent them to prison but basically we do, for a very short time though and as a substitute for the “real” punishment. So yeah, it’s not a lie but completely glosses over the fine differences and nuances of the law.

 

To add to that: I found an old (German) newspaper article that seems to imply that their (American) attorney specifically told them to go to the US. (This (German) article even states the attorney was the one that got in touch with the family, not the other way around) He is part of HSLDA, which supported the family's claim, and - according to the article - he seems to be a bit anti-German because of Germany's homeschooling laws. The article also notes that the children had been taken to school by police, which was one of the factors that helped the parents make their decision. The other one was a ruling by the German constitutional court in 2007, according to which parents can lose custody in especially serious cases. They also appear to have moved to a homeschooling community in the US.

Just found that quite interesting, because it mentions which repercussions the family really faced in Germany and because it sheds light on their decision to move to the US. Still, going to Austria (or another country in the EU) would have been much easier (and it's what other fundamentalist groups do, e.g. the Twelve Tribes moved to the Czech Republic after members lost custody of their homeschooled children for the severe physical abused the kids suffered and faced criminal charges for that abuse). I'm guessing they specifically wanted to go to the US (maybe for religious reasons) and they enjoyed the press that came with trying to get asylum in the US.

I don't understand why they didn't move to Austria, because the kids would've been able to still communicate in their mother tongue, make friends easier, and they wouldn't have had to count on the outcome of their asylum case and then having to hope they wouldn't be deported. Then again, I'm not fundie and to them the first two arguments are probably not a bug, but a feature.

  • Upvote 2
  • Thank You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@käsekuchen I think they specifically picked the USA also for a community with the same mindset. Austria might allow homeschooling (no diesig they do put some controlling measures in though) but it’s not that easy to find a big community of religious nutjobs- that are not completely out of the normal society only circling around their own compound.

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@just_ordinary Yeah, I think you're right, especially since they stressed that their neighbours were homeschooling, too.

I grew up in rural southern Germany and while I know/know about a lot of people that I would categorise as fundamental Christians, I don't know a single person that didn't attend a proper school. Even the women got uni degrees, although some of them were already married by that point or were expected to be stay at home mums after (not that there's anything wrong with being a SAHM, but it should be a choice that both partners agree to as equals). I can't imagine Austria being much different in that regard.

  • Upvote 7
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it’s not as if homeschooling isn’t allowed at all. There are rare cases when it’s ok and allowed. But mostly only for a certain amount of time and not as a complete long term solution. Being a (religious) nut job that doesn’t want secular education, fear exposures to modern society and different likes of people and ideas and want to brainwash and feel free to treat their children how ever they seem fit no matter if it’s against the law (abuse) is not one if the reasons though. We don’t allow this for very good reasons and I think that it should stay like this. I do think however if a child has problems in the state schools there should be more support and even (financial) support so they might thrive in the private alternatives or worst case home tutoring with real teachers.

  • Upvote 10
  • I Agree 2
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I do think however if a child has problems in the state schools there should be more support and even (financial) support so they might thrive in the private alternatives or worst case home tutoring with real teachers.

Yes, I wonder about kids who are bullied. Are they forced to remain in school? Are there no other options? What about kids with social anxiety? 

I haven't really thought about countries that prohibit homeschooling, but I can see both sides. On the one hand (and this is very important), it allows the state to identify abused kids far more easily. Kids like the Turpins won't slip through the cracks.

OTOH, it does allow for a certain amount of indoctrination. The state is free to teach your kids whatever they want. That kind of power can be dangerous. I live in a state that definitely incorporates a political agenda into its curriculum. I actually agree with most of the agenda, so it's not a big issue for me, but it is definitely an agenda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2021 at 9:17 AM, HereticHick said:

Gotta confess--I'm a little surprised to see someone in the Bates orbit (Lydia) wearing clothing supporting a non-white player (A.J. Brown), and both Tannehill and Brown are Black Lives Matter supporters.

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/titans/news/titans-blm-video

Well, this quote of mine didn't age well, did it?

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Yes, I wonder about kids who are bullied. Are they forced to remain in school? Are there no other options? What about kids with social anxiety? 

I haven't really thought about countries that prohibit homeschooling, but I can see both sides. On the one hand (and this is very important), it allows the state to identify abused kids far more easily. Kids like the Turpins won't slip through the cracks.

OTOH, it does allow for a certain amount of indoctrination. The state is free to teach your kids whatever they want. That kind of power can be dangerous. I live in a state that definitely incorporates a political agenda into its curriculum. I actually agree with most of the agenda, so it's not a big issue for me, but it is definitely an agenda. 

Changing schools is always an option. It’s easier in urban areas, as there are more schools nearby though. And if you have a diagnosed medical problem (social anxiety) there are definitely options. It’s not easy, there are hoops but those cases are not ignored in general.

BIB: I think it depends on the country you live in. But I think in most western democratic countries this is not a real problem. I can think of almost nothing problematic in our curriculums. Would I prefer less emphasis on certain topics and more on others. Sure. But in general everything is fine. And we as parents still have lots of influence. The way we live, the people we surround ourselves and our children with, what activities we provide, which value system we openly talk about and act out…

Edited by just_ordinary
  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

We know they have already done a road trip together (back from Nate's wedding) and that they have been together for some time, so yeah I think this is the next step before engagement.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who has the tea (as my teenagers would say) on Lydia.  I just looked at her public IG page and she seems very… not fundie.  She’s a model, wears bikinis, has some pretty sexy dresses on in photos.  If it weren’t for a Bible verse in her bio, I wouldn’t guess she’d be anywhere close to someone who would date a Bates boy.  How’d they even meet?  

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Dbm said:

She could have done way better than that rac**t

I feel like her views are probably similar. She was in that video too. Plus her family is here illegally, but that is ok because they are white Christians 🙄 so she and Trace probably deserve each other. 

  • Upvote 14
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Dbm said:

She could have done way better than that rac**t

Her bio says she’s from a small German village.  My husband’s family is all in Germany and my ex-brother-in-law is from there also and they’re some of the most racist people I know!  I’ve heard the most racist comments made by them against Turkish people and “Gypsies” (obviously, more appropriately Roma people), but no kidding if they don’t pretty much think any/all non-white people are inferior to white Germans. 
 

Of course, I’m making an over-generalization about a large group of people, basing this on a smallish subset of people, though from two very distinct families, one from the north, one from the south, but based on that, it wouldn’t surprise me if she isn’t fazed by his racism.  

  • Upvote 3
  • Fuck You 1
  • Downvote 2
  • Sad 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, SimplyMe said:

Who has the tea (as my teenagers would say) on Lydia.  I just looked at her public IG page and she seems very… not fundie.  She’s a model, wears bikinis, has some pretty sexy dresses on in photos.  If it weren’t for a Bible verse in her bio, I wouldn’t guess she’d be anywhere close to someone who would date a Bates boy.  How’d they even meet?  

She and Josie are friends. Her family is also fundy.

I have noticed that the Bates boys seem to go for the more mainstream Christian girls, which is interesting.

  • Upvote 10
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CanadianMamam said:

She and Josie are friends. Her family is also fundy.

I have noticed that the Bates boys seem to go for the more mainstream Christian girls, which is interesting.

Because they don’t want to deal with chaperones and no kiss courtships. And I can’t blame them one bit. 

  • Upvote 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Because they don’t want to deal with chaperones and no kiss courtships. And I can’t blame them one bit. 

Yep. I don't blame them either and I think it is good that they do something closer to normal dating.

I think the Bates girls are lucky that they are really pretty and bubbly and that probably helps potential suitors overlook the courtship rules but they also marry younger than their brothers and their husbands tend to be young too.

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the Bates boys are drawn to more stylish women than their circles tend to be inhabited by. I also think Trace and Lawson, especially Lawson are more shallow and worldly in their thinking all around and that draws them to their current girlfriends.

(I don't mean to disparage their girlfriends by my wording.) 

Edited by Pecansforeveryone
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.