Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't let these people discourage you. If you believe in the message of the sign, put it up. I don't understand the position people take where you can't do one thing to support a cause unless you do EVERYthing. You can't post on the internet about how you believe in BLM unless you are also showing up at protests. You can't show up to one protest unless you have been going to protests for the last x number of years. Showing up to protests on weekends is meaningless unless you are also a full-time racial justice advocate.

That is a stupid position in all its forms. Sure, in-person activism is better than a yard sign. A yard sign is also better than nothing. Put up the sign, OP. It shows your neighbors that your heart is in the right place. Don't do nothing for fear of doing the wrong thing.

It's because the general population is tired of the "overly political" people. Live and let live.

Stop the over sharing, that goes for FB too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a sign on your front lawn to support a cause? More effective would be to volunteer or DO something rather than a shallow sign of status.

I agree that only having a yard sign is not enough. But I don't think that OP is suggesting that having a yard sign is her only form of activism.

Having a yard sign or bumper sticker or button or whatever is a very easy, very cheap, very small thing. But, I don't think it's harmful.

Actually, OP said exactly that. She admitted that her only form of activism is her "social worker" job and she can't do much more than that. So, yeah, basically OP just wants to put a sign on her lawn (and still send her kid to LAMB). Just another hypocrite.

OP again - not a social worker, but close enough. Assuming LAMB is the go-to charter for gentrifiers, then no I wouldn't want a LAMB due to demographics if there was a better or equal but more convenient charter, even if it was overwhelmingly black/not "like us".

Absolutely admit that I'm not getting a babysitter for an event that happens after bedtime or taking a wild toddler to a serious daytime event. I did a lot more activist work before kids and plan/hope/intend to get my kid(s) involved when they are old enough to actually participate and not be distractions. My mom drug me to a million rallies, letter writing events, and volunteer opportunities as a kid, and I fully intend to do the same. That said, does that mean I should wait to put up a sign until I can actually get involved again? Also welcome any suggestions for how to be involved with small kids!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here again - the schools issue is such a hard one. Yes, it's hypocritical and damaging to the community to not send your kids to the neighborhood school. Yes, I want the best for my kid and I'm not willing to sacrifice his education for the good of others. I feel like most parents feel that way. That said, I would much rather send my child to an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse school than a homogeneous private or suburban public school. Isn't that why we chose to live in the city instead of the suburbs anyways? It's not like any of us want to deal with the charter lottery process. I don't have a good answer to the school issue, but know that the charter/DCPS debate is more about class and education than race - my workplace is 90% black/latino and NONE of the educated, middle class, mostly DC natives that I work with send their kids to their in-boundary DCPS. Literally nobody that I've asked (and I ask everyone with school aged kids) does.

It's very different for your middle class, minority coworker to send their kid to KIPP, than for you to send your kid to LAMB because you don't want your kids with "those kids." Intersectionality means race AND class. Not that a white gentrifier can abstract away race.

OP again - I don't know the charters well enough (yet) to understand the context to this comment. What kids go to LAMB vs. KIPP? Would you say there's a difference between me wanting my kids to go to KIPP versus my coworker wanting her kids to go to KIPP? Or my kid going to LAMB verus her kid? I don't know what other parents consider in deciding on what charters to lottery for, but if there was a convenient, high achieving, and stable charter offering my kid a slot, I don't think I'd care if it was 95% black and/or low income students. Now if I had to drive across town then backtrack to work, that may be more of an issue.

Anonymous wrote:We are stereotypical gentrifiers in our DC neighborhood (Petworth). White, educated, young kid, etc. I love our neighborhood, including the ethnic and socioeconomic diversity, and try to be friendly, generous neighbors and haven't gotten (at least to our face) any of the gentrification backlash that you hear about. I'd like to get a Black Lives Matter sign for our front yard, but my husband thinks it is insensitive and inappropriate since we're not black. I think exactly the opposite and that line of thinking perpetuates the perception (and realit)y that white people don't care about black issues. (Yes, I know a yard sign isn't enough and we are also as politically active as possible with careers and a toddler.)

What say you, DCUM? I'd love to hear what others think. Should we get the sign?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here again - the schools issue is such a hard one. Yes, it's hypocritical and damaging to the community to not send your kids to the neighborhood school. Yes, I want the best for my kid and I'm not willing to sacrifice his education for the good of others. I feel like most parents feel that way. That said, I would much rather send my child to an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse school than a homogeneous private or suburban public school. Isn't that why we chose to live in the city instead of the suburbs anyways? It's not like any of us want to deal with the charter lottery process. I don't have a good answer to the school issue, but know that the charter/DCPS debate is more about class and education than race - my workplace is 90% black/latino and NONE of the educated, middle class, mostly DC natives that I work with send their kids to their in-boundary DCPS. Literally nobody that I've asked (and I ask everyone with school aged kids) does.

It's very different for your middle class, minority coworker to send their kid to KIPP, than for you to send your kid to LAMB because you don't want your kids with "those kids." Intersectionality means race AND class. Not that a white gentrifier can abstract away race.

So if I, a white who sent my kid to suburban schools, buys a houses in a heavily black neighborhood as an empty nester, that is cool? How is that tangibly better for black children? I guess I am too old to understand why statements and purity are so much more important than actual change.

Also what if someone doesn't care about intersectionality, but just opposes police violence?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a bunch of black yahoos and white yahoos. You all alienate more people than you "ally" with. You are all alienating people left and right, with your signs, tshirts, words, and stupid thoughts that "you" are any different than "I".

Grow up already. It's not about A vs. B etc,, no Us vs. Them. There is only "we" and until that position is solidly adopted, there will be unrest.

OP again - I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Who is being alienated? There is definitely not only "we" because I am not the same as the latino immigrant family two doors down or the black grandma and her grandkids in a subsidized rental house across the street. I am white, high(ish) income, have a postgraduate education, and have the ability to move my family to the suburbs whenever I feel like it. Maybe I'm missing the point of what you're saying, but there are some people I am concerned with alienating, and some that I couldn't care less about if it means trivializing those differences. Please clarify.

Anonymous wrote:OP, don't let these people discourage you. If you believe in the message of the sign, put it up. I don't understand the position people take where you can't do one thing to support a cause unless you do EVERYthing. You can't post on the internet about how you believe in BLM unless you are also showing up at protests. You can't show up to one protest unless you have been going to protests for the last x number of years. Showing up to protests on weekends is meaningless unless you are also a full-time racial justice advocate.

That is a stupid position in all its forms. Sure, in-person activism is better than a yard sign. A yard sign is also better than nothing. Put up the sign, OP. It shows your neighbors that your heart is in the right place. Don't do nothing for fear of doing the wrong thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a sign on your front lawn to support a cause? More effective would be to volunteer or DO something rather than a shallow sign of status.

I agree that only having a yard sign is not enough. But I don't think that OP is suggesting that having a yard sign is her only form of activism.

Having a yard sign or bumper sticker or button or whatever is a very easy, very cheap, very small thing. But, I don't think it's harmful.

Actually, OP said exactly that. She admitted that her only form of activism is her "social worker" job and she can't do much more than that. So, yeah, basically OP just wants to put a sign on her lawn (and still send her kid to LAMB). Just another hypocrite.

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need a sign on your front lawn to support a cause? More effective would be to volunteer or DO something rather than a shallow sign of status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtue signaling is so obnoxious.

+1