UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

I think everybody would like more kids to be raised in 2-parent households.

What type of policy do you think would foster that?

The destruction of the nuclear family began decades before that ramped up.

As to what we should do? Short answer: I think we need to repeal the parts of the social system which provide counter-incentives to marriage. In seeking to help, we have done harm.

As in nonsensical.

(no message)

(no message)

Remember, reproductive choices start at conception.

You say the destruction of the nuclear family happened decades before the war on drugs?

Decades before was the 60s when 95% of kids were born into 2-person families.

and tapered off in the 90's, perhaps because of the War on Drugs??? ;-) I think it is because there are some people that are more resistant to cultural corruption, and the limit was reached.

I think LBJ and the unnecessary War on Poverty (and consequent increase in non-marital aid) started the destruction of the family unit. Whatever led to it, it wasn't the War on Drugs or the presence of guns. (I say the "unnecessary War on Poverty" because if you look at the Federal data, poverty was already on a major decline when he started pushing those programs, which were built upon by later presidents. He created a crisis in the mind of the nation that did not exist in real life, so that his party could push a power agenda. (This kind of sounds familiar.) As a result, we started creating a permanently oppressed class, and lessened economic/financial mobility...all while racism was on a serious decline.)

Of course you'd make up such an excuse. And an idiotic one, at that.

The question wasn't 2-parent households, it was the out-of-wedlock births in the first place, which is of course wildly out of control. And as for your attempt to be an apologist for the lack of 2-parent households (blaming some imaginary evil white-caused phenomenon), the degree to which many of these fathers are imprisoned is far more closely related to the disproportionate violent crime rate, which -- sorry to say -- is not tied to your liberal talking points.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

BLM is more concerned with transgender equality than they are with black lives lost in Chicago. They have a lot of concerns they want to address before they even begin to start worrying about the biggest killer of blacks.

I tried to go there now, but it appears to be down.

From secondary sources: "We [BLM] are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure..."

I found this image supposedly taken from their site. Note the "queer affirming" talk immediately after the opposition to the nuclear family structure. They want to free themselves from "the tight grip of heteronormative thinking." Like I said, they have a bigger list of things they are concerned about than most on the Left know (because the MSM won't report about it).

(no message)

Here's the full text: "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."

No where does it say they oppose the 2-parent household.

I think you guys that are so concerned about black families all of a sudden should start your own inner city movement promoting 2-parent households. Seems like there might be a good opportunity there.

Don't imply I was trying to hide something from you.

That's not the only place where they discuss that. They say it in different ways, and sometimes they are better at putting it in a sentence to make it sound less harmful, but that doesn't change the fact that they oppose the traditional family.

Maybe when their website is up, you can take a look, although I admit that they have changed it recently. A few years ago, they were very against the family. They are also anti-science, supporting the new anti-science transgender narrative. They have watered down their website a bit in 2020. Perhaps they noticed that their opposition was pointing out their crazier shit, and they decided to roll back the rhetoric a bit. I suppose that is a good thing.

That's also where I found the whole text.

If so, you are wrong.

When most Americans think of "fascism," they think of Mussolini. The dictionary.com definition of fascism is this: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

Antifa doesn't actually oppose that, as long as they are in charge.

Read up on antifa (antifaschistische aktion). They have been around for 100 years. If you only just heard of them in the past few years, I can understand why you might think they oppose fascism. They actually oppose capitalism. They believe an unhealthy dictatorship is the natural result of mature capitalism, so they oppose capitalism. They seek to impose a benevolent authority along the lines of communism.

Antifa does not oppose "fascism" as you or I were taught about it in school. You need to read these websites with their meanings in mind, not your own. Otherwise, you will miss what they are actually saying. They have their own language of sorts...all specialists do in their area of specialty.

I realize German antifa has communist origins. But that group has no organizational connection to the current American antifa movement, which didn't begin until 2016 when Trump was elected.

The precursor to American Antifa is the Anti-racist Action groups of the 80s (see link).

Modern Antifa (which is not an official organization) is anti-racist and anti-Nazi. That's what they believe. They may have borrowed the name from the pre-WW2 German antifa, but that's about all they have in common (other than both groups violently oppose Nazis).


Link: Antifa (United States)

Again, don't try to imply that I'm doing something sneaky when I'm trying to do it out in the open. The "I'm curious..." was meant to hint to you that I was changing the subject in a small way. We are still discussing how you are misreading these organizations belief statements, though.

I think you are wrong. I think they want you to believe that so that you don't oppose them. Why do they use the same name, the same imagery and logos, and the same slogans? You would have me beileve they say the same things, but they mean something different. That is odd.

The original Antifa used the term fascism to refer to the final stage of capitalism rather than as a specific movement or group. The used the term to refer to their mainstream (non-fascist) opposition. That is what Antifa is doing now. Otherwise, their actions make no sense.

You would have us believe they oppose the modern sense of fascism, when in their actions, they tell you that is not true.

Indeed, modern fascism involves the forcible suppression of opposition and criticism. That is what they practice, not what they oppose. Can you at least agree with that?

I don't know what any of those individuals believe or don't believe. Unlike BLM, there is no organizational structure or group of agreed upon ideas. My guess is there is wide range of beliefs of people who identify as Antifa.

It seems there has been at least one college professor who has researched them throroughly and he refers to the ARA groups of the 80s as the pre-cursor to the American version of Antifa, not the 1920s German communists that you think they represent. My guess is you've done more research on the 1920s German communists than any 99% of the members Antifa in 2020. That said, I'm sure there are some communists in their ranks. My guess is most are anarchists based on their behavior.

That is not surprising at all. But, you and I are capable of looking fruther.

Why do you think Antifa (those in the know about their organization's purpose) would choose the name of a communist organization, choose to use its slogans and imagery (e.g., the two flags, the raised fist symbol, both symbols of Antifaschistische Aktion, the German communist movement)?...because they oppose the things that the original Antifaschistische Aktion organization supported?

You can't seriously argue that.

If you use my/their definitions, their actions make sense.

If you use your/modern definitions, then their actions make no sense at all, because you are left with people running around the streets acting in accordance with the modern definition of fascism, while claiming to oppose it.

Antifa really does believe Freedom (Capitalism) is Slavery (Fascism), and the Ignorance of the modern US voter on this point is their Strength, because they can continue to grow without people even knowing that they oppose their views.

Only 25% of black families do have the father present, so you can see where they might think that.

Except, we see what has happened to that culture. The family unit allowed them to be strong in the face of racism. Since the 1960's, racism has decreased to the lowest levels of all time in this country, but urban blacks have not improved their situation, but in fact their situation has gotten worse, mostly because of the destruction of their formerly successful family unit. Not having the father present, and relying on the community, is not a viable option. I assume you agree with me, which is why you are defending BLM by arguing that they don't believe that.

The war on drugs and 90s tough on crime laws didn't reduce drug use or crime, but they did basically rob an entire generation of their dads. Don't believe me? Here's a link from the libertarian Cato Institute.

...and lack of gun control has resulted in a lot of black men gunned down in the streets.

I agree the 2 parent household is better. I see the Right trying to shame the black community on this topic, but offer no policy or plan on how to accomplish it. In fact, all efforts to reform drug laws are coming from the Left.


Link: HowtheWaronDrugsIs DestroyingBlackAmerica

What you call shaming is just straight talk. There is no shaming. How can you fix a problem, if you don't recognize that it is a problem.

I'm willing to have a discussion about criminal justice reform, and the drug war. For the record, I was for legalizing drugs in the 1990's. There are two legitimate sides to that issue, though. And, the breakdown of the nuclear family began long before the war on drugs.

Guns didn't cause the problems of our society. They are just as prevalent, and perhaps more so in suburbia and rural areas, but fewer people are killed there. We have a sub-culture problem, not a gun problem.

Would society be better without guns? Maybe. Maybe not. The gun is the great equalizer. It is what allows the female and the elderly and the weak to defend themselves against the strong and evil. Without guns, they would be 100% at the mercy of the strong and evil. But, it is an academic argument. Gun control cannot, and will not ever happen in the United States. You can try, but it will fail like it has failed in Chicago. If you try too hard, it will only result in the downfall of the Republic. We just need to figure out how to make policy that deals with that reality.

(no message)

Dumb ass who will try and argue with you.

(no message)

which is always

Then he just ridicules people who do know things.

He goes with "his truth" over facts.

breakdown in the family is a huge issue for America.

They were around 6% before the War on Poverty began, so it is not a race thing, but a culture thing. I suspect suburban blacks have a much lower percentage of out of wedlock births.

(no message)

The problem is only a problem if we let the Dems control the process so that blacks move to the suburbs in a way that allows the Democrats to extend the government plantation from urban areas to suburban areas...that is the problem.

There is cheap housing in the suburbs already. Anyone who has the foresight and the moral drive to do what is necessary for their kids is welcome. More would do it if the atomic family hadn't been destroyed by the Dems.

To preserve their political power, the Dems need to keep these families on the dole. The dole must be low enough to keep their need for the Dems high, but it has to be just high enough to disincentivize work to keep their need for the Dems high. And, the dole must be structured to disincentivize getting married, to keep their need for the Dems high. The Dems don't like blacks moving out on their own, being independent. But, if they can move them out into government controlled housing?...then the Dems are on board. Otherwise, if the Dems aren't careful, blacks might become successful, and not need to vote for Dems out of fear.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)