the coloring of America

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting intersecting issues at play. Will take decades to sort out.

As white men are marginalized more and more, there will be less of a common enemy for Democrats. That was at the heart of the affirmative action cases.

The interplay between politics, marriage and child rearing will be interesting. Conservatives are having more children, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that having children is more aligned with conservative values presently. We have no idea how it plays out.

It isn’t a given that as minority groups take power they will continue progressive liberal values (see Michigan townships where Muslim dominated city councils have scaled back on Pride celebrations).

I don’t think a coloring of America leads in a straight line to progressive goals. It will be largely dependent on secularizing immigrant populations and I suspect changing birthing patterns will also be relevant.

-A latino.

Wait so the plan really is for white men to become “marginalized more and more”? Isn’t that exactly what replacement theory is all about?

Glad I am not the only one seeing the "plan" to marginalize "white men".

You know what this is called? Demographic Engineering. And I definitely have seen this trend over the decades...and it’s NOT a good trend.

I met someone years ago and I mentioned that we had a diverse board of 7 directors because there was 1 woman and 1 POC...their response was "that's not diverse enough".

So I think what I'm seeing is indeed demographic engineering...where groups in society are forced to have members with equal % representation from every single different type of demographic even though a a certain group may be only 1% of the entire demographic population. That's not going to ever happen people nor should it ever happen.

The problem is you cannot socially engineer the demographics of society like this. You see it happening with the entertainment industry with the forced inclusion of every single type of demographic.

Some people will read this post and agree that demographic engineering is ok. I personally do not and will not ever support it.

You do realize that women are not 1% of the population right? White people are only about 70% of the population and declining. So your premise is very faulty.

I wasn't referring to women or any particular demographic when I referred to 1%, it was merely and example to make a point about demographic engineering. It's about demographic engineering to merely check the box on quotas.

Ok, but look at the scenario that you described: there was only 1 woman and 1 POC in a room of 7 people. For 'demographic engineering' to be taking place, MORE than 4 of those members should have been women, and MORE than 3 of those should have been POCs. Instead, the person that you were speaking with may have been commenting on the fact that having 1 of each isn't even reflective of our population. That isn't demographic engineering - that's just asking that the leadership of an organization actually reflect the population in which it exists. Because right now, it appears that it was easier to get on the board of directors if you were a white man than any other person.

Exactly my point...the members of a board of directors (or any group) should NOT be "engineered" or manipulated simply to corelate to and % of any demographic.

Signed a professional working woman who thinks that a diverse group does not have to have a % representation of every single different type of demographic in order to be diverse.

[Anonymous]

I just had a video pop up in my social media feed titled "White Man Complaining in an Airport" and it is a spoof of a douchy-looking entitled white guy in khaki pants and a blazer, whining at the ticketing agent with all the usual cliches ("I will never fly this airline again" and "I demand you put me on the next flight"), and tons of people clicked like and cheered in the comments.
Aside from not being funny, when did we reach the point that blatant, deliberate racial humor is okay against White people, but a social death sentence if a White person even inadvertently says something offensive to a Black?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting intersecting issues at play. Will take decades to sort out.

As white men are marginalized more and more, there will be less of a common enemy for Democrats. That was at the heart of the affirmative action cases.

The interplay between politics, marriage and child rearing will be interesting. Conservatives are having more children, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that having children is more aligned with conservative values presently. We have no idea how it plays out.

It isn’t a given that as minority groups take power they will continue progressive liberal values (see Michigan townships where Muslim dominated city councils have scaled back on Pride celebrations).

I don’t think a coloring of America leads in a straight line to progressive goals. It will be largely dependent on secularizing immigrant populations and I suspect changing birthing patterns will also be relevant.

-A latino.

Wait so the plan really is for white men to become “marginalized more and more”? Isn’t that exactly what replacement theory is all about?

Glad I am not the only one seeing the "plan" to marginalize "white men".

You know what this is called? Demographic Engineering. And I definitely have seen this trend over the decades...and it’s NOT a good trend.

I met someone years ago and I mentioned that we had a diverse board of 7 directors because there was 1 woman and 1 POC...their response was "that's not diverse enough".

So I think what I'm seeing is indeed demographic engineering...where groups in society are forced to have members with equal % representation from every single different type of demographic even though a a certain group may be only 1% of the entire demographic population. That's not going to ever happen people nor should it ever happen.

The problem is you cannot socially engineer the demographics of society like this. You see it happening with the entertainment industry with the forced inclusion of every single type of demographic.

Some people will read this post and agree that demographic engineering is ok. I personally do not and will not ever support it.

You do realize that women are not 1% of the population right? White people are only about 70% of the population and declining. So your premise is very faulty.

I wasn't referring to women or any particular demographic when I referred to 1%, it was merely and example to make a point about demographic engineering. It's about demographic engineering to merely check the box on quotas.

Ok, but look at the scenario that you described: there was only 1 woman and 1 POC in a room of 7 people. For 'demographic engineering' to be taking place, MORE than 4 of those members should have been women, and MORE than 3 of those should have been POCs. Instead, the person that you were speaking with may have been commenting on the fact that having 1 of each isn't even reflective of our population. That isn't demographic engineering - that's just asking that the leadership of an organization actually reflect the population in which it exists. Because right now, it appears that it was easier to get on the board of directors if you were a white man than any other person.

Exactly my point...the members of a board of directors (or any group) should NOT be "engineered" or manipulated simply to corelate to and % of any demographic.

Signed a professional working woman who thinks that a diverse group does not have to have a % representation of every single different type of demographic in order to be diverse.

You're still missing my point. It isn't "engineering" to increase your recruitment pool to include women and POCs. I'm saying the current situation doesn't even come close to correlating with any demographic by percentage - so your worry that engineering is at play is based on a false premise.

-Signed a professional working woman who deals with recruitment as a portion of her job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting intersecting issues at play. Will take decades to sort out.

As white men are marginalized more and more, there will be less of a common enemy for Democrats. That was at the heart of the affirmative action cases.

The interplay between politics, marriage and child rearing will be interesting. Conservatives are having more children, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that having children is more aligned with conservative values presently. We have no idea how it plays out.

It isn’t a given that as minority groups take power they will continue progressive liberal values (see Michigan townships where Muslim dominated city councils have scaled back on Pride celebrations).

I don’t think a coloring of America leads in a straight line to progressive goals. It will be largely dependent on secularizing immigrant populations and I suspect changing birthing patterns will also be relevant.

-A latino.

White men are less than 30% of the population and yet represent about 70% of the leadership roles in America and you think that men are being marginalized? Yes, they are down to about 70% from nearly 90% 20 years ago, but that's not being marginalized.

Marginalized is when your representation is management and leadership positions is less than half of your representation in the general population, not when your representation is down to 250% of your representation in the general population.

And we wonder why it is so much harder for women and minorities to advance when the people making the decisions have a predisposition to hire or promote people who look like them. So white men are not guaranteed, but are much more likely to promote and advance white men.

Wait so the plan really is for white men to become “marginalized more and more”? Isn’t that exactly what replacement theory is all about?

Glad I am not the only one seeing the "plan" to marginalize "white men".

You know what this is called? Demographic Engineering. And I definitely have seen this trend over the decades...and it’s NOT a good trend.

I met someone years ago and I mentioned that we had a diverse board of 7 directors because there was 1 woman and 1 POC...their response was "that's not diverse enough".

So I think what I'm seeing is indeed demographic engineering...where groups in society are forced to have members with equal % representation from every single different type of demographic even though a a certain group may be only 1% of the entire demographic population. That's not going to ever happen people nor should it ever happen.

The problem is you cannot socially engineer the demographics of society like this. You see it happening with the entertainment industry with the forced inclusion of every single type of demographic.

Some people will read this post and agree that demographic engineering is ok. I personally do not and will not ever support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting intersecting issues at play. Will take decades to sort out.

As white men are marginalized more and more, there will be less of a common enemy for Democrats. That was at the heart of the affirmative action cases.

The interplay between politics, marriage and child rearing will be interesting. Conservatives are having more children, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that having children is more aligned with conservative values presently. We have no idea how it plays out.

It isn’t a given that as minority groups take power they will continue progressive liberal values (see Michigan townships where Muslim dominated city councils have scaled back on Pride celebrations).

I don’t think a coloring of America leads in a straight line to progressive goals. It will be largely dependent on secularizing immigrant populations and I suspect changing birthing patterns will also be relevant.

-A latino.

White men are less than 30% of the population and yet represent about 70% of the leadership roles in America and you think that men are being marginalized? Yes, they are down to about 70% from nearly 90% 20 years ago, but that's not being marginalized.

Marginalized is when your representation is management and leadership positions is less than half of your representation in the general population, not when your representation is down to 250% of your representation in the general population.

And we wonder why it is so much harder for women and minorities to advance when the people making the decisions have a predisposition to hire or promote people who look like them. So white men are not guaranteed, but are much more likely to promote and advance white men.

Wait so the plan really is for white men to become “marginalized more and more”? Isn’t that exactly what replacement theory is all about?

Glad I am not the only one seeing the "plan" to marginalize "white men".

You know what this is called? Demographic Engineering. And I definitely have seen this trend over the decades...and it’s NOT a good trend.

I met someone years ago and I mentioned that we had a diverse board of 7 directors because there was 1 woman and 1 POC...their response was "that's not diverse enough".

So I think what I'm seeing is indeed demographic engineering...where groups in society are forced to have members with equal % representation from every single different type of demographic even though a a certain group may be only 1% of the entire demographic population. That's not going to ever happen people nor should it ever happen.

The problem is you cannot socially engineer the demographics of society like this. You see it happening with the entertainment industry with the forced inclusion of every single type of demographic.

Some people will read this post and agree that demographic engineering is ok. I personally do not and will not ever support it.

Ick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting intersecting issues at play. Will take decades to sort out.

As white men are marginalized more and more, there will be less of a common enemy for Democrats. That was at the heart of the affirmative action cases.

The interplay between politics, marriage and child rearing will be interesting. Conservatives are having more children, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that having children is more aligned with conservative values presently. We have no idea how it plays out.

It isn’t a given that as minority groups take power they will continue progressive liberal values (see Michigan townships where Muslim dominated city councils have scaled back on Pride celebrations).

I don’t think a coloring of America leads in a straight line to progressive goals. It will be largely dependent on secularizing immigrant populations and I suspect changing birthing patterns will also be relevant.

-A latino.

Wait so the plan really is for white men to become “marginalized more and more”? Isn’t that exactly what replacement theory is all about?

Glad I am not the only one seeing the "plan" to marginalize "white men".

You know what this is called? Demographic Engineering. And I definitely have seen this trend over the decades...and it’s NOT a good trend.

I met someone years ago and I mentioned that we had a diverse board of 7 directors because there was 1 woman and 1 POC...their response was "that's not diverse enough".

So I think what I'm seeing is indeed demographic engineering...where groups in society are forced to have members with equal % representation from every single different type of demographic even though a a certain group may be only 1% of the entire demographic population. That's not going to ever happen people nor should it ever happen.

The problem is you cannot socially engineer the demographics of society like this. You see it happening with the entertainment industry with the forced inclusion of every single type of demographic.

Some people will read this post and agree that demographic engineering is ok. I personally do not and will not ever support it.

You do realize that women are not 1% of the population right? White people are only about 70% of the population and declining. So your premise is very faulty.

I wasn't referring to women or any particular demographic when I referred to 1%, it was merely and example to make a point about demographic engineering. It's about demographic engineering to merely check the box on quotas.

Ok, but look at the scenario that you described: there was only 1 woman and 1 POC in a room of 7 people. For 'demographic engineering' to be taking place, MORE than 4 of those members should have been women, and MORE than 3 of those should have been POCs. Instead, the person that you were speaking with may have been commenting on the fact that having 1 of each isn't even reflective of our population. That isn't demographic engineering - that's just asking that the leadership of an organization actually reflect the population in which it exists. Because right now, it appears that it was easier to get on the board of directors if you were a white man than any other person.

Exactly my point...the members of a board of directors (or any group) should NOT be "engineered" or manipulated simply to corelate to and % of any demographic.

Signed a professional working woman who thinks that a diverse group does not have to have a % representation of every single different type of demographic in order to be diverse.

A group of people is not dependent on nor completely reflective of the population's % demographics in order to be diverse. Ex. We have a diverse group of teachers. Is the demographic reflective of our population? No, because more women tend to become teachers. I still claim that there is diversity among teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting intersecting issues at play. Will take decades to sort out.

As white men are marginalized more and more, there will be less of a common enemy for Democrats. That was at the heart of the affirmative action cases.

The interplay between politics, marriage and child rearing will be interesting. Conservatives are having more children, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that having children is more aligned with conservative values presently. We have no idea how it plays out.

It isn’t a given that as minority groups take power they will continue progressive liberal values (see Michigan townships where Muslim dominated city councils have scaled back on Pride celebrations).

I don’t think a coloring of America leads in a straight line to progressive goals. It will be largely dependent on secularizing immigrant populations and I suspect changing birthing patterns will also be relevant.

-A latino.

Wait so the plan really is for white men to become “marginalized more and more”? Isn’t that exactly what replacement theory is all about?

Glad I am not the only one seeing the "plan" to marginalize "white men".

You know what this is called? Demographic Engineering. And I definitely have seen this trend over the decades...and it’s NOT a good trend.

I met someone years ago and I mentioned that we had a diverse board of 7 directors because there was 1 woman and 1 POC...their response was "that's not diverse enough".

So I think what I'm seeing is indeed demographic engineering...where groups in society are forced to have members with equal % representation from every single different type of demographic even though a a certain group may be only 1% of the entire demographic population. That's not going to ever happen people nor should it ever happen.

The problem is you cannot socially engineer the demographics of society like this. You see it happening with the entertainment industry with the forced inclusion of every single type of demographic.

Some people will read this post and agree that demographic engineering is ok. I personally do not and will not ever support it.

You do realize that women are not 1% of the population right? White people are only about 70% of the population and declining. So your premise is very faulty.

I wasn't referring to women or any particular demographic when I referred to 1%, it was merely and example to make a point about demographic engineering. It's about demographic engineering to merely check the box on quotas.

Ok, but look at the scenario that you described: there was only 1 woman and 1 POC in a room of 7 people. For 'demographic engineering' to be taking place, MORE than 4 of those members should have been women, and MORE than 3 of those should have been POCs. Instead, the person that you were speaking with may have been commenting on the fact that having 1 of each isn't even reflective of our population. That isn't demographic engineering - that's just asking that the leadership of an organization actually reflect the population in which it exists. Because right now, it appears that it was easier to get on the board of directors if you were a white man than any other person.

You'll never get true reflection of the population with 7 seats at the table. Some group will always be over or under represented. And at some point the term POC will fall to the wayside, because it is only used as a population counterweight to the White population. It's like the turn of the 20th century USA and trying to group Irish, Italians, Polish, English, and Ashkenazi Jews as one "White" group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting intersecting issues at play. Will take decades to sort out.

As white men are marginalized more and more, there will be less of a common enemy for Democrats. That was at the heart of the affirmative action cases.

The interplay between politics, marriage and child rearing will be interesting. Conservatives are having more children, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that having children is more aligned with conservative values presently. We have no idea how it plays out.

It isn’t a given that as minority groups take power they will continue progressive liberal values (see Michigan townships where Muslim dominated city councils have scaled back on Pride celebrations).

I don’t think a coloring of America leads in a straight line to progressive goals. It will be largely dependent on secularizing immigrant populations and I suspect changing birthing patterns will also be relevant.

-A latino.

Wait so the plan really is for white men to become “marginalized more and more”? Isn’t that exactly what replacement theory is all about?

+1 exactly.

More and more people will be multiracial, like my kids. We just need to all be some shade of tan/brown (my kids are half Asian) so we can stop with this racist BS.

Humans will always find ways to create in groups and out groups. Observable differences like skin color and physical characteristics just make it easier.

but if we are all some shade of brown/tan we can at least dispense with skin color differentiation.

Spending some time in Brazil will quickly dispel you of that notion. Brown people start sorting each other based on their relatively lightness. It’s not something that will go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting intersecting issues at play. Will take decades to sort out.

As white men are marginalized more and more, there will be less of a common enemy for Democrats. That was at the heart of the affirmative action cases.

The interplay between politics, marriage and child rearing will be interesting. Conservatives are having more children, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that having children is more aligned with conservative values presently. We have no idea how it plays out.

It isn’t a given that as minority groups take power they will continue progressive liberal values (see Michigan townships where Muslim dominated city councils have scaled back on Pride celebrations).

I don’t think a coloring of America leads in a straight line to progressive goals. It will be largely dependent on secularizing immigrant populations and I suspect changing birthing patterns will also be relevant.

-A latino.

Wait so the plan really is for white men to become “marginalized more and more”? Isn’t that exactly what replacement theory is all about?

Glad I am not the only one seeing the "plan" to marginalize "white men".

You know what this is called? Demographic Engineering. And I definitely have seen this trend over the decades...and it’s NOT a good trend.

I met someone years ago and I mentioned that we had a diverse board of 7 directors because there was 1 woman and 1 POC...their response was "that's not diverse enough".

So I think what I'm seeing is indeed demographic engineering...where groups in society are forced to have members with equal % representation from every single different type of demographic even though a a certain group may be only 1% of the entire demographic population. That's not going to ever happen people nor should it ever happen.

The problem is you cannot socially engineer the demographics of society like this. You see it happening with the entertainment industry with the forced inclusion of every single type of demographic.

Some people will read this post and agree that demographic engineering is ok. I personally do not and will not ever support it.

You do realize that women are not 1% of the population right? White people are only about 70% of the population and declining. So your premise is very faulty.

I wasn't referring to women or any particular demographic when I referred to 1%, it was merely and example to make a point about demographic engineering. It's about demographic engineering to merely check the box on quotas.

Ok, but look at the scenario that you described: there was only 1 woman and 1 POC in a room of 7 people. For 'demographic engineering' to be taking place, MORE than 4 of those members should have been women, and MORE than 3 of those should have been POCs. Instead, the person that you were speaking with may have been commenting on the fact that having 1 of each isn't even reflective of our population. That isn't demographic engineering - that's just asking that the leadership of an organization actually reflect the population in which it exists. Because right now, it appears that it was easier to get on the board of directors if you were a white man than any other person.

You'll never get true reflection of the population with 7 seats at the table. Some group will always be over or under represented. And at some point the term POC will fall to the wayside, because it is only used as a population counterweight to the White population. It's like the turn of the 20th century USA and trying to group Irish, Italians, Polish, English, and Ashkenazi Jews as one "White" group.

Exactly. That does not mean that the group of 7 is not diverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting intersecting issues at play. Will take decades to sort out.

As white men are marginalized more and more, there will be less of a common enemy for Democrats. That was at the heart of the affirmative action cases.

The interplay between politics, marriage and child rearing will be interesting. Conservatives are having more children, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that having children is more aligned with conservative values presently. We have no idea how it plays out.

It isn’t a given that as minority groups take power they will continue progressive liberal values (see Michigan townships where Muslim dominated city councils have scaled back on Pride celebrations).

I don’t think a coloring of America leads in a straight line to progressive goals. It will be largely dependent on secularizing immigrant populations and I suspect changing birthing patterns will also be relevant.

-A latino.

Wait so the plan really is for white men to become “marginalized more and more”? Isn’t that exactly what replacement theory is all about?

Glad I am not the only one seeing the "plan" to marginalize "white men".

You know what this is called? Demographic Engineering. And I definitely have seen this trend over the decades...and it’s NOT a good trend.

I met someone years ago and I mentioned that we had a diverse board of 7 directors because there was 1 woman and 1 POC...their response was "that's not diverse enough".

So I think what I'm seeing is indeed demographic engineering...where groups in society are forced to have members with equal % representation from every single different type of demographic even though a a certain group may be only 1% of the entire demographic population. That's not going to ever happen people nor should it ever happen.

The problem is you cannot socially engineer the demographics of society like this. You see it happening with the entertainment industry with the forced inclusion of every single type of demographic.

Some people will read this post and agree that demographic engineering is ok. I personally do not and will not ever support it.

You do realize that women are not 1% of the population right? White people are only about 70% of the population and declining. So your premise is very faulty.

I wasn't referring to women or any particular demographic when I referred to 1%, it was merely and example to make a point about demographic engineering. It's about demographic engineering to merely check the box on quotas.

Ok, but look at the scenario that you described: there was only 1 woman and 1 POC in a room of 7 people. For 'demographic engineering' to be taking place, MORE than 4 of those members should have been women, and MORE than 3 of those should have been POCs. Instead, the person that you were speaking with may have been commenting on the fact that having 1 of each isn't even reflective of our population. That isn't demographic engineering - that's just asking that the leadership of an organization actually reflect the population in which it exists. Because right now, it appears that it was easier to get on the board of directors if you were a white man than any other person.

Exactly my point...the members of a board of directors (or any group) should NOT be "engineered" or manipulated simply to corelate to and % of any demographic.

Signed a professional working woman who thinks that a diverse group does not have to have a % representation of every single different type of demographic in order to be diverse.

You're still missing my point. It isn't "engineering" to increase your recruitment pool to include women and POCs. I'm saying the current situation doesn't even come close to correlating with any demographic by percentage - so your worry that engineering is at play is based on a false premise.

-Signed a professional working woman who deals with recruitment as a portion of her job.

So you’re the DEI manager

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting intersecting issues at play. Will take decades to sort out.

As white men are marginalized more and more, there will be less of a common enemy for Democrats. That was at the heart of the affirmative action cases.

The interplay between politics, marriage and child rearing will be interesting. Conservatives are having more children, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that having children is more aligned with conservative values presently. We have no idea how it plays out.

It isn’t a given that as minority groups take power they will continue progressive liberal values (see Michigan townships where Muslim dominated city councils have scaled back on Pride celebrations).

I don’t think a coloring of America leads in a straight line to progressive goals. It will be largely dependent on secularizing immigrant populations and I suspect changing birthing patterns will also be relevant.

-A latino.

Wait so the plan really is for white men to become “marginalized more and more”? Isn’t that exactly what replacement theory is all about?

+1 exactly.

More and more people will be multiracial, like my kids. We just need to all be some shade of tan/brown (my kids are half Asian) so we can stop with this racist BS.

Humans will always find ways to create in groups and out groups. Observable differences like skin color and physical characteristics just make it easier.

but if we are all some shade of brown/tan we can at least dispense with skin color differentiation.

Brown and tan people make the most distinctions based on skin color. The lighter the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I grew up going to mass twice a week because my parents were super Catholic (I had many siblings, yes). I was confirmed in the church.

I have not been to church for decades now and consider myself agnostic. Only one of my siblings has a peripheral connection to the church. The rest of us are like me. We were over churched quite frankly. Religion has zero to do with how we each vote (gender is a much, much bigger factor).

"Catholic" women are not voting for Trump in droves. I'm pretty sure of that.

Why does someone who is an agnostic collect data on the voting patterns of Catholic women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting intersecting issues at play. Will take decades to sort out.

As white men are marginalized more and more, there will be less of a common enemy for Democrats. That was at the heart of the affirmative action cases.

The interplay between politics, marriage and child rearing will be interesting. Conservatives are having more children, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that having children is more aligned with conservative values presently. We have no idea how it plays out.

It isn’t a given that as minority groups take power they will continue progressive liberal values (see Michigan townships where Muslim dominated city councils have scaled back on Pride celebrations).

I don’t think a coloring of America leads in a straight line to progressive goals. It will be largely dependent on secularizing immigrant populations and I suspect changing birthing patterns will also be relevant.

-A latino.

Wait so the plan really is for white men to become “marginalized more and more”? Isn’t that exactly what replacement theory is all about?

+1 exactly.

More and more people will be multiracial, like my kids. We just need to all be some shade of tan/brown (my kids are half Asian) so we can stop with this racist BS.

Humans will always find ways to create in groups and out groups. Observable differences like skin color and physical characteristics just make it easier.

but if we are all some shade of brown/tan we can at least dispense with skin color differentiation.

Spending some time in Brazil will quickly dispel you of that notion. Brown people start sorting each other based on their relatively lightness. It’s not something that will go away.

+1

Do some research on colorism. There is a reason people try to bleach their skin. Lighter skin is seen as more desireable. This is common in many countries where the vast majority of people are black. Also in countries such as Nigeria you start to sort by tribe which is tied to religion. It doesn’t just go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP is emphasizing impressive racial diversity without addressing the bigger issue: class/socioeconomics.

Yes, it’s fantastic that the legal profession has diversified to the point that the op’s referral network includes a rainbow of people. That’s progress that should be celebrated (and a real world reminder that US has come a very long way and isn’t as racist as many imagine…particularly compared with other countries).

The real divide remains with class: it comes down to money, not skin color.

The Haves will always be fearful of the Have Nots. And truthfully, the Have Nots tend to create the most issues and drain resources.

ICYMI: poor white Americans and loot black Americans are perhaps the most anti-immigrant.

I'm the OP and it never occurred to me that I was describing a greater political philosophy.
Yes, I'm a POC, but I'm also part of the 1% and I spend $75,000+ on private school per year. So, naturally, I am not thrilled with the government being overly generous towards public schools.
At the same time, I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories that are favored by the white right. I don't believe that 2 African-American women in Atlanta rigged the Presdential election and I don't believe that a Jewish cabal deep state controls the media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of interesting intersecting issues at play. Will take decades to sort out.

As white men are marginalized more and more, there will be less of a common enemy for Democrats. That was at the heart of the affirmative action cases.

The interplay between politics, marriage and child rearing will be interesting. Conservatives are having more children, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that having children is more aligned with conservative values presently. We have no idea how it plays out.

It isn’t a given that as minority groups take power they will continue progressive liberal values (see Michigan townships where Muslim dominated city councils have scaled back on Pride celebrations).

I don’t think a coloring of America leads in a straight line to progressive goals. It will be largely dependent on secularizing immigrant populations and I suspect changing birthing patterns will also be relevant.

-A latino.

Wait so the plan really is for white men to become “marginalized more and more”? Isn’t that exactly what replacement theory is all about?

+1 exactly.

More and more people will be multiracial, like my kids. We just need to all be some shade of tan/brown (my kids are half Asian) so we can stop with this racist BS.

Humans will always find ways to create in groups and out groups. Observable differences like skin color and physical characteristics just make it easier.

but if we are all some shade of brown/tan we can at least dispense with skin color differentiation.

Spending some time in Brazil will quickly dispel you of that notion. Brown people start sorting each other based on their relatively lightness. It’s not something that will go away.

+1

Do some research on colorism. There is a reason people try to bleach their skin. Lighter skin is seen as more desireable. This is common in many countries where the vast majority of people are black. Also in countries such as Nigeria you start to sort by tribe which is tied to religion. It doesn’t just go away.

You don't need to go to Brazil. Black Americans engage in this type of behavior here in the US. There are many lighter skinned Black Americans who are chastised for "not being black enough". Sometimes it's by behavior, but in many largely minority neighborhoods, it is done by skin darkness.