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.

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.

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.

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.

Overall you seem to be saying you don't know anything about the actual organization or people at the helm of BLM, or what they've done with the money they've collected, but you hope it's all good.

I guess I agree with all of that, but I don't feel like it's a strong argument.

I agree "I don't know what this organization is doing with their money" is not a strong argument, but I think just asking what a non profit is doing with it's money is also not a very compelling argument. I don't know much about this organization, but I know a fair amount about the BLM movement, and the local organizers or groups I've interacted with which I've made clear is where my argument is coming from.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone who protested over the summer that has had any contact with or knows anything about or even donated money to the BLM non-profit or even cares what they have on their website. It's a catchy phrase that captures the essence of what many people were protesting and not much more. Personally, I gave money to the naacp.

I'm tempted to agree with you because the BLM non-profit seems to be an extremist political organization, and most people are not extremists. On the other hand, that does not explain why so many of those selfsame people become very defensive when you criticize the BLM non-profit organization.