In Defense of Violating Social Norms

tl;dr

• Aggressive-independents violate social norms. Historically, some social norm violations are now viewed as good. We won't know which current violations are good until years from now. 
• It is important to distinguish between violations that are a by-product and violations that are intentionally cruel. 
• Higher education no longer protects against norm violations; aggressive-independents need a new institution.
• Do aggressive-independents have a responsibility for how crazies use their arguments? (No)
• Should people avoid true statements that can be weaponized by hateful people against marginalized groups? (Mostly, no)

Cancel Controversy

The debate swirling around Cancel Culture comes down to one thing: there is no consensus on which social norm violations are beyond the pale. There is the outrage and then the outrage against the outrage; outrage that a social norm was violated, then outrage that one was not violated and a person was unfairly punished for it.

What's relatively new is that the pressure comes from ordinary people untethered to any institution. The pressure used to come from oppressive governments or religions. We built solutions to this through the protection of free speech via the U.S. constitution and tenured faculty. Today the pressure looks much different. Now it's angry Twitter mobs pressuring nervous business owners.

Cancel Culture defense usually sounds like this: 

• Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. 
• Those in power have been allowed to say hateful things for far too long. Now they are finally being held accountable. 
• Free speech is protection from the government, it doesn't say anything about a private business making a decision to fire a bigot.

I believe that a healthy society grants space for social norm violators. It's not always a bad thing. When Branch Rickey signed Jackie Robinson to the Brooklyn Dodgers, that was a norm violation against our segregated society. When Copernicus proposed the heliocentric model of the universe, that was a norm violation for the Catholic Church. 

I don't know what next great paradigm shift will resort from a social norm violation. I just know that it will not be popular right away. It will violate a sacred social norm for many people. 

But without some sense of security, we'll never see it if we don't allow some amount of space for what Paul Graham calls "aggressive-independents".

Sorting the Violators

How do we distinguish the "good trouble" violators from the trolls? I draw distinctions between people like James Damore and David Shor, and people like Stephen Crowder and Myles Leonard. 

Are you violating a social norm out of selfish, hateful reasons? Or is it a byproduct of your pursuit of a greater good? 

Colin Kaepernick was canceled because he violated a social norm by using the national anthem to call attention to a social cause, he wasn't looking to troll conservatives (however, his pig cop socks were trolling and he deserves any hate mail he gets for that). J.K. Rowling was making an argument about feminism, she wasn't engaging in facts-don't-care-about-your-feelings anti-trans trolling, à la Ben Shapiro.

So it's important to look at the intentions of the social norm violators. If they did not have support from their ingroup for this norm violation, would they still pursue it? Shapiro being dismissive of preferred pronouns gains him more followers, while Rowling is losing fans for her beliefs. She cares more about her cause than starting a culture war and should be granted admission into Free Speech Zones (trademark pending). 

Remember, this is all about creating space for the next Jackie Robinson. If it feels wrong to defend Rowling's comments, history might look at you as a brave defender of the oppressed or it might look at you as a "passive-conventional" (more on this) trying to stop progress. The point is that we don't know which norm violations decades from now will be viewed the way we look at Jackie Robinson. So we have to allow for some things that make us uncomfortable.

Safe Spaces for Violators

The next question is how do we create space for good trouble social norm violators? Paul Graham described "aggressive independents"  as the school children who question every rule. They are the smallest population in his aggressive/passive conventional/independent matrix. As such, they need protection.

"Why do the independent-minded need to be protected, though? Because they have all the new ideas. To be a successful scientist, for example, it's not enough just to be right. You have to be right when everyone else is wrong...  it's no coincidence that societies prosper only to the extent that they have customs for keeping the conventional-minded at bay."

Aggressive-independents need a new institution where they can pursue their interests, academia is no longer that institution. People care less about free speech today because it is no longer in the crosshairs of government or the Vatican. 

Therefore, academia has become less of a draw to aggressive independents. It is now a training ground for moral activists who pursue Justice rather than Truth. A by-product of their well-intentioned pursuit of Justice has been censoring speech.

There are popular arguments against free speech that is viewed as hate speech. Let's examine them.

Free Speech/Hate Speech

My personal rule for self-censorship is to check off at least 2 of: is it true? is it kind? is it necessary? The moral activists who punish norm violations have another addendum that is sort of a combination of kind and necessary: can this be weaponized by some hateful group to harm (even if only via words) marginalized groups?

David Shor was (probably) fired for linking to a study showing that violent protests hurt Democrats during elections. Even though it is true—and necessary if you want to elect people to enact police reform—it gives conservatives a talking point to criticize the George Floyd riots. After some outside pressure, Shor was fired.

The main critique of the infamous Tom Cotton op-ed had nothing to do with the merits of his argument, but simply that "this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger." I like to take an argument, such as this, and ask if someone would make the argument if the role was reversed. A good example of this is Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, who executed two police officers. Brinsley wrote a social media post insinuating it was revenge for Michael Brown. 

Is Black Lives Matter responsible for drawing the support of people of people like Brinsley, who wish to harm police officers? Do they deserve blame for rushing to judgment in the Michael Brown case, when all evidence points to justified self-defense on the part of the officer? Should their speech be restricted by societal pressure because it puts police officers' lives in danger?

Or what about the Iraq War? Is it right to publicly speculate that Bush is a liar and only invaded Iraq because he wanted the oil, knowing these sound bites can be picked up and used as recruitment for Al-Qaeda extremists who want to harm our soldiers?

I say no because I believe that groups like Black Lives Matter are in pursuit of a greater good. But because I take that stance, I have to apply it in all situations. That means supporting Tom Cotton's ability to write about the Insurrection Act in the New York Times.

Consequences and Accountability

Popular arguments upholding Cancel Culture usually feature something about "consequences" and "accountability." These are obviously important ideas and should be taken seriously, even if your interlocutor might be arguing in bad faith. 

Once again, let's flip the scenario and see if it still holds up. The right-wing version of passive-conventionals are the law-and-order conservatives. They want a strong police force to ensure order. They want strong borders to stop illegal immigration. They want tough sentences and unhospitable prisons for lawbreakers. 

And what about the mass incarceration of millions of citizens who break these laws, including a disproportionate number of African-Americans? Well, I guess they're just being held "accountable." No one said they are free from the consequences of breaking the law.

If you're like me, and you think our prison system is a stronger signal of unjust laws than rampant criminal activity, you'll agree that maybe this has gone too far and we need to rethink criminal justice.

There should still be consequences for breaking laws and social taboos, we just need to be mindful of proportion. 

Harassment 

Beyond physical violence, there is also an argument against speech that might draw online bullying and other threats. Consider this line in a post about Matt Yglesias:

"Matt Yglesias, who publicly cites polite pushback from a trans femme colleague as the Problem With Media Today — exposing the woman he named to massive harassment from Fox News and online TERFs alike..."

Despite the fact that this framing is 99 percent bullshit, let's go with it anyway. Should Yglesias refrain from publicly saying part of the reason he left Vox was because of "polite pushback" from a particular employee who happens to be trans, if this will bring the employee online harassment from anti-trans bullies?

I think it depends. But before I dive into nuance, let's talk about who is the victim of bullying.

Aggressive-independents are often white, male, highly educated, well off. But they are the victims of bullying and harassment as well. Aggressive-conventionals are the bullies, but they can come from the right and the left.

Scott Alexander's life was threatened because he violates social norms in his blog. David French violated a norm by being a Never Trump Republican, and his family has routinely been threatened. Jesse Singal violated a social norm by writing about trans desisistors and he receives constant bullying. White, male, cis, hetero privilege does not protect you from bullying and threats of violence. 

I guess if you are going to violate social norms, as aggressive-independents do, or if you are going to punish norm violators, as aggressive-conventionals do, you are opening yourself to harassment. My rule is to keep the passive people out. 

The passive-conventionals, whom Graham describes as the sheep who just don't want to cause trouble, should be able to cringe as their co-worker tells a racist joke without the expectation that they report them to the mob police. You should be able to opt-out of the culture war.

The passive-independents, whom Graham describes as the dreamers, should be forgiven for doing something like deadnaming Eliot Page, not knowing Page had transitioned. You should be forgiven for not being highly-tuned to sensitivity when you intend no harm.

To get back to my original question, aggressive-independents with a large following should be mindful of any bullying their words and actions might have if ... IF ... they come at the expense of passive-conventionals (rule followers) or passive-independents (daydreamers). Otherwise, fair game. 

So the fact that Yglesias signed the Harper's letter, which through a weird chain of cause-and-effect might have led to someone else getting bullied (it didn't), is an insufficient reason for him not to take the stand that he did. (In the example I listed, the writer in question is framed as passive but she is actually a low-grade aggressive-conventional. Plus, she "exposed" herself, not Yglesias.)

(To be clear, no one should bully or harass a trans writer. No one should bully or harass anyone, in my opinion. I'm just saying the possibility of bullying is, in most cases, not a good enough reason for an aggressive-independent to resist violating a social norm.)

More often the victims of harassment are no-names, so again it becomes important to distinguish the motives of the social norm violater. Trump calling COVID-19 the "Chinese Wuhan Virus" or "Kung flu" is unnecessary trolling. If people want to cancel or harass someone who does that, I'm fine with it.

But someone prodding at whether or not it was created in the Wuhan lab is looking for answers to better understand how to respond to the current outbreak and prevent the next one. The people who are inspired to commit hate crimes against Asian-Americans listen to Trump, not people like Bret Weinstein. Bret is trying to solve problems, Trump is trying to create them. People like Bret get admission to the Free Speech Zone. Trump does not.

Bret might be wrong about the Wuhan lab. He might be wrong about most things. But he also might be a black box that's only right 1% of the time, but when it's right it's game-changing right, like when he discovered a huge oversight in lab testing on mice.

Conclusion

There needs to be a tradeoff where we allow a certain class of people in our society to break social norms, knowing that a certain portion of the population will be offended and some might even be exposed to bullying. We should pursue paths to protect both the innocent from bullying and the next Copernicus from being silenced.

This isn't about protecting bigots' right to bigot. It's about acknowledging that, while aggressive-conventionals aren't always historically wrong in enforcing social norms, when they've been wrong, they've been wrong big. We can't afford that.

I don't know what these Free Speech Zones should look like. I just think aggressive-independents should abandon academia. It's a lost cause. The need to build something new.

Balancing Action and Theory

 "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." 
William Butler Yeats

I.

There is a scene in Waking Life where four young men are walking down a street, taking turns mumbling about their nihilistic philosophies. Here is an excerpt from the transcript:

"Society is a fraud so complete and venal that it demands to be destroyed beyond the power of memory to recall its existence....

"To rupture the spell of the ideology of the commodified consumer society so that our repressed desires of a more authentic nature can come forward."

So ... yeah.

Eventually, they come across a man on top of a telephone pole. They ask him what he's doing up there and the old man replies, "Well, I'm not sure."

As the four young men walk away, one quips, "Stupid bastard." To which another replies, "No worse than us. He's all action and no theory. We're all theory and no action."

II.

The people who loot neighborhood businesses and tear down the statue of Ulysses Grant are all action and no theory. The people who set up police-free, autonomous zones are all action and no theory. The insurrectionists who storm the Capitol are all action and no theory.

Then there are people who are all theory and no action, like think tanks, policy analysts, and bloggers (hey!). They do fascinating research and write compelling think pieces but rarely leave the office to try and change things.

Another way to think of theory vs. action is Yuval Levin's idea of formative vs. performative institutions. A formative institution is one which shapes an individual; a performative institution is one that individuals use as a platform to build their brand.

All-Action activism tends to be performative and ineffective because its movement lacks theory and direction. It focuses on the Other (marginalized groups) and ways to improve their lives. But its lack of improving the self leads to individuals who are nasty and ineffective.

The most staunch antiracists are some of the meanest people I have ever met. You don't need a bible to see that they are motivated by the deadly sin of anger and wrath. The third principle of the Theory of Enchantment (itself a formative institution) is to root everything you do in love. It's not hard to distinguish the antiracists who act out of love from those who act out of anger, the former will always be the most successful activists.

Theory is built in a formative institution, usually a church (actually the best formative institution is the military, but that shapes people for war, which isn't relevant for what I'm talking about). But sometimes churches are, well, selfish. They can de-emphasize action directed toward others and instead focus on getting one's self into heaven. They aren't always designed to create meaningful change through action. Sometimes a lot of it just sounds like the nihilistic philosophers from Waking Life, all theory and no action monks who kneel and pray all day (to be fair you also have nuns who build hospitals and schools.)

III.

Most "activism" I see today is the opposite: it's performative. It's designed to get the attention of people who are likely to, or already do, agree with you. It's people going to progressive colleges to give lectures about white supremacy. It's screenshotting a letter to your boss and posting it on Twitter. It's Antifa standing up to fascism by marching through Portland, the most liberal city in America.

MLK activism, however, was noticeably different. It was designed to get the attention of people who disagreed with you. It was the melding of formative roots (theory) put into performance (action).

"and there is no plan to strategically escalate"

For protests to be effective they must be inconvenient, uncomfortable, and they must continuously increase what MLK called "creative tension".

If they can ignore you, then your protest is no longer effective. https://t.co/JxZcNq7VSf

— Dr. Mansa Keita (@rasmansa) July 6, 2020

Dr. Keita makes a great point, the all-action/no theory people are making it uncomfortable for the powers that be. And the all-theory, no-action bloggers can just be ignored. But the "creative tension" of the Civil Rights movement seemed more purposeful and I think that's because of the people leading the charge.

IV.

The rituals of formative institutions are helpful in that they restrain our worst impulses. In Philip Gorski's American Covenant, he talks about how Puritans viewed freedom as being more than what libertarians harp on about. From a religious perspective, it was being free from our own passions. In his famous speech that I love to reference, David Foster Wallace wrote about what happens when we give into these passions:

"And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly...

Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out."

Without the formative institutions that shape character and free us from our own passions, we fall into "all action, no theory" performative demonstrations that always fall flat on their faces and often produce backlash that makes things worse.

In my view, formative institutions are at their best when they do two things. First, they give your mind something to worship (as opposed to compress) so that you can mentally train yourself to be free of your passions. So instead of worshipping money or beauty or power or intellect, we are free to focus our attention on something meaningful. 

Second, they give an answer to Levin's question, "Given my role as (member of formative institution XYZ) how do I respond in this situation?"

I always loved Levin's line because it assumes an individual's responsibility to the public good, which brings me back to Catholicism. 

V.

Martin Marty wore about the two ways Protestant churches view their role. Private Protestantism is primarily concerned with the afterlife and promoted saving souls and individual salvation. Meanwhile, Public Protestantism believes that the way to God is through the transformation of society. (Another way to think of this is the difference between faith and works.) 

Catholicism doesn't fit neatly into either, but it feels more private than public. Catholicism focuses on the self and ways to ensure admission to heaven. 

Sure, Lent is kind of a big deal, which helps free ourselves from our passions. I think that is a good thing. There is a social justice component to Catholic life, which turns attention to the Other and ways to improve public life. 

But these things are not as important as the sacraments and the focus on the self. There are penalties for missing Mass or not going to confession. It's hard to break the sacrament of matrimony (get divorced). You are expected to pray daily.

Conversely, there is no penalty for never helping the poor. There is no expectation to volunteer in your community. Anything you would call Public Catholicism--performative, action-based work--is extra credit stuff. 

As a non-believer (technically apatheist) I still care because my wife is Catholic and we are raising our children Catholic. My oldest goes to Catechism (basically Sunday School) and I'm okay with this because I'm not against religion. But I'd rather be for it. And it's hard when I see what he's learning and none of it has to do with public life or giving him an answer to Levin's question.

To me, Martin Luther King Jr. had the best blending of formative, theory-based roots that could be put into performative, public-facing action. Malcom X, for all the ways he contrasted with King, fit this description as well. I have many thoughts on their legacies, but that is for another post.

For now I just want to say that I've been critical of activism that I thought was too performative and ineffective. But I also recognize that I shy away from action and I actually envy that level of passion. However, there is a reason I shy away from action and it has to do with a calling I am more drawn toward.

VI.

Performative vs. formative. Theory vs. action. Public vs. Private. I think all of these conflicts come down to one thing: the tension between Truth and Justice. 

Justice without Truth will unfairly punish the innocent. Truth without Justice will allow injustice to fester and people to suffer. Both are important but I am just more emotionally drawn to Truth.

I disagree with tax cuts for the rich and think there should be more wealth redistribution. Yet, when then-Senator Kamala Harris tweeted:

The average tax refund is down about $170 compared to last year. Let’s call the President’s tax cut what it is: a middle-class tax hike to line the pockets of already wealthy corporations and the 1%.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) February 11, 2019

... I was bothered because, well, it's just not true. Likewise, what happened to Michael Brown was awful and I hope the pain we feel leads to serious police reform. But when Senators Harris and Warren say he was murdered, that is also a lie. Hate crimes against the gay community are awful, but the Pulse nightclub shooting narrative was a lie and the Matthew Shepard narrative was a lie. I hate Trumpism and bullying but the Covington Catholic narrative was a lie. 

These are just little white lies but even if they are in the pursuit of Justice I agree with, I feel an obligation to call them out. Part of what holds me back from a stronger pursuit of Justice is a strong commitment I have to Truth. Justice without Truth feels tainted to me. 

But I am more aware now that holding too tight to Truth prevents Justice and I need to find a better balance.

The four young men in the Waking Life scene are concerned with Truth, to the point that they never do anything. The old man represents a Quixotic quest for Justice, to the point his actions aren't producing any results (if it were a more on-the-nose metaphor he'd say he had climbed up the pole to fight white supremacy). It's obvious that both extremes are bad, but what do we optimize for?

Maybe the answer is for everyone to seek a healthy, balanced pursuit of Truth and Justice? Maybe the answer is for society to have equal numbers of Truth-seeking and Justice-seeking individuals pushing back on one another? 

This is a long post and its conclusion is indicative of my blog. I don't feel like I have an answer but at least I feel like I now understand the question.

A Note About Hypocrisy

You're in a courtroom. The bailiff shouts, "All rise!" The judge enters the room, takes his seat, and everyone else takes their seat. 

The judge asks the defense for their opening statement. The defense lawyer stands up, straightens his suit, and begins to explain why his client is not guilty. But halfway through his statement, the judge interrupts him.

"I'm sorry, but there is no way you actually believe that."

"Excuse me?" the defense lawyer asks, befuddled.

"You're only making that argument because your client is paying you to. Last week you were in my courtroom, making the exact opposite argument for a different client. You sir, are a hypocrite. Dismissed!"

Okay, back in the real world.

I see a lot of arguments similar to the above anecdote about hypocrisy. In the context of a courtroom, it sounds absurd. I think that making these hypocrisy arguments absurd should be the norm. If we are concerned with truth, we should approach all debate as if we are in a courtroom.

A recent example is the issue of allowing trans girls (biological males) to compete in girls sports. A conservative will argue against it, saying it's not fair to the (cis) girls and we need to stand up for their rights. A progressive will shout back, "Oh, now you care about women? If you cared about women's rights you wouldn't vote to defund Planned Parenthood. You're only making that argument because you're a transphobe."

The common belief of the social media age is that pointing out someone's hypocrisy is a way to win a debate. It's not.

First of all, it's a very "let he who hath not been a hypocrite cast the first Twitter dunk" scenario. Most people are hypocritical at some point and not in a position to be morally superior in pointing it out in others. Living a morally consistent life is harder than most people think and it's probably a situation where you'd have to worship this belief and compress everything else to be good at it.

Second, so what? If someone mounts a good argument, who cares what the motives are; engage with the argument. 

If you are pro-choice and you read an essay that argues we have a moral imperative to protect a woman's right to choose, do you then search the Twitter history of the writer and try to find a time they were a hypocrite so that you could dismiss the argument you agree with? Of course not. This makes you a hypocrite (Oh, great. Now I'm doing it).

Versions where this line of thinking is acceptable

Jeffrey Sachs does a good job of demonstrating all the instances of conservatives participating in their version of cancel culture. This isn't a good argument that cancel culture doesn't exist, or that it's okay because "people are just being held accountable." BUT, it is a good argument against the idea that cancel culture is strictly a left-wing phenomenon. 

I know it sounds like an argument accusing one side of hypocrisy but it's really a rebuttal of the idea that "Group X is bad because they do this thing I don't like" when in fact Group Y also does the thing you don't like.

This cancel culture scenario is a situation in which impugning motives might be okay. Once you identify the hypocrisy, you then ask: Is the arguer arguing that the Left is bad and using a shoddy example or is the arguer arguing that cancel culture is bad but is blind to all the other instances of it?  

So calling out hypocrisy works if its goal is to change the nature of the debate--what is the person really arguing?

The limitations of this line of thinking

This does not mean that you must engage with every shitty argument on Twitter. But it does mean that you treat good arguments on their merits and do not dismiss them due to the motivations, character, and possible hypocrisy of the arguer. 

A progressive who cares about fairness and women's rights does have to engage with the question of whether allowing trans girls to compete with cis girls is really fair, but they do not have to engage with the person posing the argument if it's obvious they are a conservative who always takes the position: Progressives Are Always Wrong.

In other words, if it's a bad faith argument you do not have to respond to the arguer and get dragged into a culture war debate. But you should grapple with whether there is some truth to the argument, even if that means doing it on your own terms. 

You might end up deciding that a few cis girls not making the cut on their track team is a tradeoff that is worth trans girls being able to live out their true identity, and your original belief will now be that much stronger.

Citing Hypocrites

Christopher Rufo has made a name for himself by being the go-to guy to leak mandatory diversity training sessions that are racially divisive. He is transparent in his belief that Critical Race Theory is bad and has no place in the public square or mandatory training sessions. He's also a hypocrite because he works for the Discovery Institute, which advocates teaching intelligent design in schools.

As someone who believes public schools should teach neither intelligent design nor Critical Race Theory (nor anything that attempts to influence behavior; that's what local, community-based institutions are for, but that's a topic for another post) I can still reference his arguments against CRT even though I'm aware of his hypocrisy. 

He's probably more of the belief that "The left is bad and CRT is a convenient reason why" than "CRT should not be taught in schools because of something something free speech something something racially divisive." But that distinction doesn't matter to me because I still agree with the argument even if the arguer is motivated to think all things from the Left are categorically bad, a position I do not hold. 

I don't trust Rufo's interpretation of what he says these sessions are really about. But sharing screenshots of some of the slides is pretty damning and I don't have any evidence or reason to believe they have been digitally altered in any way. Sure, he's kind of a clown who takes himself too seriously. But despite his smug culture-warrior mentality, he does curate content that I find valuable and no one else seems to be reporting.

A judge's job is not to determine whether or not the defendant is a good person. Her job is to determine whether or not he committed a crime. Likewise, our job in the public arena of discourse is not to determine the motivations of the arguer but the merits of the argument. 

BLM is right about families

When conservatives aren't complaining about Black Lives Matter-inspired riots, there is one line in the organization's website they love to focus on, (which appears to have been deleted):

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable,".

I actually think they are right and this is mostly being misinterpreted. I agree with those conservatives that a two-parent family, or "Western-prescribed nuclear family" if you want to call it that, is better than a single-parent family. The data supports this; controlling for all variables, the children of married parents have better life outcomes.

I want to focus on the second part of the sentence: "by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another,". The nuclear family is a fairly modern invention and what they are describing here is more in line with how humans behave. It's also lasted longer; very Chesterton's Fence-y.

This article talks about "alloparenting."

If you look around the world, you'll see that in many cultures besides Western culture, and definitely in hunter-gatherer communities, there’s an enormous amount of what’s called “alloparenting.” Allo- is derived from a Greek word meaning “other,” so it just refers to caretakers in a child’s life other than the mom or dad.

These people are deeply involved in the child’s upbringing. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an anthropologist, has done some amazing research where she shows that young children are basically designed to be raised by a group of people, not just two—meaning sometimes a mom or a dad is on their own doing the work of several people. So of course we feel worn down and exhausted."

It seems that Black Lives Matter is imagining something similar to this. Of course, I'll believe it when I see it. Our society is not designed to be conducive to this type of parenting. In fact, I think it will be easier to convert more single-parent homes into nuclear homes than alloparenting homes. But I hope I'm wrong and I hope Black Lives Matter leads the way with this type of forward thinking.