In the same vein, white male democrats are the dumbest of the lot,by far. Too bad that republicans are too cucked to shame them like Democrats do for any of their groups that walks off the plantantion, like white women this election.
Sort of, it's imploring Dems to double down on the "identity politics" and talk more to red state whites about how it will be such a great thing when in a few decades the U.S. will be a majority minority country and the Dems can really be freed of the burden of caring about what those greedy racists think or want. It's kiind of like listening to teenagers, they want to trash the old white fogey parents in front of their friends to seem cool but still not alienate the old man enough that he gets kicked out of the house and can't rely on the parents to pay the bills anymore. Add in a dash of "Trump voters are too stupid to realize why they should vote for us instead" and that about sums it up.
And you clearly think its going to be a bad thing when "in a few decades the U.S. will be a majority minority country".
Why's that?
...celebrating the changing demographics, especially when you're couching it as a "good riddance" to the group in relative decline. And that's for the same reason that while everyone dies it's not a politically savvy move to go around saying "I can't wait until all the old folks are dead so we can save money on social security" as those old folks might be disinclined to vote for you given that statement. Replace 'old folks' with 'white people' in that statement and it's the same principle
Not at all.Okay I'm going to respond before I read the post or the link.
It's because they're racist.
Correct?
I'm curious, how exactly, in practice or speeches, are the Democrats and/or Hillary doing this? I don't remember her, or any Dem, saying "good riddance" to white people? When have they said that getting rid of white majority is good, or that white people are bad? I've never heard it.
And white people (or I should say "we") are not in decline, there will just be more of other ethnic groups. White people aren't dying off, there will just also be other groups. It's not one group or the other, it's both at the same time.
Yes, the Democratic Party should stop with the identity politics and concentrate on the serious issues that matter. The ones that concern Caucasians.
School officials call it “academic diversity,” but a well-meaning plan to equalize access to good schools has sparked an ugly racial debate that pits white, affluent parents against poor blacks and Latinos.
The recently announced proposal in District 3 — which covers the West Side of Manhattan from 59th Street to 122nd Street — would give bottom-scoring elementary-school students “priority” for admission to most middle schools. The district’s schools are sharply divided along racial and socioeconomic lines.
High-performing middle schools — usually with a white, middle- or upper-class majority — would have to reserve up to 25 percent of their seats for students who score at the lowest 2 of 4 levels on state math and English tests. That means some students with high test scores would be shut out of their preferred schools and possibly steered to lower-performing schools which enroll more blacks and Hispanics.
It’s the first proposal of its kind in New York City, but the social experiment paves the way to expand to other schools and districts.
And that threatens to raise racial tensions akin to explosive school battles in Boston, Detroit and LA, said David Bloomfield, a Brooklyn College and CUNY Graduate Center education professor.
“Without strong leadership, this strategy may divide the city based on racial politics — those who favor desegregation against those who don’t,” Bloomfield said.
New York City schools are the nation’s most segregated by race and class, a 2014 UCLA study found.
The proposal would affect current 4th graders who will enter the 5th grade in September, and apply to middle school in December. The DOE hopes to approve the plan by June.
The controversy erupted at a recent community meeting, videotaped by NY1, when one mother at high-ranked PS 199 on the Upper West Side angrily asked what she should tell an 11-year-old who “worked [their] butt off” but was shut out of the best school. “Life sucks!”
Mona Davids, president of the NYC Parents Union, blasted “progressive limousine liberals” at the popular school, where 62.2 percent of kids are white and 14.9 percent are Asian.
“It’s racism because they know the students who are doing poorly and condemned to failing schools are black and Latino. They don’t want those students in their lily-white schools,” she said.
Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza, who joined the city school system this month, fanned the flames Friday by retweeting a news story on the meeting headlined: “Watch: Wealthy white Manhattan parents angrily rant against plan to bring more black kids to their schools.”
In a WNYC interview Friday, Mayor de Blasio said he did not believe that Carranza “intends to vilify anyone.”
Some parents at poor-performing schools in the district hailed the diversity plan, which still requires DOE approval.
At the struggling PS 149 Sojourner Truth in Harlem, just 8 percent of students got a 3 or 4 — passing or higher — on the state English test last year, and only 1 percent hit those scores on the math test. The school is 90 percent black and Hispanic.
Jameelah Ricks, whose son is a second-grader at the school, said low test scores don’t mean a child can’t improve.
Parents who oppose the plan stereotype low-income minorities and worry they will “flood” their elite schools, she told The Post.
see also
Carranza: Schools aren't meeting minority students' needs
“We’re all not ghetto, project, welfare recipients. I’m educated. I’m actually in my second year in law school. I’m a senior corporate paralegal,” Ricks said.
But opposing parents at high-performing schools say the plan turns the merit system on its head.
“I think it’s very crooked,” said Aya Goshen, whose son is in grade 4 at PS 199 on West 70th Street. “You tell your kid that he needs to do his best on the test to get into a good school and it turns out he’d better get a 2, and he might get into a better school. The system is motivating kids the wrong way.”
The diversity plan, if approved, will affect Goshen’s son when he applies to middle school,
“I am very worried,” she said. “Diversity is good for our kids but the environment needs to supply the kids that are struggling with tools so they won’t disturb the kids that are not. Unless they do that, the kids who have 3s and 4s are going to suffer.”
DOE officials did not address in detail how schools will handle the mix of students at sharply different academic levels, or how they will improve the poor-performing schools where many kids will still be stuck.
Enrollment in Harlem schools has dropped because of competition from charters and other district schools, said Dennis Morgan, a member of the District 3 Community Education Council.
“I’m concerned that this is going to exacerbate problems with enrollment,” he said of the diversity plan.
Admission to elementary schools is normally determined by residential zones. But after grade 5, students can apply to middle schools in their district. Students rank their preferences, and can list up to 12 choices.
Some schools also rank the students they want. Then, students are matched to schools by computer algorithms that typically give most students their first or second choice, experts said.
In another citywide change under the proposal, schools will not see how students rank them. So schools could no longer favor kids who rank them No. 1.
Currently, some popular schools cherry-pick the highest-scoring kids. In District 3, for instance, MS 54 Booker T. Washington in Morningside Heights enrolls 80 percent of students who score a 3 or 4 on the English test and 85 percent who score a 3 or 4 in math. The school is 62 percent white, 11.5 percent Asian, 12.7 percent Hispanic and 7.7 percent black.
Graduates move on to the city’s top high schools, including Bronx HS of Science and Stuyvesant HS.
Under the District 3 plan, 17 middle schools would offer up to 10 percent of seats to students who score an average 1 on their fourth-grade exams and up to 15 percent to those who score an average 2.
A suggestion to limit the percentages of kids with 3 and 4 scores at each school was nixed, for now, as “too drastic.”
Based on 1,815 applications last year, the DOE estimates that, if the diversity plan was in effect, 118 families would get into a school higher on their wish list, while 56 would get a less-desired placement — or none of their choices.
see also
De Blasio defends schools chief's tweet at critics of diversification plan
“Because there’s a fixed number of seats in the best schools, somebody has to lose,” said Aaron Pallas, an education professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College. “It’s the fear of white, middle-class parents, whose children have done well in school, that they will be losers.”
Clara Hemphill, editor of the local education site Insideschools.org, said the city should increase the number of seats at popular, high-performing schools to expand opportunities for all.
Some parents admit that privilege must not determine opportunity.
“There are some really good middle schools in New York City and it shouldn’t just be rich kids who get to go to them,” said Josh Auerbach, whose daughter is a 5th-grader at PS 199.
But he added that some parents are upset because “school integration is scary. Even when it’s the right answer, it’s scary.”
Other diversity efforts across the city are also underway.
In Brooklyn’s District 15, which takes in Park Slope, Sunset Park and Red Hook, a consultant was hired to help shape a plan for its middle schools, which have an uneven racial and economic distribution.
I'm curious, how exactly, in practice or speeches, are the Democrats and/or Hillary doing this? I don't remember her, or any Dem, saying "good riddance" to white people? When have they said that getting rid of white majority is good, or that white people are bad? I've never heard it.
And white people (or I should say "we") are not in decline, there will just be more of other ethnic groups. White people aren't dying off, there will just also be other groups. It's not one group or the other, it's both at the same time.
More like their privilege and supremacy is challenged and makes them fear equality.
potato/podilildo, right?
Yes, the Democratic Party should stop with the identity politics and concentrate on the serious issues that matter. The ones that concern Caucasians.
Or maybe that's just what they were telling themselves. It's easier than recognizing their own justifiable social and economic anxieties.
Interesting stuff-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/06/06/the-real-reason-working-class-whites-continue-to-support-trump/?utm_term=.b55e540cff44
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/opinion/how-fear-of-falling-explains-the-love-of-trump.html
‘Identity politics’ means ‘policies that aren’t catered to white people’.
And you clearly think its going to be a bad thing when "in a few decades the U.S. will be a majority minority country".
Why's that?
Just read this thread. The progressive side is all but rubbing their hands together in expectaction saying "I can't wait until all the old white people die off so we can finally refocus on the people who matter to us." Put yourself in the shoes of some blue collar worker from West Virginia, do any of these statements sound like people who are looking out for your best interests, or do they strongly demonstrate the speakers think you the white WV person are the "problem" they intend to fix?
Just read this thread. The progressive side is all but rubbing their hands together in expectaction saying "I can't wait until all the old white people die off so we can finally refocus on the people who matter to us." Put yourself in the shoes of some blue collar worker from West Virginia, do any of these statements sound like people who are looking out for your best interests, or do they strongly demonstrate the speakers think you the white WV person are the "problem" they intend to fix?
Glenn, shame on you for woefully misrepresenting what I said. I hope you are adult enough to apologize.
Applogize for misrepresenting you via quoting you? The clear context of your quote is that although whites represent a supermajority of voters, that a political platform or policy prescriptions that reflect that would be “catering” to them. It’s not my fault the Rust Belt is interpreting your sentiments as including “and we can’t wait until we can stop catering to you.” They are the people you need to convince that you have their interests at heart and you failed in the last election. And now the election is over, you’re doubling down by telling them how stupid they to think that in the first place instead of changing how you speak to and about them.
Huh? Where did I say anything about what the right policy mix was? I was just stating the simple fact that when people make policies catering to white people that’s just considered ‘politics’. When you make policies that may not that’s ‘identity politics’.
All politics are actually identity politics it’s just that white people don’t like to admit it.
Oh, they'll get economic suffering.
You quote me, asking you why you think it's clearly going to be a bad thing that in the future the country will be a majority minority.Just read this thread. The progressive side is all but rubbing their hands together in expectaction saying "I can't wait until all the old white people die off so we can finally refocus on the people who matter to us." Put yourself in the shoes of some blue collar worker from West Virginia, do any of these statements sound like people who are looking out for your best interests, or do they strongly demonstrate the speakers think you the white WV person are the "problem" they intend to fix?
You quote me, asking you why you think it's clearly going to be a bad thing that in the future the country will be a majority minority.
And of course you don't answer, but chalk it up to it being a progressive strawman wanting all the whites to just fucking die already.
Seriously, stop letting Masters Limbaugh and Hannity and Jones shit directly into your skull. Brain damage is a hell of a mental problem.
I read this whole thread, and your quotes. I don't see anything like that. Never mind the fact that these are random people on the internet, I asked for quotes by Democratic party bigwigs, or even small-wigs. When have they said "can't wait for white people to die off"? (which they aren't either, btw). I'm white and male, I don't feel threatened by the Dem party at all, why is that? I live in a super-liberal/democrat state and county, I have not felt that white men are under assault here..
I'm a white heterosexual male in the liberal bubble of the NYC metro area and I am quite sure I am not under any kind of cultural or political assault lol
White voters still vote for Democrats, and the only thing that many Democrats mock are white people who believe they're the real victims, because minorities are finally, just now, starting to actually catch upHow do you figure I didn't answer? I answered in detail explaining how while it's mostly outside of our control to influence, generally increasing diversity is good while the social cohesion typically afforded by more homogenous populations also offers some benefits. Like with most things you need to find the right balance of stability vs. change and you risk catastrophic failure if you go too far to either extreme.
Question for both you and Fskimospy. Seeing that whites currently comprise a 70% supermajority of voters, how much policy consideration should Democrats give to that group vs. the 30% of minority electorate? It's not a trick question but does have an impact on the premise of the OP. Namely that red state working class whites felt the Democratic party had little to offer them and mocked the economic stress they felt; heck that Democrats indeed viewed them with caution at best, and outright hostility as backwards racists at worst? If Trump wins again in 2020 (perhaps against another white male) are you going to continue blaming lingering racist backlash from Obama's election, or sexism for Clinton's two electoral defeats?
#BLM is a fine example of taking something that should be universally beneficial, police reform, but turning it into a divisive issue. I mean, it began in Ferguson on behalf of someone who attempted to murder a cop. It's framed as a Police VS Black issue... when police are equal opportunistic for shooting and killing white people. It's a general police issue and a crisis of gun violence on our streets. But it is framed as a racial issue.
Something that should naturally be unifying and easy to solve is instead stepped in divisive rhetoric and gains opponents.
Just as voters shy away when many more issues are framed as exclusive rather than inclusive.
This is not what you are selling, it's how you sell it. Who the target audience is, and how to approach them.
#BLM is a fine example of taking something that should be universally beneficial, police reform, but turning it into a divisive issue. I mean, it began in Ferguson on behalf of someone who attempted to murder a cop. It's framed as a Police VS Black issue... when police are equal opportunistic for shooting and killing white people. It's a general police issue and a crisis of gun violence on our streets. But it is framed as a racial issue.
Something that should naturally be unifying and easy to solve is instead stepped in divisive rhetoric and gains opponents.
Just as voters shy away when many more issues are framed as exclusive rather than inclusive.
This is not what you are selling, it's how you sell it. Who the target audience is, and how to approach them.
I'm a white hetero male in the greater Los Angeles Area and neither do I. Nor do I feel threatened by Mexicans.
But guys like this are:
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjourn...inst+Chuck+Schumer+and+South+Carolina+Senator
Georgia Man Pleads Guilty to Threatening US Senators from SC, NY
A Georgia man threatened to kill U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., for speaking out against neo-Nazis and then warned the staff of U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that he should be "hunted down" by "true patriots."
White voters still vote for Democrats, and the only thing that many Democrats mock are white people who believe they're the real victims, because minorities are finally, just now, starting to actually catch up
Not caught up. Not passing.
Starting to catch up.
The Democratic party has an entire fucking platform that benefits working class and middle class voters, much more than the Republican platform of continuing to cut taxes on the richest people in the solar system, while decreasing government benefits to the working and middle class voters.
That one party chooses to make it about race, however subtly and now with Strongman Trump, not subtly at all, has nothing to do with what white people believe, and what is actually objective, observable reality.
The Democratic party is inherently inclusive. It invites in all minorities, the working class, the middle class, and yeah, even the richest people in the solar system.
The Republican party is inherently exclusive. It self-identifies as "real America", disparaging cities, the coasts, and anyone who isn't them.
The Democratic party has Elizabeth Warren and is caucused with Bernie Sanders, along with conservative-leaning John Tester and centrists like Andrew Cuomo.
Anyone who pisses off Strongman Trump or right-wing media is INSTANTLY excluded as RINOs and told to fuck off.
Identity politics? Owned and fucking operated by modern US conservatism. They are literally excluding everyone who doesn't think and believe exactly what thought leaders like Limbaugh, Hannity and Jones say is acceptable.
Meanwhile, the "identity politics" of the Democratic party is simply a function of the exclusionary Republican party, as the Democratic party naturally pulls in everyone else who ISN'T ALLOWED to be a Republican.
I know you believe you have "an entire fucking platform that benefits working class and middle class voters." The problem is many of those voters don't agree and just voted for Trump instead. So the question then becomes are you going to critically re-examine your platform to determine if your beliefs are actual reality, or are you going to assume you're correct and just presume Trump voters are stupid and vote against their self-interests? Because right now you're sounding a lot like Kodak executives back in the day who insisted for years that people loved Kodak and their print photography and would never accept digital camera technology. Not accurately understanding the wants and needs of your customers and doubling down on your current offerings is pretty common in poorly run businesses and sounds like you (and the progressive side at large) in the last few years. Your market share (percentage of legislative seats and governorships held, etc.) goes down yet you insist your product is amazing and customers can't get enough of it. Does this map look like your platform is a market success?
Acreage isn't people. You're smarter than that.I know you believe you have "an entire fucking platform that benefits working class and middle class voters." The problem is many of those voters don't agree and just voted for Trump instead. So the question then becomes are you going to critically re-examine your platform to determine if your beliefs are actual reality, or are you going to assume you're correct and just presume Trump voters are stupid and vote against their self-interests? Because right now you're sounding a lot like Kodak executives back in the day who insisted for years that people loved Kodak and their print photography and would never accept digital camera technology. Not accurately understanding the wants and needs of your customers and doubling down on your current offerings is pretty common in poorly run businesses and sounds like you (and the progressive side at large) in the last few years. Your market share (percentage of legislative seats and governorships held, etc.) goes down yet you insist your product is amazing and customers can't get enough of it. Does this map look like your platform is a market success?