What does this sentence mean to you?

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I think McLoofus's point about "requirement" being key is good.

That said, there are many ways of expressing their aims that I think could be worded better.  That's not to say that wording is the only issue - some of their aims I don't agree with no matter what.  But some of them aren't bad but they cause unnecessary confusion.  

Where is there a "requirement" for a Western-prescribed nuclear family??? I am not familiar with any such requirement.

[homersapien 11,370]

19 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Where is there a "requirement" for a Western-prescribed nuclear family??? I am not familiar with any such requirement.

It's "rhetoric" Grumps.

They are referring to a widely accepted social convention in which the nuclear family is considered to be the best structure - or at least the ideal structure.

Here's a good discussion on it:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuclear-family-was-a-mistake/605536/

[Grumps 3,704]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's "rhetoric" Grumps.

So part of the purpose of BLM is to disrupt something rhetorical?

I hope that the removal of the statement from the BLM website is a sign that the BLM.com organization is going to try to align with the BLM movement and try to help create equality and equal opportunity for blacks and for all races.

[homersapien 11,370]

8 minutes ago, Grumps said:

So part of the purpose of BLM is to disrupt something rhetorical?

I hope that the removal of the statement from the BLM website is a sign that the BLM.com organization is going to try to align with the BLM movement and try to help create equality and equal opportunity for blacks and for all races.

No, they are simply challenging that social convention.  (See my edited response above.)

You are being unnecessarily pedantic.  There is nothing inherently wrong with the statement.

But as far as I am concerned, the BLM organization can just disappear altogether.  They have done little other than serve as a whipping boy for people - such as yourself - who look to criticize the BLM movement.

 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are being unnecessarily pedantic. 

Once again, I'm left wondering if it's an act or if it's genuine. And neither answer is a good one. 

Probably due for some more confusion, feigned or otherwise, about "Antifa". 

[TitanTiger 20,479]

40 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Where is there a "requirement" for a Western-prescribed nuclear family??? I am not familiar with any such requirement.

Again, I think the wording is poor.  I think "norm" or "expectation" or something else would have been better. 

[Grumps 3,704]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, they are simply challenging that social convention.  (See my edited response above.)

You are being unnecessarily pedantic.  There is nothing inherently wrong with the statement.

But as far as I am concerned, the BLM organization can just disappear altogether.  They have done little other than serve as a whipping boy for people - such as yourself - who look to criticize the BLM movement.

 

 

I don't see how I am being unnecessarily pendantic if there are many people who might support the BLM movement refrain from doing so because they don't want to be associated with the BLM organization? Are all of those people are also unnecessarily pedantic?

I completely agree with you about the organization.

Do you have any evidence of my looking to criticize the BLM movement? I'd love to see it. I sure hate it that your feelings about me cause you to make baseless comments about my behavior.

[Grumps 3,704]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Again, I think the wording is poor.  I think "norm" or "expectation" or something else would have been better. 

 

26 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I hope that the removal of the statement from the BLM website is a sign that the BLM.com organization is going to try to align with the BLM movement and try to help create equality and equal opportunity for blacks and for all races.

 

[homersapien 11,370]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

I don't see how I am being unnecessarily pendantic if there are many people who might support the BLM movement refrain from doing so because they don't want to be associated with the BLM organization? Are all of those people are also unnecessarily pedantic?

 

I was referring to you trying to make so much out of their terminology, for example:

"Where is there a "requirement" for a Western-prescribed nuclear family??? I am not familiar with any such requirement."

It's obvious the word "requirement" in this context refers to the established (widely accepted)  social convention.  Yet you choose to take it out of context and use a literal - instead of rhetorical meaning.

That's pedantic.

[homersapien 11,370]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Again, I think the wording is poor.  I think "norm" or "expectation" or something else would have been better. 

"Requirement" is a lot edgier, which is undoubtedly why they used it.  It was a self-indulgent failure of messaging.  

That's why the "organization" needs to disappear.  The BLM movement doesn't need formalized messaging, especially when it strays from the primary message.

[Grumps 3,704]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I was referring to you trying to make so much out of their terminology, for example:

"Where is there a "requirement" for a Western-prescribed nuclear family??? I am not familiar with any such requirement."

It's obvious the word "requirement" in this context refers to the established (widely accepted)  social convention.  Yet you choose to take it out of context and use a literal - instead of rhetorical meaning.

That's pedantic.

Fair enough. We agree that I am pedantic and that there is no such requirement.

More importantly, wouldn't it be great for the BLM organization to support the BLM movement? I absolutely support the BLM movement! I don't care about the BLM.com organization one bit except that it inadvertently results in people choosing not to support the BLM movement because they don't want to be associated with the BLM organization.

[homersapien 11,370]

3 hours ago, Grumps said:

Fair enough. We agree that I am pedantic and that there is no such requirement.

 

Yes, we all agree there is no literal requirement for all families to mirror the "nuclear family". 

We could have saved a lot of time and effort had we just started there by recognizing it was a rhetorical device and ignored the nonsensical interpretation. But, nooooooo.....  

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yes, we all agree there is no literal requirement for all families to mirror the "nuclear family". 

We could have saved a lot of time and effort had we just started there recognizing it was a rhetorical device and ignored the nonsensical interpretation. But, nooooooo.....  

Now what was it BLM said about disrupting the nuclear family???? I'm not the one who made an issue out of the nonsensical "requirement," remember?

[SocialCircle 570]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Requirement" is a lot edgier, which is undoubtedly why they used it.  It was a self-indulgent failure of messaging.  

That's why the "organization" needs to disappear.  The BLM movement doesn't need formalized messaging, especially when it strays from the primary message.

An organization is needed in order to receive the money coming in isn't it?   

[homersapien 11,370]

11 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Now what was it BLM said about disrupting the nuclear family???? I'm not the one who made an issue out of the nonsensical "requirement," remember?

No actually, you are.  But I have no interest in a repeat.

[homersapien 11,370]

7 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

An organization is needed in order to receive the money coming in isn't it?   

Not necessarily.  You can send me money and - God knows - I am not that organized.