“We need to preserve diversity and mitigate the projected whitening of the feeder pattern”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

No one is proposing school reorganization, no one is enacting knee jerk policy. Stop focusing on “racial sound bites” and join the conversation (if you even live here).

In fact, that's exactly what's going on. Here's a thought experiment for you: how would you feel if a school system said they wanted to "mitigate the darkening" of the kids in the school feeder pattern? Is that upsetting? Does that sound racist to you? If so, then you realize that a school system telling parents it wants to "mitigate" whiteness is just as offensive. It's not just a matter of poor word choice; it's the ideological worldview that word choice represents. It's divisive and does nothing to solve the larger systemic problems at issue here.

I think the language is clumsy also but it’s absurd to pretend it carries the same weight as “darkening.” You must know that!

I think a better analogy would be “mitigating masculinity” in science and math classes or something. It’s possible to get the point across with less divisive language so why not choose that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

No one is proposing school reorganization, no one is enacting knee jerk policy. Stop focusing on “racial sound bites” and join the conversation (if you even live here).

In fact, that's exactly what's going on. Here's a thought experiment for you: how would you feel if a school system said they wanted to "mitigate the darkening" of the kids in the school feeder pattern? Is that upsetting? Does that sound racist to you? If so, then you realize that a school system telling parents it wants to "mitigate" whiteness is just as offensive. It's not just a matter of poor word choice; it's the ideological worldview that word choice represents. It's divisive and does nothing to solve the larger systemic problems at issue here.

I think the language is clumsy also but it’s absurd to pretend it carries the same weight as “darkening.” You must know that!

I think a better analogy would be “mitigating masculinity” in science and math classes or something. It’s possible to get the point across with less divisive language so why not choose that.

In a city where white people are a minority; in a school system where white people are the minority, talking about mitigating whiteness is not just a language oopsie. It's a power move driven by a blinkered anti racist ideology. And if I heard talk of "mitigating masculinity" in a science or math class (as opposed to "encouraging girls to get more involved" messaging) I would say it was misandrist and unacceptable too. There's a huge difference between lifting others up and actively attempting to keep other down based solely on the accident of their birth. It's appalling.

[Anonymous]

Gag. So over all the woke nonsense. Time to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

No one is proposing school reorganization, no one is enacting knee jerk policy. Stop focusing on “racial sound bites” and join the conversation (if you even live here).

In fact, that's exactly what's going on. Here's a thought experiment for you: how would you feel if a school system said they wanted to "mitigate the darkening" of the kids in the school feeder pattern? Is that upsetting? Does that sound racist to you? If so, then you realize that a school system telling parents it wants to "mitigate" whiteness is just as offensive. It's not just a matter of poor word choice; it's the ideological worldview that word choice represents. It's divisive and does nothing to solve the larger systemic problems at issue here.

I think the language is clumsy also but it’s absurd to pretend it carries the same weight as “darkening.” You must know that!

I think a better analogy would be “mitigating masculinity” in science and math classes or something. It’s possible to get the point across with less divisive language so why not choose that.

oof. “mitigating masculinity” is equally bad. Not the same as “darkening” but still problematic. I’ll say it again - you simply cannot treat whiteness/maleness with open opprobrium and expect that people won’t feel angry and judged. if your goal is to piss people off - ok. but why would that be your goal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

No one is proposing school reorganization, no one is enacting knee jerk policy. Stop focusing on “racial sound bites” and join the conversation (if you even live here).

In fact, that's exactly what's going on. Here's a thought experiment for you: how would you feel if a school system said they wanted to "mitigate the darkening" of the kids in the school feeder pattern? Is that upsetting? Does that sound racist to you? If so, then you realize that a school system telling parents it wants to "mitigate" whiteness is just as offensive. It's not just a matter of poor word choice; it's the ideological worldview that word choice represents. It's divisive and does nothing to solve the larger systemic problems at issue here.

I think the language is clumsy also but it’s absurd to pretend it carries the same weight as “darkening.” You must know that!

I think a better analogy would be “mitigating masculinity” in science and math classes or something. It’s possible to get the point across with less divisive language so why not choose that.

oof. “mitigating masculinity” is equally bad. Not the same as “darkening” but still problematic. I’ll say it again - you simply cannot treat whiteness/maleness with open opprobrium and expect that people won’t feel angry and judged. if your goal is to piss people off - ok. but why would that be your goal?

I agree that mitigating masculinity would be a bad choice of words! I think the decreasing whiteness was also a poor choice. My point was that you can take issue with the language without making the ridiculous claim that it’s akin to talking about “darkening” in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

No one is proposing school reorganization, no one is enacting knee jerk policy. Stop focusing on “racial sound bites” and join the conversation (if you even live here).

In fact, that's exactly what's going on. Here's a thought experiment for you: how would you feel if a school system said they wanted to "mitigate the darkening" of the kids in the school feeder pattern? Is that upsetting? Does that sound racist to you? If so, then you realize that a school system telling parents it wants to "mitigate" whiteness is just as offensive. It's not just a matter of poor word choice; it's the ideological worldview that word choice represents. It's divisive and does nothing to solve the larger systemic problems at issue here.

I think the language is clumsy also but it’s absurd to pretend it carries the same weight as “darkening.” You must know that!

I think a better analogy would be “mitigating masculinity” in science and math classes or something. It’s possible to get the point across with less divisive language so why not choose that.

oof. “mitigating masculinity” is equally bad. Not the same as “darkening” but still problematic. I’ll say it again - you simply cannot treat whiteness/maleness with open opprobrium and expect that people won’t feel angry and judged. if your goal is to piss people off - ok. but why would that be your goal?

Perhaps their goal in using that language is to get people to recede and stop engaging in the conversation. Because that's what it did for me. Want to "diminish" or "mitigate" me? OK. I'll withdraw from the discussion, and just keep my head down and do what's best for me and my children. It's easier that way anyway.

[Anonymous]

Mitigating masculinity in science and math?!? You mean like schools removing Isaac Newton from the curriculum? Or did I take a wrong turn at the intersection.

This language is just so tortured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

No one is proposing school reorganization, no one is enacting knee jerk policy. Stop focusing on “racial sound bites” and join the conversation (if you even live here).

In fact, that's exactly what's going on. Here's a thought experiment for you: how would you feel if a school system said they wanted to "mitigate the darkening" of the kids in the school feeder pattern? Is that upsetting? Does that sound racist to you? If so, then you realize that a school system telling parents it wants to "mitigate" whiteness is just as offensive. It's not just a matter of poor word choice; it's the ideological worldview that word choice represents. It's divisive and does nothing to solve the larger systemic problems at issue here.

It's not just as offensive, actually, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of the systemic problems around race in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

That's fine, but you could also help by just choosing not to be offended by the form the important message is taking and focusing instead on the message.

That’s not how people work. You can’t expect to have a culture where any perceived wrong speech can get you cancelled, and they expect people to ignore phrases like “mitigate whitening.” Nobody likes to be judged by their immutable charactetistics like race or gender.

I am a white person who's just fine with ignoring the phrase "mitigate whitening," though obviously I can recognize that it's caused some foreseeable side problems that will wind up getting in the way of the equity goals behind the idea and behind the specific proposals. Are you really so easily offended that you can't handle one phrase in one DCPS working group document that strikes you as possibly insensitive toward white people? Just move on.

[Anonymous]

In the end, using phrases like this just gets folks worked up and ready to storm the Capitol or organize a rally with tiki torches. It defeats the purpose. DCPS should be careful with their words given the powder keg our country is right now. They need to subvert the status quo on the DL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

That's fine, but you could also help by just choosing not to be offended by the form the important message is taking and focusing instead on the message.

That’s not how people work. You can’t expect to have a culture where any perceived wrong speech can get you cancelled, and they expect people to ignore phrases like “mitigate whitening.” Nobody likes to be judged by their immutable charactetistics like race or gender.

I am a white person who's just fine with ignoring the phrase "mitigate whitening," though obviously I can recognize that it's caused some foreseeable side problems that will wind up getting in the way of the equity goals behind the idea and behind the specific proposals. Are you really so easily offended that you can't handle one phrase in one DCPS working group document that strikes you as possibly insensitive toward white people? Just move on.

What's your threshold on an permissible amount of microagressions by a government agency? When governments use this language, which was clearly wordsmithed to death, it sends a broader message than dehumanizing language is totally fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

That's fine, but you could also help by just choosing not to be offended by the form the important message is taking and focusing instead on the message.

That’s not how people work. You can’t expect to have a culture where any perceived wrong speech can get you cancelled, and they expect people to ignore phrases like “mitigate whitening.” Nobody likes to be judged by their immutable charactetistics like race or gender.

I am a white person who's just fine with ignoring the phrase "mitigate whitening," though obviously I can recognize that it's caused some foreseeable side problems that will wind up getting in the way of the equity goals behind the idea and behind the specific proposals. Are you really so easily offended that you can't handle one phrase in one DCPS working group document that strikes you as possibly insensitive toward white people? Just move on.

What's your threshold on an permissible amount of microagressions by a government agency? When governments use this language, which was clearly wordsmithed to death, it sends a broader message than dehumanizing language is totally fine.

I don't have a specific threshold, but this doesn't meet it. They don't want all the Ward 3 schools to become overwhelmingly white in the near future. That's a totally reasonable policy concern. Do I care how they phrase it? Not particularly. Do I find it irritating that a lot of people seem to be fixating on the way they phrased it either instead of or as a reason to oppose the policy concern? Indeed I do!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is where Carville gets it right. https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days

The messaging on important racial issues is drowned out by borderline shaming jargon like “be less white” or “mitigating the projected whiteness”. The republicans are great and messaging and picking this stuff up, broadcasting it via Fox and boom now the Dems are out of power.

The same with this school reorganization business. Stop using divide jargon. You’re turning people off from an important message. Also, before just enacting knee-jerk policy try and base it on projected outcomes and not on a reaction to racial soundbites from social justice warriors.

That's fine, but you could also help by just choosing not to be offended by the form the important message is taking and focusing instead on the message.

That’s not how people work. You can’t expect to have a culture where any perceived wrong speech can get you cancelled, and they expect people to ignore phrases like “mitigate whitening.” Nobody likes to be judged by their immutable charactetistics like race or gender.

I am a white person who's just fine with ignoring the phrase "mitigate whitening," though obviously I can recognize that it's caused some foreseeable side problems that will wind up getting in the way of the equity goals behind the idea and behind the specific proposals. Are you really so easily offended that you can't handle one phrase in one DCPS working group document that strikes you as possibly insensitive toward white people? Just move on.

What's your threshold on an permissible amount of microagressions by a government agency? When governments use this language, which was clearly wordsmithed to death, it sends a broader message than dehumanizing language is totally fine.

I don't have a specific threshold, but this doesn't meet it. They don't want all the Ward 3 schools to become overwhelmingly white in the near future. That's a totally reasonable policy concern. Do I care how they phrase it? Not particularly. Do I find it irritating that a lot of people seem to be fixating on the way they phrased it either instead of or as a reason to oppose the policy concern? Indeed I do!

Well I fundamentally disagree with you. A goverment policy expressly designed to reduce or “mitigate” a certain group of people based on their immutable characteristics is wrong, and also likely illegal. A policy to increase diversity or give opportunities to disadvantaged groups (identified by race or gender) is ok. This isn’t just “phrasing”; it’s a fundamental difference in goals.

[Anonymous]

How is it so hard to understand that "mitigate whitening" is violent and generally inappropriate language, while "preserving and promoting socio-economic and ethnic diversity" is peaceful and productive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gag. So over all the woke nonsense. Time to move.

Imagine if the title was “and mitigate the _______ing of the feeder pattern.”

If you put any other race, but white, you’d be branded a racist.