Two things:
To note, white supremacy certainly exists. Almost certainly not on a systemic scale in current era USA
If white supremacy was a mythical boogeyman the American Nazi party, the proud boys and the ku Klux Klan wouldn’t be around.
Here’s a couple
All irrelevant and certainly have no systemic influence or “power.” And the PB have minorities in their ranks. Pretty lousy supremacists.
I guess my only point is why on earth is Biden and his loony administration saying WS is our biggest threat.
Agreed, but arguably neither does antifa
What democratic in Congress/parliament openly states they’re part of antifa?
As to the proud boys, they may accept immigrants however various agencies have classified them as a terrorist organisation and/or a white supremacist group.
They’re like the right wing version of antifa. Interestingly both organisations are anti-Semitic. They have common ground!
Soytifa may not have systemic power but they certainly have had carte blanche and were being bailed out by Dems, celebrities and other scum. They’ve assaulted, burned, destroyed, rioted, etc… For quite some time now with little to no repercussions.
How do you impose repercussions when you don’t know who is behind the rioting, burning etc?
To my knowledge the body count wasn’t particularly high, but the economic cost of all the burnt buildings and damaged property was absolutely enormous.
I’ve seen a few videos, so I’m far from an expert. It appeared to me as if the majority of the rioters were anonymous, masked men. Like a bunch of angry kids got together in secret and decided to throw a tantrum.
Difficult to put someone away when you don’t know who you’re looking for. The proud boys on the other hand has an established leader
The proud boys were also purportedly present at many of these riots. At times to take part, other times to rile up/aggravate left wing extremists and incite chaos.
Many members of the proud boys have been found guilty of inciting riots, assault and the likes. What is your opinion of these guys? Do you despise them akin to the way you despise antifa (to note, I can’t stand either. They’re both extremist organisations).
Antifa virtue signals the anti racism, pro inclusivity and free speech schtick yet appears to censor any free speech deemed non PC/that doesn’t fit their agenda. What’s more, they occasionally use extreme acts of violence in a feeble attempt to get their way as opposed to going through due process as they’re deluded to the point they think America needs a coup in order to radically overhaul society into some communist utopia.
Proud boys on the other hand are a neo fascist (advocate for racial superiority), legitimately misogynistic, openly anti-Semitic, anti LGBT group… They don’t allow females into the group, it’s literally the opposite of antifa. Though they have yet to promote quite as much destruction.
I personally don’t believe either are a threat to democracy. Antifa is too disorganised and won’t acquire enough mainstream backing. They’d probably have to take over by force… Not possible given the resources they have
Proud boys, despite being more organised are also too extreme to acquire a strong foothold in the senate/house of representatives. Kinda like Pauline Hanson’s One Nation… I just don’t see it happening
White supremacy exists, terrorism exists… But it’s not the norm, there is lot of media hype/sensationalism going on in effort to feed into a certain narrative
Hollywood isn’t reflective of reality
Shitheels exist on both sides of the political spectrum. As the defund the police prospect hits close to home you appear to focus on the left.
Politicians care about politicians. There is (in my opinion) rarely a long term incentive to decisions make, only “what policy can I push through now that’ll make sure I’m remembered or maintain power”.
If a politician starts a train that trudges along towards radical overhaul for whatever ten years down the line, they may no longer be in power; henceforth no recognition may be present.
Politicians care about what keeps them in power, that’s about it. Republicans are certainly not saints, particularly after Trump came into power (2016 was literally the year America was downgraded to a flawed democracy).
Some celebrities were paying bail for rioters and looters
Some celebrities are pedophiles, rapists, drug dealers… You name it
Celebrity/Hollywood culture certainly isn’t composed of saints.
Arguably worse than politics, certainly just as irritating
Thanks - read both articles. I’ve been hitting the mezcal pretty hard already but gonna give this a go anyway. What I take from the articles is that it’s possible to pump a ton of outside money into a shitty school with a low property tax base and have it remain shitty. Fair enough - I mean is it really surprising that throwing government-controlled funds at a problem doesn’t actually improve the rates of graduation or college acceptance? If anything, it kind of illustrates the point that the systems in place don’t really do anything to address the underlying problem, regardless of whether or not there’s extra money coming from rich people’s taxes (and that’s before even addressing the issues of parental involvement, availability of tutoring, needing to work while in school, etc.). But schools that get a big check from the government because they have no tax revenue are different from schools with high property tax bases. The point was that people with assets and influence have systems (schools in this case) that work for them. High property tax base = high earners, and high earners don’t stand for shitty academic outcomes because they have the means to 1) influence their local schooling situations, 2) move to a better school district, or 3) put their kids in private schools. So essentially, there’s nothing here that’s dispositive. I think what you’d have to show for this to be dispositive would be patterns of high income / high property tax school districts that routinely churn out sub-standard graduation rates and college acceptance rates, but I suspect that’s a dead end.
Just as we pump a ton of money into those communities and they still remain shitty.
Because they, the parents, are involved in their children’s lives and actually think about their futures. They don’t believe it’s the school’s job to raise their kids.
It’s already been shown that the number one influence on kids is their peers. Your kid goes to school with a bunch of illiterate kids from single mother homes with no impulse control, there’s a good chance they will become their peers in spite of how well you parent. Having money does not make you behave appropriately in school. It does not make you want to learn. It does not make you smart. But, those who have money tend to also have the values that make their kids successful in school (work ethic, for one). You have a school full of kids from those homes, and they will do well academically.
You could have a school full of poor kids who come from two parent homes, who were taught the value of hard work and the importance of education, and they would out perform the poor kids from your typical inner city community. None of these woke people ask why Nigerians can come here and be successful while American blacks in inner cities go nowhere. They don’t fail because they are poor but because of the reasons why they are poor.
Yeah I’m gonna go ahead and set this down because there’s several new threads we could start on this point alone and we’re pretty far afield from the original post. There are elements of your post with which I agree but on the whole I think it’s a gross oversimplification of multiple issues. I’m not swayed by your arguments and I suspect you’re not swayed by mine - we’re wasting each other’s time. Agree to mostly disagree.
Why is the answer always more money when its obvious that money is not the answer. The cognitive disconnect is glaring.
The truth is, I address and see those issues as important whereas those who simply say we should pump more money in are simplifying things. We’re supposed to give the people who are failing to get results, and have been failing to get results for years, more money? Ask anyone what the problem with Baltimore schools is and they’ll say, “they are in Baltimore.”
Why didn’t Obama send his kids to an all black public school in DC instead of a private school where most students are white? One plus one equals two everywhere. Who exactly didn’t he want his kids to be around?
The problem is we are subsidizing poor behavior and poor choices.
Correct. This is one of the points on which we agree.
To be clear, I don’t have a problem with spending more money but, we need to change how and where we spend the money and people need to be held accountable for the results.
Also agree
It is the Republican party that champions school choice to allow minorities to attend successful schools. It is the Democratic party, supported by the vast majority of minorities, who fight tooth and nail against school choice.
Are you saying minorities with assets aren’t apathetic towards those same systems?