Thomas Sowell quote

[z_ape]

The moment some dude like this paints broad brushes of "the left" or "the right" I immediately call bullshit.

He's choosing to simplify when suitable, get specific when suitable, and not to find real truth, but rather to promote his truth.

Oh, sure, he's still a conservative picking on liberals. Yeah, stuff like that, I suppose, I just read past anymore sense almost every bit of socio-political commentary comes to us from some dippy partisan context.

So most of the time I'm just picking out the interesting bits and ignoring the junk or the arguers framing of the topic.

 

[pablow]

Then why say disrupt?

In lib-land "disrupt" doesn't mean disrupt. Can't you follow along?

 

[seminole97]

Co-parenting in the same house isn’t “shacking up”. Sowell once again looks for any anecdotal evidence to support his hypothesis rather than letting good evidence shape his conclusion.

My wife, an LCSW that specializes in reactive attachment disorder, with a primarily black caseload, doesn’t share your opinion regarding married families and those who prefer to shack up. The stability is not the same.
She’s only personally witnessed the difference in a few hundred families in the last 10 years, but I’m taking her word over yours at this stage.

 

[William Bonney]

My wife, an LCSW that specializes in reactive attachment disorder, with a primarily black caseload, doesn’t share your opinion regarding married families and those who prefer to shack up. The stability is not the same.
She’s only personally witnessed the difference in a few hundred families in the last 10 years, but I’m taking her word over yours at this stage.

They live in a world of the theoretical and speak on it as if it's factual.

 

[RNHawk]

In lib-land "disrupt" doesn't mean disrupt. Can't you follow along?

apparently not

 

[RileyHawk]

Here is the definition of disrupt, which doesn't fly with your explanation. So lets go back to their first sentence. I don't see challenge at all in the definition, all I see is getting rid or destroy or hamper. Why use the word disrupt if that is not what they meant?

We interrupt by causing a disturbance or problem, we drastically destroy the structure of, drerange, turn upside down, make a mess of, disturb, disorder, disorganize, disarrange, interfere with, upset, unsettle, convulse, interrupt, suspend, discontinue, obstruct, impede, hamper, hold up, delay, retard, slow the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disrupt
Definition of disrupt

dis·rupt
/disˈrəpt/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem.
   "a rail strike that could disrupt both passenger and freight service"
   
   Similar:
   throw into confusion
   throw into disorder
   throw into disarray
   cause confusion/turmoil in
   play havoc with
   
   derange
   
   turn upside-down
   make a mess of
   
   disturb
   
   disorder
   
   disorganize
   
   disarrange
   
   interfere with
   upset
   
   unsettle
   
   convulse
   
   interrupt
   
   suspend
   
   discontinue
   
   obstruct
   
   impede
   
   hamper
   
   hold up
   
   delay
   
   retard
   
   slow (down)
   • drastically alter or destroy the structure of (something).

Ummmm.... "interrupt". Not "end". Not "forbid". Not "eliminate".

Interrupt

intransitive verb

: to break in upon an action
especially : to break in with questions or remarks while another is speaking

 

[RNHawk]

Ummmm.... "interrupt". Not "end". Not "forbid". Not "eliminate".

Interrupt

intransitive verb

: to break in upon an action
especially : to break in with questions or remarks while another is speaking

you forgot by causing a disturbance or problem

 

[RileyHawk]

you forgot by causing a disturbance or problem

Didn't forget, that's inconsequential to the discussion at hand. The point is they are not trying to eliminate the 2 parent family as you're trying to suggest. They are calling attention to the many other family structures that can be successful and deserve support.

 

[Rudolph]

In lib-land "disrupt" doesn't mean disrupt. Can't you follow along?

You choose to frame the idea as you choose to frame the idea. There are positive disruptions and there are negative disruptions. It's kind of that simple. Executives come to people like me and ask to have their thinking disrupted. All it takes is exercising your mind away from preconceptions towards how/why others from maybe a different place and circumstance might choose a particular word. Would you like me to send an email to BLM leadership and ask why the usage of the word "disrupt"? Or is this something you are particularly interested in and would like to do it yourself?

As it is, I like seeing how a particular word is employed by folks as an out, as a way of avoiding a thought or idea or concept that might run counter to one's current understanding or position.

It's not like this is a novel concept. Basically "disrupting" in this context is an effort to both destigmatize a particular circumstantial position and then to build from concepts of strength. We do the same shit whether it is with addiction or mental illness or whatever. Removing the stigma is an important step. Hell, think about damn near every blue pill erectile dysfuntion ad. Right away it establishes some statistic that right off the bat lets its target market know that it's okay to have penis malfuntion. Destigmatize the soft dick. We destigmatize opioid addiction (but not crack, interestingly). Whatever the circumstantial malady, an initial step towards addressing the malady is to destigmatize, to disrupt the idea that unless you are perfect, you're ƒucked.

 

[Slim45]

Why cant they just use words that actually mean what they want then? Apparently “defund the police” doesn’t actually mean defund. And apparently “disrupt the western family structure” doesn’t actually mean disrupt. The English language is vast, plenty of words to choose from

 

[RNHawk]

Didn't forget, that's inconsequential to the discussion at hand. The point is they are not trying to eliminate the 2 parent family as you're trying to suggest. They are calling attention to the many other family structures that can be successful and deserve support.

No its not, it is very consequential for this discussion. They chose to use the word disrupt in their mission statement, not challenge, not in addition too, etc. Disrupt was the word they used in their mission statement. So they want to disrupt the requirement of a two parent household. Why can't we as a society strive for a two parent household for a child. There is no evidence that having a two parent household is bad for a kid (and I am not talking about an abusive parent). What there is plenty of is evidence that growing up in a two parent household dramatically improves just about every facet of the child's life. You guys can spin it however you want too, but this is their MISSION STATEMENT, you don't want people to try and misinterpret a mission statement, you say what you mean and mean what you say. This is on BLM not me, if they don't want to have people questioning their MISSION STATEMENT, then do a better job.

 

[pablow]

You choose to frame the idea as you choose to frame the idea. There are positive disruptions and there are negative disruptions. It's kind of that simple. Executives come to people like me and ask to have their thinking disrupted. All it takes is exercising your mind away from preconceptions towards how/why others from maybe a different place and circumstance might choose a particular word. Would you like me to send an email to BLM leadership and as why the usage of the word "disrupt"? Or is this something you are particularly interested in and would like to do it yourself?

As it is, I like seeing how a particular word is employed by folks as an out, as a way of avoiding a thought or idea or concept that might run counter to one's current understanding or position.

It's not like this is a novel concept. Basically "disrupting" in this context is an effort to both destigmatize a particular circumstantial position and then to build from concepts of strength. We do the same shit whether it is with addiction or mental illness or whatever. Removing the stigma is an important step. Hell, think about damn near every blue pill erectile dysfuntion ad. Right away it establishes some statistic that right off the bat lets its target market know that it's okay to have penis malfuntion. Destigmatize the soft dick. We destigmatize opioid addiction (but not crack, interestingly). Whatever the circumstantial malady, an initial step towards addressing the malady is to destigmatize, to disrupt the idea that unless you are perfect, you're ƒucked.

Maybe BLM needs to consult a dictionary and use a word that accurately describes their intent. I know what the word disrupt means. And it doesn't mean destigmatize.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

My wife, an LCSW that specializes in reactive attachment disorder, with a primarily black caseload, doesn’t share your opinion regarding married families and those who prefer to shack up. The stability is not the same.
She’s only personally witnessed the difference in a few hundred families in the last 10 years, but I’m taking her word over yours at this stage.

I just said unmarried co-parenting isn’t “shacking up”. Is your wife as reading challenged as you are?

And I bet there’s a better correlation to poverty and her caseload than race. You sound like Richard Spencer.

 

[tumorboy]

thank you, so do you think it is odd that is in BLM's mission statement? Isn't it counterintuitive for kids especially minorities to not grow up in a 2 parent household

Kids also do better in upper class households. Maybe we should take kids from lower class families and raise them all in upper class households .

 

[William Bonney]

In lib-land "disrupt" doesn't mean disrupt. Can't you follow along?

There ability to shift the meaning of words is quite Orwellian actually. #Newspeak

 

[William Bonney]

Kids also do better in upper class households.

False, these kids end up raging against the machine and tearing down statues.

 

[HawkNester]

I was educating you about them back when you were still Zogby. I'm through trying to convince you of anything.

You trying to “educate” anyone on anything is a hella funny concept.

 

[William Bonney]

You trying to “educate” anyone on anything is a hella funny concept.

Sure thing sweet cheeks.

 

[Rudolph]

Maybe BLM needs to consult a dictionary and use a word that accurately describes their intent. I know what the word disrupt means. And it doesn't mean destigmatize.

2: to interrupt the normal course or unity of

I did not say it actually means destigmatize, but to destigmatize is to, in essence, disrupt the way that we think of something.

Send an email to the BLM leadership.

 

[Rudolph]

Here is the definition of disrupt, which doesn't fly with your explanation. So lets go back to their first sentence. I don't see challenge at all in the definition, all I see is getting rid or destroy or hamper. Why use the word disrupt if that is not what they meant?

We interrupt by causing a disturbance or problem, we drastically destroy the structure of, drerange, turn upside down, make a mess of, disturb, disorder, disorganize, disarrange, interfere with, upset, unsettle, convulse, interrupt, suspend, discontinue, obstruct, impede, hamper, hold up, delay, retard, slow the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disrupt
Definition of disrupt

dis·rupt
/disˈrəpt/
Learn to pronounce

verb

1. interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem.
   "a rail strike that could disrupt both passenger and freight service"
   
   Similar:
   throw into confusion
   throw into disorder
   throw into disarray
   cause confusion/turmoil in
   play havoc with
   
   derange
   
   turn upside-down
   make a mess of
   
   disturb
   
   disorder
   
   disorganize
   
   disarrange
   
   interfere with
   upset
   
   unsettle
   
   convulse
   
   interrupt
   
   suspend
   
   discontinue
   
   obstruct
   
   impede
   
   hamper
   
   hold up
   
   delay
   
   retard
   
   slow (down)
   • drastically alter or destroy the structure of (something).

Lol you left out the definition I just posted above. Read my post above.

 

[Rudolph]

Classify is a synonym of stigmatize. Below are antonyms of classify. Gee, these look like synonyms of disrupt. Which arguably makes destigmatize a synonym of disrupt.

Antonyms of CLASSIFY

Scramble, disintegrate, estimate, disarrange, hold, collect, rumple, disallow, gather, join, mess, scatter, mix up, muss, guess, lump, disorder, disorganize, mix, upset, maintain, unite, disarray, combine, exclude, mistype, declassify, keep.

 

[RNHawk]

Lol you left out the definition I just posted above. Read my post above.

I did, but it still doesn't explain what I wrote in my last post. Why use a word in a mission statement that is going to be misinterpreted, if what you say is correct. Further why is there anything wrong with striving for a two parent household. Why must that type of thinking be "disrupted." There is nothing bad about it and science backs us up

 

[tumorboy]

You trying to “educate” anyone on anything is a hella funny concept.

What was his old profile name? His shtick is familiar but blanking on the handle.

 

[tumorboy]

False, these kids end up raging against the machine and tearing down statues.

But eventually they sober up and get jobs and become Supreme Court Judges.

 

[RNHawk]

But eventually they sober up and get jobs and become Supreme Court Judges.

a Supreme Court judge who likes to party is a good Supreme Court judge

 

[Rudolph]

I did, but it still doesn't explain what I wrote in my last post. Why use a word in a mission statement that is going to be misinterpreted, if what you say is correct. Further why is there anything wrong with striving for a two parent household. Why must that type of thinking be "disrupted." There is nothing bad about it and science backs us up

No matter what words a mission statement uses there will be cause to do what you're doing. You are disinterested in, with an open mind, learning why the word might have been chosen. Rather, you want to decide them wrong for using that particular word, as a type of copout.

It's also worth mentioning that language evolves, and constantly. It happens to be one of the most interesting and consistent markers of sociocultural change over time.

 

[Rudolph]

I did, but it still doesn't explain what I wrote in my last post. Why use a word in a mission statement that is going to be misinterpreted, if what you say is correct. Further why is there anything wrong with striving for a two parent household. Why must that type of thinking be "disrupted." There is nothing bad about it and science backs us up

Who said there is something wrong with striving for two-parent households?

 

[William Bonney]

This whole argument over semantics has totally distracted from the fact that the BLM organization is a Marxist, revolutionary body intent on destroying America.

 

[tumorboy]

This whole argument over semantics has totally distracted from the fact that the BLM organization is a Marxist, revolutionary body intent on destroying America.

How will they destroy America? I'm actually curious to read a good story.

 

[RileyHawk]

Why cant they just use words that actually mean what they want then? Apparently “defund the police” doesn’t actually mean defund. And apparently “disrupt the western family structure” doesn’t actually mean disrupt. The English language is vast, plenty of words to choose from

???? The only people complaining about the semantics are those who choose to. Everyone knows what is meant - some of you don't agree and use technicalities as a basis for your opposition. It's pretty lame, really.

 

[RileyHawk]

No its not, it is very consequential for this discussion. They chose to use the word disrupt in their mission statement, not challenge, not in addition too, etc. Disrupt was the word they used in their mission statement. So they want to disrupt the requirement of a two parent household. Why can't we as a society strive for a two parent household for a child. There is no evidence that having a two parent household is bad for a kid (and I am not talking about an abusive parent). What there is plenty of is evidence that growing up in a two parent household dramatically improves just about every facet of the child's life. You guys can spin it however you want too, but this is their MISSION STATEMENT, you don't want people to try and misinterpret a mission statement, you say what you mean and mean what you say. This is on BLM not me, if they don't want to have people questioning their MISSION STATEMENT, then do a better job.

You and a few others are only "misinterpreting" the mission statement as a lazy way of opposition. The 2 parent family is not the holy grail of success.

It's time to move on from Leave it to Beaver land and into the realities of the 21st century.

 

[RileyHawk]

I did, but it still doesn't explain what I wrote in my last post. Why use a word in a mission statement that is going to be misinterpreted, if what you say is correct. Further why is there anything wrong with striving for a two parent household. Why must that type of thinking be "disrupted." There is nothing bad about it and science backs us up

JFC, you can't be serious. Because a two parent household isn't the goal. Healthy, happy, successful children are and there are more ways to achieve that than with 2 parents.

 

[William Bonney]

there are more ways to achieve that than with 2 parents.

Outliers

 

[tumorboy]

Outliers

False

 

[RNHawk]

JFC, you can't be serious. Because a two parent household isn't the goal. Healthy, happy, successful children are and there are more ways to achieve that than with 2 parents.

and to have a better chance of having healthy, happy, successful children is to have a two parent household. Obviously children can achieve that with one parent. No one is denying that, but it is a proven fact that there is no better way of raising a child than with 2 parents. If there isn't show me the study that disproves that. So yea having a two parent household is the goal because the results are better for a child than with just one parent

 

[Slim45]

???? The only people complaining about the semantics are those who choose to. Everyone knows what is meant - some of you don't agree and use technicalities as a basis for your opposition. It's pretty lame, really.

LOL. Yeah really lame, god forbid people say what they mean! My guess, they mean what they say and people like you are left trying to excuse away what they’re proposing.

 

[RNHawk]

You and a few others are only "misinterpreting" the mission statement as a lazy way of opposition. The 2 parent family is not the holy grail of success.

It's time to move on from Leave it to Beaver land and into the realities of the 21st century.

you and others are trying to spin the meaning of the mission statement to fit your narrative

 

[Fluffles]

“I hope the Hawkeye football team kills Iowa State this weekend”

HROT: “OMG, you think they should murder the Cyclones?????”

“No, I meant beat them in a football game”

HROT “Well, that not what kill means. I think you want them to die.”

“You’re an idiot”

HROT: “You are a killer!!!!!“

Crazy how context can change the meaning of a word.

 

[RileyHawk]

and to have a better chance of having healthy, happy, successful children is to have a two parent household. Obviously children can achieve that with one parent. No one is denying that, but it is a proven fact that there is no better way of raising a child than with 2 parents. If there isn't show me the study that disproves that. So yea having a two parent household is the goal because the results are better for a child than with just one parent

This is a false equivalency. And it completely ignores the fact that 2 parent households for everyone is impossible.

It's unconscionable to only support two parent families in this day in age.

 

[RileyHawk]

LOL. Yeah really lame, god forbid people say what they mean! My guess, they mean what they say and people like you are left trying to excuse away what they’re proposing.

SMH - no excusing, explaining to you and a few others who can't seem to understand what these words mean. That's a you problem.