The nuclear family was a reaction to a requirement for mobility following the industrial revolution.
Prior to that families were what we would call extended, including grandparents and near relatives in a more or less settled household. The move to a smaller family unit left the elderly to care for themselves, resulting in the aged care industry we see today. — Banno

I've recently learned what a horrifying chapter in history this is for the elderly. Fortunately, there are efforts to return the elderly to a 'settled household' lifestyle, though they may not gain widespread adoption any time soon.

I never used the "all lives matter" line of argumentation... maybe quote me where I said it before applying the position to me?

Household Size and Composition Around the World 2017

It's just data. Don't be afraid.

Er, yeah, nvm about that, what I meant was that BLM is focusing on state-related offences, you made no mention of any "all lives matter" and idk what made me think you did. Crime is obviously a problem but it doesn't need to be the only problem that gets addressed... why frame it like we need to pick one or the other?

What I don’t agree with is to do so to disrupt the “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement”. — NOS4A2

Can you explain how they can possibly implement the extended family model while obeying the nuclear family structure requirement? Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself, twice in this case.

nuclear family structure requirement — Kenosha Kid

There is no nuclear family structure requirement. This whole thing is bullshit.

Of course there is. Most Western societies think parents (man wife), married, 2 kids, a car, a house and a pet. Grandparents away or in retirement homes. The rest of the family is visited. That's become the ideal and it's a historical anamoly.

Grandparents live in your house? What's wrong with you? Two men raising a kid? What's wrong with you? Living in the same home as your niece? What's wrong with you?

It sounds more like societal norms than an actual requirement. I have nothing against BLM talking about nuclear families, but to say that nuclear families are a requirement in black communities seems like a stretch. Is the government imposing regulations that have an impact on the family structure?

It's actually related to Marxism. :smirk:

In The Communist Manifesto of 1848, Karl Marx describes how the bourgeois or monogamous two-parent family has as its foundation capital and private gain.[24] Marx also pointed out that this family existed only in its full form among the bourgeoisie or upper classes, and was nearly absent among the exploited proletariat or working class.[24] He felt that the vanishment of capital would also result in the vanishment of the monogamous marriage, and the exploitation of the working class.[24] He explains how family ties among the proletarians are divided by the capitalist system, and their children are used simply as instruments of labour.[24] This is partly due to child labour laws being less strict at the time in Western society.[24] In Marx's view, the bourgeois husband sees his wife as an instrument of labour, and therefore to be exploited, as instruments of production (or labour) exist under capitalism for this purpose.[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familialism#Criticism_of_Western_familism

There used to be something called the ‘man in the house rule’. Not sure if that impacted family norms beyond its termination.

I wouldn't think it's super bizarre. In fact, the Netherlands has (or had) a group solely focused on rape of men by women because it's totally unrepresented and not taken seriously. — Benkei

The reason here is important. The devil is in the details. If you were to come up to me and be like "hey, you want to take part in this protest against women raping men due to how underrepresented this is in society I would say sure.

Contrast this with me coming up to you and being like "Hey Benkei, I'd like you to join the Men's Bodies Matter movement! Don't you believe that men's bodies matter? You do? Great! So, when it comes to protecting men's bodies our struggle is concerned solely with the epidemic of women on man sexual violence! Trust me, we're huge advocates for men here and it's important that we succeed with our mission!"

And if you were to bring up the (entirely reasonable) objection "well what about male on male aggression which claims many more victims?" I would just tell you to go away because that's not our cause. It's all about how the issue is framed.

It's interesting and I'm still trying to clarify my thoughts on this issue, but I think we'd both agree that just because a problem exists does not mean we need to form a movement explicitly concerned with its resolution. For instance, while black on white homicide is a problem (because all homicide is a problem) a movement to address this problem really doesn't do a lot of good. It's like of all the problems... why choose that one? Is this really a fair representation of the bigger issue (and it's not because something like 85% of homicides towards whites are committed by other whites.)

Er, yeah, nvm about that, what I meant was that BLM is focusing on state-related offences, you made no mention of any "all lives matter" and idk what made me think you did. Crime is obviously a problem but it doesn't need to be the only problem that gets addressed... why frame it like we need to pick one or the other? — Judaka

BLM doesn't even address crime right now. It is focused only on certain forms of violence towards black folks - namely, state violence and vigilante groups. If you read the BLM "what we believe" statement there are 0 mentions of crime or gang violence which claim far more black lives than cops or George Zimmerman or the KKK.

BLM doesn't even address crime right now. It is focused only on certain forms of violence towards black folks - namely, state violence and vigilante groups. If you read the BLM "what we believe" statement there are 0 mentions of crime or gang violence which claim far more black lives than cops or George Zimmerman or the KKK. — BitconnectCarlos

So your view is: if there exists a bigger problem than X, we should not expect or campaign for justice with regards to X. Is that accurate?

No, it's not. A part of the problem is just the name: Black Lives Matter. If you want to call it blacks against state violence that's fine, but there's a disconnect with the name BLM when you have many black victims being ignored and others deified.

If the state has an active role in discriminating against blacks then it's a race issue. I'd argue that "black on black crime" is an unhelpful framing. It's just crime and of course, nobody likes crime but it's not a race issue.

BLM don't need to address every issue for black Americans under the sun. It's fine for them to stand for a particular issue with whatever strong slogan they want and there's no problem. This criticism is just superficial, of course, the majority that supports BLM is going to be against crime that hurt people (and black people) but they're separate issues.

No, it's not. A part of the problem is just the name: Black Lives Matter. If you want to call it blacks against state violence that's fine, but there's a disconnect with the name BLM when you have many black victims being ignored and others deified. — BitconnectCarlos

But there isn't a disconnect, is there? The name is perfectly in keeping with the aims of the movement, given that the tolerance of murder of black people by racists is a testimony that black lives don't actually matter compared to whites. If the group was called Stop All Crime Immediately and refused to address black gang culture, that would be a disconnect.

Which just returns us to the idea that a campaign can not be specific and therefore effective: it has to be exhaustive, and therefore inactionable, if it is to be anything. I just wonder how many of your rights you'd happily cede on the basis that your gaining them did not solve the biggest problems facing your people at the time. Would you, for instance, cede habeus corpus until all crime ceases, on the grounds that it protects you only from wrongful arrest while real crime is happening all around you?

This is why the change of subject is so racist: you lay the responsibility of black gang culture on a group of people legitimately campaigning against a very real threat from their own law enforcers on the basis of what? They have the same skin colour as the black gangs. If you were consistent in this and laid responsibility for any white crime on every white campaigner against a different injustice, fair enough. It would be illogical but fair.

I support the basic aims of BLM: Police reforms and ending unjust state violence (obviously towards everyone would be ideal, but if we just want to focus on black people that's fine too.) That could be the end of the discussion; there ya go, I support BLM.

If we start prodding a little further we're now in an environment where everyone can name many black victims of police violence and essentially no white victims of police violence. The movement describes its nature/outlook as "unapologetically black" so where do non-blacks even fit in in the movement? It just seems strange to me that some black victims get basically deified while others are simply ignored from an organization which is fundamentally about black unity & black communities. Additionally, on the BLM website if you look at the aims of the movement ("What we believe") section I do think there's Marxist undertones (the co-founder admits to Marxism.)

So it's like whatever. Does everyone support the basic premises? Yes, because they're obvious beyond obvious. It's only when you start digging a little deeper...

But there isn't a disconnect, is there? The name is perfectly in keeping with the aims of the movement, given that the tolerance of murder of black people by racists is a testimony that black lives don't actually matter compared to whites. — Kenosha Kid

If someone actually cared about protecting black lives they'd take 2 seconds to look at the numbers and see that if we're talking about violence many, many times more black men are killed by other black men than are killed by whites - even racist whites.

Of course we can campaign against those racist, evil whites - it's fine! No one should support Derek Chauvin. My concern comes when out of this campaigning emerges a certain unbalanced worldview that implies that white people are the biggest threat to black men and that the way to solve this is more black nationalism.

Which just returns us to the idea that a campaign can not be specific and therefore effective: — Kenosha Kid

I never really faulted BLM for this. I believe if you look on their website or atleast somewhere floating around on the internet is a list of goals for BLM. I find the movement in its most basic form to be actually really good and easy to support.

This is why the change of subject is so racist: you lay the responsibility of black gang culture on a group of people legitimately campaigning against a very real threat from their own law enforcers on the basis of what? — Kenosha Kid

I never mentioned "who is to blame" for black gangs. I'm solely concerned here with what is actually killing black men if we're talking about violence. I'm just looking at the numbers; it's not hard to see.

I don't like BLM to be clear, they engage in racial histories, identity politics, they want to institute laws with race-specific language, I don't agree with many of their proposals, depending on who you think represents BLM things get even worse. Violence, vandalism, racism can all be tied to the movement.

Police reform does need to go beyond racism, the war on drugs hurts people of all races, the practices which constitute police brutality and the culture which excuses it hurts all people.

There's certainly room for less racially charged fixes to problems that irrefutably affect all races, I would prefer that in some cases. However, there is a very strong case for how US law enforcement is not treating the races the same. The statistics, experiences and history paint a clear picture, the reason that some of these cases blow up isn't just because they're horrific but because they become symbolic.

I think it goes without saying that if a movement is trying to end police brutality against blacks, that they're going to push for changes which end police brutality against all races. I think you more or less agree with most of this.

It just seems you're stuck on a literal interpretation of "black lives matter" whereas I see it as a reprimand of the government which acts like they don't. If you have sources which suggest that they're literally concerned with saving as many black people as possible then show but it sounds ridiculous.

Can you explain how they can possibly implement the extended family model while obeying the nuclear family structure requirement? Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself, twice in this case.

There is nothing to obey. There is no requirement. They can live and gather as they wish in an open society. And they can do so without disrupting anything.

My concern comes when out of this campaigning emerges a certain unbalanced worldview that implies that white people are the biggest threat to black men and that the way to solve this is more black nationalism. — BitconnectCarlos

I think BLM thinks of itself as international, not nationalistic. Any campaign against a specific thing is going to be, by your definition, unbalanced. No campaign can be expected to be exhaustive. Racist violent crime by white people is an existential problem for black Americans. The ghettoisation of black people that underlies black gang culture is another existential problem with similar reasons of structural racism, e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12111-012-9212-7

I never mentioned "who is to blame" for black gangs. I'm solely concerned here with what is actually killing black men if we're talking about violence. I'm just looking at the numbers; it's not hard to see. — BitconnectCarlos

Right, so you want them to prioritise sorting out black-on-black violent crime before anyone does anything to stop white police officers murdering black men, I get it. But of course they have no recourse to functioning law enforcement which is part of the reason crime is so rife, so Catch-22.

There is nothing to obey. There is no requirement. They can live and gather as they wish in an open society. And they can do so without disrupting anything. — NOS4A2

Okay, so just to be clear then. Your anti-black-lives-matter position is that you are troubled by the support networks you say they are not putting in place to disrupt a nuclear social requirement you say doesn't exist. :up:

:rofl:

Okay, so just to be clear then. Your anti-black-lives-matter position is that you are troubled by the support networks you say they are not putting in place to disrupt a nuclear social requirement you say doesn't exist. :up:

Just to be clear, your only arguments are straw men. Is that because you think you’re clever, or because you have no other argument?

Just to be clear, your only arguments are straw men. Is that because you think you’re clever, or because you have no other argument? — NOS4A2

That was all faithful to your responses. That your argument lacks any degree of coherence, only you are to blame.

That was all faithful to your responses. That your argument lacks any degree of coherence, only you are to blame.

That’s nonsense, but it appears nonsense is the going rate here.

#blm

You've just met the most unreflexive guy on the forum. Was it fun?

He'll also defend Trump forever and is a "I don't see no colour" contributor to systemic racism. Not much there worthy of respect other than him having a pulse.

You've just met the most unreflexive guy on the forum. Was it fun? — Benkei

Purely educational, honest! :joke:

I want to apologize for the late response as I'm recently recovering from contracting Covid-19

the obvious and necessary qualifier "also" from their anti-racist cri du coeur which should have been, more aptly, BLACK LIVES ALSO MATTER. — 180 Proof

I could understand that. However I think there was the emphasis or implied emphasis of the phrase, I suppose.

Like after "9-11", the oft-repeated question (vis-à-vis jihadi terrorists) that made the rounds with media pundits & talking heads: "Why Do They Hate Us?" Or how the Black Panthers were/are officially designated "a terrorist organization" and yet the KKK still are not. 'White Supremacy' is manifestly tolerated by many (most?) whites because it doesn't threaten them - white people as such - or the caste-priviledges of Whiteness in America (& Europe); it's the defeated (treasonous, pro-slavery) Confederate Flags, Statues, Monuments & Generals' Names everywhere to honor a dishonorable "heritage" and "lost cause" in order to prop-up bloated White Priviledge grown so cripplingly obese from centuries of cannibalizing Black Brown Yellow & Red bodies that Whiteness now can barely stand or trundle or even wipe itself (e.g. MAGA tRumpers, dog-whistle (dixiecrat) Reagan Republicans, boll weevil/blue dog Democrats). The plea "Stop killing us" threatens their ancestral prerogatives to do just that with impunity and without troubling their KKKhristian consciences. — 180 Proof

Very well said.....

Lastly though (just riffin' here mind you), perhaps more fundamentally, many white people (seem to me/us to) feel threatened merely by discussing "racism" because they do not believe the survivors of white terror and their continually brutalized descendents only want "Social Justice" and "Equality", but, what we're really after instead, I believe whites believe, is revenge. — 180 Proof

That is the perception however, from OUR (people of color's perspective) such a notion of revenge masqueraded as "equality" is only the result of the residual effects of white privilege. But I invite you to the following video (please skip all the way to 29:30):