Actually, the nuclear family is a modern invention and trying to preserve it is entirely reactionary

>no! If I stick my fingers in my ears and bury my head in the sand then that means it isn't real!
You're like a toddler with zero arguments who doesn't want to accept reality

>NOOOO YOU'RE THE REACTIONARIES

Attached: 1581715025605.png (675x808, 29.77K)

>You literally want to abolish the family
>Christian and family tradition is like fucking ubiquitous in the west and it's absolutely laughable you're trying to suggest otherwise. Absolutely laughable

>not knowing how to greentext
Just return to reddit already holy shit

Attached: AntiChristianShills.jpg (589x1024, 114.68K)

Tribal families are how things are supposed to be, you retard, kicking your kids (and their kids) out creates stupid divides, that's why most families have zero love for each other nowadays

This. I live with my dad and he doesn't care. Even when I wasn't working and laying around he didn't. I'll remember that when he's shitting himself and can't even remember his name. I would never put my parents in a home no matter how bad it gets.

This is what a lot of conservatives dont understand about leftists and democrats. They're not trying to turn America communist or marxist or black or Mexican or anything. It helps their end goal if they can, but they really just want to destroy and dismantle the US. All that other shit is just a stepping stone to the end goal, but if America just skips over all of it and gets destroyed without becoming communist first, they're fine with that too

(remove grandparents/kick out 18+ child)

isn't that just what americans/white countries do?

because you guy's value individuality?

Mexicans / Africans / Asians
regardless of religion
the child could casually stay with their parent and vice versa

I still remember being taught in school that it's one of the things people in the west do including not taking off the shoes indoors
and later that it's one of the reasons the economy is so strong

Attached: 1750964667023.jpg (504x450, 28.84K)

Because it's a contradiction created by leftist redefinitions. Nuclear => nucleus => substructure at the core of a larger superstructure. You cannot have a traditional extended family superstructure without nuclear family substructures.

When you use "nuclear family" to mean the absence of an extended family, you are using a modern leftist redefinition of the term. To anyone familiar with the original definition, you sound like someone who unironically refers to themselves as "cis het".

Extended family models varied widely between cultures, but there was a lowest common denominator that was observed to be universal across all stable societies, and this universal substructure is what was given the name "nuclear family" for it's role as a stabilizing substructure across a range of different extended family models.

The reason leftists want to redefine the term is to dupe you into providing uninformed consent to the family models they want to force upon people, which are not extended families as you know them (which all have nuclear families at their core), but rather things like child lotteries, children as public property etc. Look at pic related for the kind of things I'm talking about. This is why leftists invested in redefining "nuclear family" to mean "the absence of the extended family". Once you have two definitions, you can claim that consent on the basis of one is actually consent on the basis of the other. They want people to think they are consenting to the re-establishment of extended families, but they are actually consenting to stuff like pic-related.

This kind of bullshit is why I was forced to walk away from the left as I got older, and Kraut moving in this direction was a huge part of what pushed me further right, since my beliefs basically aligned with his when I was younger.

Attached: war-on-family.png (1008x2004, 414.23K)