Certainly not in the sense that "we take away your children and raise them separated from you" but more in the sense of "it takes a village to raise a child". This can mean anything from extended family to patchwork to an active and engaged neighborhood to queer constellations of open relationship or poly or what ever. There is a quote from Thatcher "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families."

Nuclear families, more than other forms of family and relating to each other, are isolating and making the people dependent on each other, most often making women financially dependent on men and men emotionally dependent on women. Abolishing the nuclear family doesn't mean that you can't live in a healthy monogamous relationship with a good connection to your kids. It means that you don't have to but can leave a toxic relationship and that your kids have other caregivers to complain about you and, if need, can leave. Or to live in other ways together that don't fit the model at all. To get back to Thatcher, it's not about taking away the little connection the individuals have but about strengthening the society, she denied exists.

I hope that helped. Sometimes I'm too much in my bubble to realize that implications aren't obvious. I specified "nuclear family" but I see that that's not enough. Thanks for pointing it out. Family Abolition is an interesting topic you can look deeper into if that interests you.

Vitamin D is hydrophobic meaning you can't just excrete it in the urine

Short term vs long term gratification

First they came for the millionaires and distributed their wealth equally and I said nothing because I wasn't a millionaire.
Then they came for the abled bodies and made public spaces as inclusive as possible and I said nothing because I didn't notice.
Then they came for cis men and abolished the nuclear family and I said nothing because I'm not married so I didn't care.
And when they smashed white supremacy, there was no one left to defend me.

And I was giving an example of nationalism that's more than its rhetoric

I'm not sure to which extend this is true but this might be correlation. I guess MAGA people are more often privileged while marginalized people are more often woke and due to their marginalization they are depressed

Murican patriotic rhetoric is full of liberty and the founding fathers and the flag and stuff. Do you think, without one of these elements, there would be no nationalism?

Because of nationalism and colonialism. They might use religious rhetoric where it suits them and there are religious people in government, I don't deny that, but over all it's a ethnic supremecist ideology and religion is only one identity marker, not the motivator.

Or rather nationalists. It's not that the IDF is a religious organization or something

Plot twist: even after signing in, the cat didn't answer any question

For those who don't have that luxury: Please give me your data so others can't steal it. I'll put it were it's safe

Great version of the Turing Test