Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Encountering Thomas Sowell

lawliberty.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 272 posts

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#91

Post by ceilingcorner »

glasss wrote: post #82
ceilingcorner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

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 st…

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.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#92

Post by chmod600 »

glasss wrote: post #30
f154hfds wrote: post #2

> Many people wondered last summer why, for example, on the Black Lives Matter website the organization declared (and has since deleted) a “disruptive” stance on the nuclear family. What did that have to do with mobilizing against police violence? For a long time I was very sympathetic to BLM, I would even have considered protesting with them. It was the above that caused me to rethink my position and eventually deci…

I do hope everyone would be at least sympathetic towards other human beings wanting justice and equal treatment. I would be wary about that website and I would take whatever you see about a central organization relating to BLM with a grain of salt. I've been involved in local protests and other events in Chicago and I've never once been directed to or heard of a centralized website. I hope you reconsider your stance…

Xkcd.com has a perpetual image link to that website (very prime ad space, given for free) with the text "how to help".

It's not an obscure site and lots of people equate the site with the movement.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#93

Post by ceilingcorner »

wavefunction wrote: post #87
ceilingcorner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

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.

> 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.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#94

Post by ceilingcorner »

throwaway6734 wrote: post #78
ceilingcorner wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem that extreme to me. Even saying that divorce should be avoided at all costs and a two parent household is vastly superior to a single parent one is enough to get labeled as a conservative by many.

Definitely not by the average American. Twitter and San Fran/Portland are a small minority of the US.

College students too, unfortunately.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#95

Post by calvinmorrison »

zpeti wrote: post #86
genghisjahn wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the language from the BLM site regarding disrupting the nuclear family. I'm very pro nuclear family. This didn't seem bad to me. -------------------------- 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 justic…

A dig at fathers in the first paragraph, and a diplomatically stated rejection of the nuclear family in the second. You need to be very generous to interpret this as anything other than an attack on the traditional family.

And across all the KPI's we know of - kids in a two parent household are more successful by every measure.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#96

Post by wetmore »

zpeti wrote: post #86
genghisjahn wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the language from the BLM site regarding disrupting the nuclear family. I'm very pro nuclear family. This didn't seem bad to me. -------------------------- 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 justic…

A dig at fathers in the first paragraph, and a diplomatically stated rejection of the nuclear family in the second. You need to be very generous to interpret this as anything other than an attack on the traditional family.

Yes, if the traditional family implies that the bulk of child rearing falls on mothers and there is little help from the community in that respect.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#97

Post by jimbokun »

genghisjahn wrote: post #77
f154hfds wrote: post #2

> Many people wondered last summer why, for example, on the Black Lives Matter website the organization declared (and has since deleted) a “disruptive” stance on the nuclear family. What did that have to do with mobilizing against police violence? For a long time I was very sympathetic to BLM, I would even have considered protesting with them. It was the above that caused me to rethink my position and eventually deci…

This is the language from the BLM site regarding disrupting the nuclear family. I'm very pro nuclear family. This didn't seem bad to me. -------------------------- 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 justic…

Those paragraphs go through great contortions to avoid using the word "father".

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#98

Post by collyw »

f154hfds wrote: post #2

> Many people wondered last summer why, for example, on the Black Lives Matter website the organization declared (and has since deleted) a “disruptive” stance on the nuclear family. What did that have to do with mobilizing against police violence? For a long time I was very sympathetic to BLM, I would even have considered protesting with them. It was the above that caused me to rethink my position and eventually deci…

Can anyone point me to where the millions raised by BLM after the summer riots has gone?

BLM seem to cause a lot of agitation, but I am not aware of them doing anything helpful to the communities that it claims to be fighting for.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#99

Post by devtul »

anoonmoose wrote: post #68
monoideism wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why was this published in Law & Liberty, has he burned his left-of-center media bridges? No, left-of-center media is under the throes of the cultural far left, and they "de-platform" anyone who doesn't adhere to their ideology. So conservative media, along with non-traditional dissident media like Quillette, are often the only place dissident liberals like TCW can be published.

more like non-traditional dissident phrenologists

No matter how polite and sophisticated the criticism is, ideologues will always finds epithets and labels to try and delegitimize critics.

Re: Encountering Thomas Sowell

#100

Post by ceilingcorner »

brodouevencode wrote: post #72
f154hfds wrote: post #2

> Many people wondered last summer why, for example, on the Black Lives Matter website the organization declared (and has since deleted) a “disruptive” stance on the nuclear family. What did that have to do with mobilizing against police violence? For a long time I was very sympathetic to BLM, I would even have considered protesting with them. It was the above that caused me to rethink my position and eventually deci…

There's the notion of BLM, of which only sociopaths would disagree, then there's BLM the organization which is exactly how you described it. The naming of this organization was actually a stroke of genius. Only the crazy edge cases would refute it's name but served as a Trojan horse for an ideology that is inherently un-American. If you disagree with them the immediate reaction has been "you don't think black lives m…

Just an inheritance from the term progressive.

"I disagree with you."

"What, you're against progress?"

Post reply on HN