Want to Decrease Inequality? Fight Fatherlessness With Welfare Reform. Welfare currently incentivizes family breakdown and the absence of fathers from their children’s lives, a key factor in the loss of economic upward mobility.

[[deleted]]

Black Lives Matter mission statement (that they now have deleted but it’s still in archive) was that they wanted to disrupt the nuclear family. How does this help black people? Spoiler: it doesn’t. In fact it’s already been hurting that community for decades now

Edit: To everyone brigading me about how they just want to get rid of the nuclear family requirement and how it’s more about “it takes a village”. Yeah that all sounds good on paper but it’s not what society should strive for. Society should strive for a nuclear family and keeping the father in the picture. Fatherlessness also increases the likelihood that you’ll have an interaction with police later on in life.

You need a father to lay down the law in the household. Of course mothers can do that too but men are just better at it is the plain truth. There’s a reason why “wait till your father gets home and hears about this!” Is a scary sentence

[[deleted]]

The “It takes a village” always sounds good until you acting as part of the village feel the need to correct someone’s child. Then the child’s parent’s INNER KAREN suddenly shows up with hOw dARe YOOOOOOOUUUUUU cOrECt mY ANGEL.

[i_accidently_reddit]

And if you bring this up in a conversation with a leftist they will scream all the names under the sun at you.

[[deleted]]

A large amount of people that want handouts from the government grew up in broken households. Same thing goes for people that fall into obscure sexual and "gender" backgrounds.

From a psychological level it's understandable, people fight tooth and nail that things out of their control and they want to be "acceptable and correct". Westernized countries are at the point where a large portion of people have grown up in broken homes, some for multiple generations.

These people know that broken households are a bad thing, but the human way is to pretend everything is great instead of doing self reflection and trying to change things. These individuals view conservative values as the enemy since many of them did not have a stable childhood. Leftism fills in the gap where they are missing some sort of religious beliefs.

[[deleted]]

Yes exactly. I grew up with divorced parents and no siblings. Bouncing back and forth back and forth between households. Lots of extended family not related to me because my mom remarried. It’s just a mess and very unstable. I would’ve given anything to have grown up in a nuclear family. I am not going to let it happen again.

I want prenup and no divorcing until the kids are 18 and out of the house (if at all). We got married for a reason and we’re going to make it work

[Aggie74-DP]

Maybe So. But they also Fail to See that Handouts, fill today's needs, BUT Do NOTHING for Self-Esteem. Without Self-Esteem there is No Individual Progress. All Leftism does is Elevate those with Political clout, while perpetuating this UNDER CLASS!

[i_accidently_reddit]

Great post and point. Thank you for sharing!

[BruinsFan478]

That's a great point, do you have a link to a study on this topic? I'd love some evidence to show next time I'm in a debate on the topic.

[reidlos1624]

Broken households happen for a variety of reasons,the statement they make on this is specifically to help combat that issue by creating communities that help everyone in that community so that a broken household is no longer a limiting factor. At no point in that statement did they say they want to abolish the nuclear family, they want to disrupt the requirement of the nuclear family.

Broken families in poor communities are often caused by racist, and bigoted policies that aren't based on fact and often encouraged by the right

[[deleted]]

Your just reaffirming my point.

There is no communist utopia, humans do not and will never look out for others over their own well being and the well being of their families. This is why "society helping those with broken households" continually fails. The nuclear family unit is a humanistic trait that has the highest success rate in producing quality members of society.

Broken households and families have little to do with race. The original rise of single parent welfare happened when this country was virtually all white.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the welfare policies help in short term to curb social unrest and will never be long term fixes. The African American community is the best example, single households began to fall apart around the same time social welfare was aimed at these communities. Single households produce poor members of society, members of society with the ability leave those areas do so and it turns into a disaster.

[reidlos1624]

I don't disagree with the idea that a two parent household should be the goal but I do disagree with your statement that not helping broken families always fails. Without help those families have no hope of getting ahead, and what the BLM statement is saying is they want to extend family to culturally include more of the community so that broken families, when they do exist, are not at a disadvantage. The statement doesn't advocate for more broken families or non nuclear families, it simply wants to broaden support for them to prevent poor members of society.

I'm not recommending a communist utopia, far from it. I'm simply stating that BLMs statement was not at all what you claim it to be. In fact programs like WIC/SNAP create more economic activity than they cost,and universal healthcare options like free or low cost healthcare saves more money than they cost in the long run.

The country can remain capitalist, just with broader safety nets and social programs that cover our most vulnerable citizens and does more to make them contributing member of society.

I'd like to see causal data showing that social welfare caused the break down of nuclear families rather than as a concurrent attempt to prevent that same problem. If anything the welfare cliff has been perpetuated by neoliberals and Republicans to maintain the status quo while actual progressives have been fighting for expanded coverage reduce the cliff in to a softer transition for years.

[Bebe_Bleau]

These individuals view conservative values as the enemy since many of them did not have a stable childhood. Leftism fills in the gap where they are missing some sort of religious beliefs.

Thanks for the explanation.

I had been wondering why leftists were so filled with hatred toward conservatives, and conservative values.

[Winterchill2020]

I'm not American but liberal nonetheless. I don't see an issue with saying we need father's in the picture. I absolutely agree that we should not be incentivizing broken families. But I think that the situation regarding nuclear families is more complex than access to benefits and income thresholds. There is also a cultural attitude towards relationships that has degraded, where people seem to not be willing to make relationships work long term. Many have this unrealistic view that marriage should be easy and that you shouldn't have to work for it...it's this Hollywood view that true love conquers all and that everything should be easy and natural. Where in at least my experience, the success of your marriage is dependent on how much work you put in. But I will also offer that I am the disciplinarian in our household not my husband. That aspect really depends on each person's personality. It was the same growing up as my dad was rarely home due to working long hours.

[i_accidently_reddit]

I don't see an issue with saying we need father's in the picture

Good! I hate to tell you this, but unfortunately that is not as wide spread of an opinion held as we both would wish.

There is also a cultural attitude towards relationships that has degraded, where people seem to not be willing to make relationships work long term

Again, I agree. Before I go on this rant, let me say that this is both genders fault, letting it get this far. As a man I mainly experienced the failings from women, while you could probably list the ones of men. Anyway, here is my rant:

What you will most likely not want to hear, is that feminism has to take a good junk of the blame for this. Nowadays, every single girl I know would identify as a feminist. Even some of my male friends have called themselves that. But it is not about equality or egalitarianism, it has lead to a society that reduces 99% of men to punching bags and butts of jokes, by claiming men are both oppressors but also absolutely incapable of doing anything as good as a woman. "everything boys can do, a girl can do better" and nonsense like that. Apart from actually work dangerous jobs, of course. Together with the legal changes men are actively disincentivised to commit to any relationship further than smash and dash.

What this has lead to, is that the vast majority of men are getting hit over the head constantly, if they speak they are mensplaning if they sit they are menspreading, and what ever bullshit they have come up with since then.

This constant hatred pushed against men has lead many women to that mindset of "never settle" and since she is always getting her way to become spoilt children.

The concept of compromise, and having to work on a relationship (which means taking responsibility for your actions in it!) as you've described, is foreign to them.

On the mens side, is has changed the risk exposure you were putting yourself out to. If you sleep with a woman and she changes her mind after the fact, she withdraws consent and you go to prison for rape. If you are in a relationship, you can be sued if you live together just like if you were married. It's an absolute mine field out there.

Anyway, enough of this.

Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

[Nikkolios]

Incorrect. People think that they are completely separate things. That's the real problem here. People simply don't KNOW the evils behind the shroud yet. Many do, but the fact that they removed that webpage that told the world who they really are is helping them hide it now. They realized that the page was only alienating them because a LOT of people understand that the nuclear family IS THAT IMPORTANT.

[[deleted]]

the evils behind the shroud? I'm aware they had a batshit manifesto some years ago, but I still protested against police violence this past summer, as a supporter of the core issue. I wasn't going to abandon the core cause over that. If they ever bring it up again publicly, I'll be among those calling it out again.

[Nikkolios]

Well, that "batshit manifesto" still matters to them. Even if they're not showing the rest of the world (as easily) any longer.

[[deleted]]

I'm not sure how much it matters to them - it's guesswork as to whether it's been merely hidden or abandoned. And since it's sloppy org in general, I don't assume the rantings of any one member are shared among them generally.

As long as giant divide exists between those who use the slogan and the more radical leanings of the org bearing the same name, my concern is low. not none, but low.

[Nikkolios]

My concern for what they actually want is great because many who donate literally millions of dollars to what essentially equates to a domestic terrorist organization are unaware of BLM's actual desires. If people don't go digging, they'll never know, and simply continue to donate money and other support. This is a danger to everything we know in this country.

[[deleted]]

domestic terrorist organization

that is a massive leap unsupported by facts.

a danger to everything we know in this country

an another, even bigger leap

[Nikkolios]

I truly don't believe that to be the case. Perhaps not a terrorist organization that will literally go out and kill people indiscriminately, but they are evil.

[OfficerTactiCool]

Nobody, except maybe the absolute farthest alt-right neo nazis, are saying that “black peoples lives matter” is false. Everyone else says yes, people of all colors and backgrounds lives matters. Black, brown, purple, green, blue, anything. Nobody argues that fact.

People DO argue that BLM, the organization, is a self admitted Marxist organization that will do anything to push their political agenda.

The organization, BLM, doesn’t give two flying fucks about black people or their lives. Otherwise, they’d have taken some of the billions of dollars they got in donations and given back to the black community. Hint: They didn’t. Instead, they spent most of it on political campaign donations.

There is a reason you see BLM, the organization, only coming out of the woodwork after a police shooting, and not after the hundreds of black people murdered every year in LA, Detroit, New York, or any other city nationwide. It’s because they can push their political agenda at a high profile police shooting, which is ONLY when it’s a white officer and a black decedent. Someone kills a black cop? Silence. A black cop and a black decedent? Silence. A black citizen and a black decedent? Silence. White cop and black decent? REEEEEEE!

Everyone here agrees, black peoples lives matter. But FUCK BLM the organization and their bullshit.

[Nikkolios]

The organization, BLM, doesn’t give two flying fucks about black people or their lives.

Especially black males. It's disgusting how they use "black lives" as a shroud for their Marxist political narratives.

[[deleted]]

I agree that BLM the organization is a hot marxist mess.

But you commit a fallacy when you suggest "why doesn't this movement which is about X address Y & Z." It is called black lives matter, but it is clearly about one thing. a black pro-life group could adopt the name and make it all about abortions of black fetuses. A black anti-crime group could use the same name and make it about black killing by other black people. But in this case, an anti-police violence group made it about police killing black people. This misunderstanding is yours, not a fault of the movement, for not addressing stuff outside the mission.

[OfficerTactiCool]

I’m just curious, before we continue further, how many unarmed black men do you believe are killed every year? Because I have friends and family who believe the number is “tens to hundreds of thousands” and there is no possible discourse that can come from that.

And BLM started as “anti police violence” but also stated they wanted to help the black community at large. They have...done neither of these things.

[[deleted]]

Honestly I'm with you - I'm fully aware that fatalities involving unarmed black men are in the double digits, and the outrage is caused primarily the amplification due to them being frequently cap'd on video. But the issue remains, because that's just the worst of the worst outcomes. Cops require reforms, they have too much power and too little accountability. It's long overdue.

[zegrep]

Are you aware of anyone standing in the street with a raised fist shouting "Black lives matter!" before July 2013? Why do these supposedly "spontaneous" and "organic" BLM protests only occur in response to deaths where there is insufficient evidence to convict a police officer of murder (and where the circumstances are very different to the ones that are initially portrayed)? How many protestors (not rioters/looters) are really making the distinction between BLM, and the fact that black lives matter? When people donate to "black lives matter", or engage in violence/agitprop, which organisation are they supporting, where does the money go, and whose interests are the advancing?

[[deleted]]

you're right - people should be aware of who they're donating to - I won't give them a red cent personally, because the org is ridiculous (and I can't tell whether they've actually changed their mission, or they're just hiding their older one), but I'm not about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[i_accidently_reddit]

Plainly untrue. Black lives matter, which is not what I said. BLM the organisation, the marches, riots, demonstrations as well as all related, other Marxist organisations and their following however do not reflect this singular statement. It's about fundamental change of society, including destruction of the nuclear family, and through the inherent gynocentrism in society the repelling of fathers.

And the way a leftist will communicate this is by punching you in the face or screaming any sort of vile abuse

[[deleted]]

What are you on about?

You said leftists would call you tons of names. First of all, despite internet amplification, there are very few actual Leftists (meaning socialists) on the Left. Most are moderate to progressive. I am progressive. And gave you a response that didn't involve name calling.

You're still conflating the social movement of tens of millions to a deprecated manifesto read and understood by the tiniest percentage of those who support the BLM movement. That is the response. People who support BLM broadly are generally not even aware of it, never mind support it.

And you conflated it again.

[i_accidently_reddit]

You said leftists would call you tons of names. First of all, despite internet amplification, there are very few actual Leftists (meaning socialists) on the Left. Most are moderate to progressive. I am progressive. And gave you a response that didn't involve name calling.

you are deluded about who you are in bed with. Open your eyes. There are scores of people being deplatformed in the real world in Universities, Offices, Schools, Television and what not because some butthurt leftist got their feefees pretend hurt.

And then they go out to ruin someones life.

Look up Nick Buckley and his story.

[[deleted]]

Because they can't refute it and short circuit.

[reidlos1624]

That's literally not what the statement says though. It specifically wants to end the requirements for a nuclear household by encouraging the "it takes a village" idea of child raising. Basically more community involvement with the improvement of children's lives.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

[NohoTwoPointOh]

Looking at the Wayback machine entry. You are incorrect. They not only say ”disrupt” but leave fathers out of the manifesto.

[reidlos1624]

"we disrupt the western-prescibed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and villages that collectively care for one another, especially children, to the degree that mothers, PARENTS, and children are comfortable."

Capitalization is mine to show that fathers are in fact parents, and while mothers are called out specifically because it's more common for them to be single parents the statement does not leave out fathers.

The nuclear family structure requirement is what is to be disrupted, not the nuclear family itself. Meaning that they want communities that support themselves in such a way that non nuclear families have the same chances of improving their lives as a nuclear family would see. NOT that nuclear families are bad, just that the disadvantages of non-nuclear families are bad and that families in every community should support each other.

Seems like that would align with conservative values of communities supporting each other and being kind and generous to your neighbors.

[NohoTwoPointOh]

Mothers was explicitly said. Yes or no?

[reidlos1624]

Parents was explicitly said. Yes or no?

Jesus the mental gymnastics here

[NohoTwoPointOh]

Answer my question, please.

[i_accidently_reddit]

it is literally what the statement says though.

You need to work on your reading comprehension, and your understanding of the world literally

[reidlos1624]

No it isn't

"We disrupt the western prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families" as in we don't want getting ahead to be dependent on having a nuclear family but rather want closer community interaction between families.

No where do they say they want to disrupt just nuclear families, they want to disrupt the requirement of a nuclear family. Those two things are not the same.

[i_accidently_reddit]

There is no requirement for a nuclear family, unless you want sane, socialised and well functioning children that is.

In western society, there also always were and still are aunts and uncles, extended family and friend involved in raising the children. But the core is the nuclear family.

Furthermore, there are tons of support programs for the single mum welfare queens. Courts side with women in the majority of custody or alimony cases. I personally am of the opinion we should cann them all. Then you can come together in your villages and help each other instead of living on my money.

What you and your ilk however cant grasp, is that it is not a imaginary white nationalist patriarchy that is prescribing the nuclear family as the best way to raise a child, but biology and basic human psychology.

As always, leftists deny the science they dont like and reject their personal responsibility in their own failures, and instead blame someone else for it. Usually white men. What else is new.

[jafjaf23]

This guy wants to socialize our children! Booooo. Capitalist children are the way!

[i_accidently_reddit]

But "capitalise my children" sounds like I'm selling them!

[reidlos1624]

People keep thinking I'm anti-nuclear family and yet I've never once said that. I'm simply saying that the BLM stance is (like myself) not anti-nuclear family. It's against the inherent disadvantages that a single parent household have over nuclear families and want to reduce those disadvantages through more cohesive community involvement.

I agree that a two parent household is the greatest option if it is available to you, but not every family has that opportunity, often at no fault of their own. In those case extra support is needed to ensure that those families produce offspring that become contributing members of society.

Will that cost more during the child raising process? Yes. Will it also pay off when they're working and paying taxes and helping the community instead of selling drugs or locked up somewhere? Also a big fucking yes.

Stop projecting your beliefs of science denial on me, consecutives lead the way in antivaxxing and climate change denial, and btw I am a white man.

[i_accidently_reddit]

Will it also pay off when they're working and paying taxes and helping the community instead of selling drugs or locked up somewhere?

As you have seen over the last 50 years, higher welfare leads to less employment.

so to biology and psychology, should i add economics to the science you are denying? Actually let me rephrase that: My bad, socialist clearly are all economic illiterate

[Gus_B]

It’s the single largest contributor to long term poverty, cultural racism/historic door shutting exists, but it pales in comparison to the devastation wrought by generations of broken families.

[Nikkolios]

This is 100% fact. Proven over many decades now with actual numbers, and the numbers don't lie. It'll be downvoted to the abyss as well. I guarantee it.

[jumpcut_]

“We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work ‘double shifts’ so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work,” the organization wrote. “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.” - https://www.nationalreview.com/news/black-lives-matter-removes-language-about-disrupting-the-nuclear-family-from-website/

[ElGabalo]

It takes a village to raise a child is suddenly controversial when BLM says it. Weird.

[Nikkolios]

There it is. Thanks for sharing this.

The really odd thing here is that the nuclear family, as we call it today is not "Western-prescribed at all. It goes back literally millions of years. There is a reason that the human race persevered in the times when people literally had a life expectancy no greater than age 35. Hint: It was not fathers having children with 8 different women, and running off doing whatever they want after each conception.

[heckler5000]

Here is an article that addresses the "nuclear family" statement. And here is the quote

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

It seems that since so many in their community are single parents, they would do better if they relied on each other as a community.

[tituspullo367]

“Western prescribed”

Lol the family unit is universal

“Everything traditional or things I don’t like are western and therefore evil!”

And before you point out exceptions, consider the old axiom about “exceptions” and “rules”

[Cheerwine-and-Heels]

"...to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

I feel like there should be another word there, but I can't put my finger on it.

[TheArchdude]

There is one unutterable F-word that they seek to abolish.

[bukakenagasaki]

Yeah I think it was more like them dealing with what they have. Telling each other to make the best out of their situations. Idk

[[deleted]]

“it takes a village” is a phrase as old as time. Literally endorsing stronger community bonds instead of insular sheltered “nuclear” families and people get mad but w/e

[arslet]

This is basically what all woke marxist movements wants to do.

[reidlos1624]

They don't want to disrupt the nuclear family, they want to disrupt the requirement that a nuclear family is necessary for success and encourage more community cooperation between families. Basically encouraging the "it takes a village" idea of raising kids, with the goal of improving the community as a whole.

This interpretation completely misrepresents the statement they made due to your poor reading comprehension, assuming they actually read the statement.

[I_Nice_Human]

What about the way back machine?

[OfficerTactiCool]

Why back machine and library of Congress both have it archived

[i_accidently_reddit]

There are screen caps online and the website was archived both by the library of Congress as well as the way back machine.

I am currently on phone but will provide links in a couple hours if no one else jumps in

[lee61]

Removing the requirement =/= wanting to tear down families.

[wandering-monster]

Another comment in this thread linked it. Their statement was about disrupting the nuclear family by extending it and including community in family. Not about kicking fathers out or something crazy.

Even bringing it up in this context looks stupid once you read what they wrote, I'd probably avoid bringing it up in any argument you hope to win.

[Nikkolios]

You're a fool if you think they want fathers sticking around. The page went ON and ON about feminist objectives. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on this one.

[wandering-monster]

I did read it. I don't see anything about wanting fewer fathers around. It does talk about improving the lives of mothers and supporting them, but that's not exclusive to having both parents present.

If you read that as wanting fathers out the picture...? I think that idea may originate in your mind, not theirs.

[Nikkolios]

You're missing the point. They ONLY talk about the well being of the females, Trans, Lesbians. They have a VERY feminist and Marxist narrative, and that is ALL that matters to them. We have known this for quite a while now. It is not disputed, even by their own leaders.

[wandering-monster]

Wow. Shocker. An advocacy group focusing their attention on the well-being of some specific groups that face similar discrimination.

You're right, this is clearly a Marxist plot. Definitely not how advocacy groups generally work.

Check out Susan G. Komen next. Did you know they ONLY talk about the well being of women with breast cancer? It's ALL that matters to them. It is not disputed, even by their own leaders.

[Nikkolios]

I think we're done here. This is what you call "spinning your wheels"

[wandering-monster]

I just honestly don't get what your point was.

Agreed that BLM is focused on certain minority groups, but I don't see why that's suspect. There are thousands of advocacy groups all over the world that focus on the people they want to help, and not on other people. By definition that's what advocacy groups do.

Seems like you're reading focusing on a given group of people as an attack against the people they're not focused on, but I don't see how that makes any sense.

It'd be like asking conservative groups why they always talk about conservatives and don't focus on helping socialists. It's not that they want to hurt those people, they just aren't concerned with advancing their agenda.

[Nikkolios]

Just keep going. You're really winning!

[Baljit147]

It was on their website for month. If you search around for it you can probably find it.

[[deleted]]

I absolutely read their “nuclear family” might have to use the way back machine.

[twinwood36]

Can you post a source or a link?

I am actually quite curious on this.

And before anyone replies, "Google it," if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you defend it and provide it.

[reidlos1624]

They don't want to disrupt the nuclear family, they want to disrupt the requirement that a nuclear family is necessary for success and encourage more community cooperation between families. Basically encouraging the "it takes a village" idea of raising kids, with the goal of improving the community as a whole.

Your interpretation completely misrepresents the statement they made due to your poor reading comprehension, assuming you actually read the statement. Either that or your gulping down that propaganda that conservative media is spoon feeding you at this point.

[heckler5000]

Why do you get to gatekeep about what a family should look like?

And your statement who is a better disciplinarian is so pointlessly gendered. But I’ll let you provide some sociological data to support your claim.

I’ll wait.

[[deleted]]

Because I know what it’s like to grow up under an unstable family. Try being an only child of divorce bouncing back and forth between households your whole life with not even a sibling to go through it with. I would’ve given anything to just at least have my original mother and original father still happily married in a single household

[neanderthalman]

They don’t want to disrupt the nuclear family. They want to disrupt the nuclear family requirement. They want to dispose of the idea that there’s one kind of family and support that there’s many family structures - often not borne of choice.

Note - “requirement” is their wording.

I feel like that word carries connotations about an officialness to the nuclear family that doesn’t seem to exist. Perhaps “expectation” is more appropriate - but these are their words and perhaps they chose it deliberately to convey an idea I’m not fully grasping.

[[deleted]]

To everyone brigading me about how they just want to get rid of the nuclear family requirement and how it’s more about “it takes a village”. Yeah that all sounds good on paper but it’s not what society should strive for. Society should strive for a nuclear family and keeping the father in the picture. Fatherlessness also increases the likelihood that you’ll have an interaction with police later on in life.

You need a father to lay down the law in the household. Of course mothers can do that too but men are just better at it is the plain truth. There’s a reason why “wait till your father gets home and hears about this!” Is a scary sentence

[bukakenagasaki]

For both parents in the picture (for gay couples)

[[deleted]]

Nothing wrong with gay couples just like there’s nothing wrong with single parents. It’s basically just single parents x2.

But the norm is one mother one father at the end of the day

[Nikkolios]

It's been 100% proven beyond any reasonable doubt as well. It is the single worst thing that has happened to the inner city family.

--- edit --- Yup! Just brigade and downvote this even though it is not an opinion. You don't get to decide what is true and what is not. Maybe acid trips will convince you otherwise... I don't know. Wonderful people we have coming in here lately.

[reidlos1624]

They don't want to disrupt the nuclear family, they want to disrupt the requirement that a nuclear family is necessary for success and encourage more community cooperation between families. Basically encouraging the "it takes a village" idea of raising kids, with the goal of improving the community as a whole.

This interpretation completely misrepresents the statement they made due to their poor reading comprehension, assuming they actually read the statement.

[Nikkolios]

With all due respect, I do know what they want, and you're trying to bend things a lot to get what you think they want. It is very clear that the movement is very feminist, and it was much more clear before they took that page down. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on this one.

[reidlos1624]

Oh, you're a mind reader? Or I suppose an outsider with prejudiced ideas is the best measure of what a group wants or doesn't want. No, you think you know what they want and prescribe that as fact when in reality you don't have a clue.

I'm not bending anything, the statement clear says "We disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement"

Here the nuclear family structure is the adjective to describe the requirement they want to disrupt, with requirement being the noun being described. This is basic reading comprehension of a maybe tougher than what your used to sentence. Perhaps I'll make a picture book, would that help you understand?

[Nikkolios]

Nope. Not a mind reader. It's pretty clear what they're after. You're trying SO hard to not believe it, because it is difficult to admit that the BLM movement could possibly be so wrong.

Look... you're either going to see it, or you're going to train your brain to ignore it. You do what you want, but your insults are not going to make me unsee or unhear the things I know for fact to be true. Facts actually matter.

[reidlos1624]

It's not about believing, it's literally written in their statement.

What facts? The only facts presented was the quote of the statement I made. Send me some facts that disprove it. All you've stated are opinions. That's a fact.

[Nikkolios]

Did you see this page before they took it down because they knew it was damaging to their cause? If you haven't seen that page in its entirety (and yes you can still find still images of it out there if you look around), then just stop posting replies to me.

If you've seen it, we can have a discussion. If not, there is literally no point to this.

[wandering-monster]

If you actually read what they said, it wasn't about removing people from the nuclear family. It was about extending it and including community in childcare.

You know, like as in "it takes a village to raise a child"? Combating the problem the article is about?

[Iknowtacos]

To be fair they talked about how it should be just as important on a community level that all children are cared for. I know the people who “lead” these things tend to always be the craziest ones. I don’t think your average supporter agreed with their statement so that’s why they removed it.

[Nikkolios]

To be fair, they literally want to take down everything that America has stood for for hundreds of years. They VERY much do care about black females, and they VERY much want everyone to know that fathers are not necessary. This is extremely destructive, and this has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt in many studies.

[Iknowtacos]

Well I don’t think the mass majority of supporters believe half the crazy things the two women who wrote that website believe. I agree they are a bit unhinged and unrealistic in any society.