4 ms·

I'm not saying that they used the money unwisely, but that clearly such a thing as "BLM" exists and is run by certain people, people who have supported things l

I'm not saying that they used the money unwisely, but that clearly such a thing as "BLM" exists and is run by certain people, people who have supported things like "disrupt the nuclear family."

wavefunction 6y ago
Y'all seem to me to be selectively quoting from the statement to make it seem like they're attacking or attempting to destroy nuclear families when the full text shows that they are extending the concept of family from the nuclear family to a larger group.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  > We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure But the real question is, what does this have to do with racial justice? As someone like Sowell points out, many inequities are themselves the consequence of disrupting the two-parent household.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    While I think some of their talking points are reaching, this one is not. One of the most damaging things affecting the Black community today is the lack of fathers in the home. A lot could and has been said about why that is (over-incarceration of Black males is one), but the purpose behind the statement in question, i think, is to try to make the best of reality. Try to adjust society in a way so that children of single parent homes can still thrive and not feel inferior because they weren't raised in an "ideal" family. I think we can do that without disavowing the traditional nuclear family and I don't read anything there that implies that.
glasss 6y ago
Well your questions indicated you were more concerned about the money than the original nuclear family statement. My argument regarding the nuclear family stance was and is this: I wouldn't discredit an entire social movement about demanding equality and fair treatment because of what someone put on a non-profit's website. Further, a statement like "BLM supports disrupting the nuclear" doesn't hold up because that stance has apparently been taken down from the website in question. If it was still on the website, which admittedly I haven't checked, then I can understand taking this more seriously.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  It was taken down from the website because people noticed it was there. Anyone who has read Marx and Critical Theory knows that disrupting the family is a key tenet.

I'm not saying that they used the money unwisely, but that clearly such a thing as "BLM" exists and is run by certain people, people who have supported things like "disrupt the nuclear family."

wavefunction 6y ago

Y'all seem to me to be selectively quoting from the statement to make it seem like they're attacking or attempting to destroy nuclear families when the full text shows that they are extending the concept of family from the nuclear family to a larger group.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
> We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure But the real question is, what does this have to do with racial justice? As someone like Sowell points out, many inequities are themselves the consequence of disrupting the two-parent household.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  While I think some of their talking points are reaching, this one is not. One of the most damaging things affecting the Black community today is the lack of fathers in the home. A lot could and has been said about why that is (over-incarceration of Black males is one), but the purpose behind the statement in question, i think, is to try to make the best of reality. Try to adjust society in a way so that children of single parent homes can still thrive and not feel inferior because they weren't raised in an "ideal" family. I think we can do that without disavowing the traditional nuclear family and I don't read anything there that implies that.

glasss 6y ago

Well your questions indicated you were more concerned about the money than the original nuclear family statement. My argument regarding the nuclear family stance was and is this: I wouldn't discredit an entire social movement about demanding equality and fair treatment because of what someone put on a non-profit's website. Further, a statement like "BLM supports disrupting the nuclear" doesn't hold up because that stance has apparently been taken down from the website in question. If it was still on the website, which admittedly I haven't checked, then I can understand taking this more seriously.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
It was taken down from the website because people noticed it was there. Anyone who has read Marx and Critical Theory knows that disrupting the family is a key tenet.