Lori Lightfoot states she'll only give 1-on-1 interviews to "Black and Brown" journalists

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

It's Jim Crow on steroids! But when you are D, they let you do anything, even choose journalist based on the amount of melanin in their skin.

[DaleCooper]

Wow, so many left-wingers rushing to Lightfoot's defense!

...Oh wait, no one is, and pretty much every left-winger here is rightfully calling her out on her stupidity. Seriously, I hate performative activism as much as the next guy (and I actually have to deal with it more than most, who probably just read an annoying Tweet and conclude that it's the biggest issue of the 21st century) but the false equivalency drawn between this and what Trump/Republicans do, or implying that there's a double standard against them is downright silly.

The obvious purpose of the statement is to establish plausible deniability when it comes to controlling press access. Obviously, "the left" has nothing to do with that underlying motive, as it's purely cynical and self-interested.

The deeper problem is that the language and logic of diversity, equity, and inclusion is so murky that it is very easily abused for the sake of power plays like this one. For that there is plenty of blame to be placed. Social justice activism, professional managerial strivers, dysfunctional academic disciplines, and viral outrage stoked over new media have each been important vectors.

While there’s some influence of this sort of language to be found in academia, it does not have the impact on society that many online claim. And at the elementary/secondary level, most of the influence has been confined to meetings and professional development, with little change occurring within the classroom. While sometimes people in my district annoy me, they’re not taking over Congress or writing actual laws will this language which will impact millions of lives. I just think that the influence of performative activism, as well as the number who engage in or support it, is significantly exaggerated.

The number of people who engage in or support it may be exaggerated, but the people that do engage in or support it are often in positions of power and typically are among the most privileged and vocal people in the country. You can't deflect by saying, "Only a few people want to inject this stuff into the classroom," when those few people are often administrators, professors, school board representatives, etc. And that's not even mentioning how relatively small of an outcry you need in order to destroy someone's livelihood over a perceived offense.

You're right that this doesn't represent your average left-leaning voter, but it's getting to the point where it does represent your average socially progressive activist, and I think that does a lot of damage to pretty much every cause those people associate with.

[Green Line]

“I’m on the left and I dont like it, therefore this has nothing to do with the Left”.

Nah.

[Xing]

While there’s some influence of this sort of language to be found in academia, it does not have the impact on society that many online claim. And at the elementary/secondary level, most of the influence has been confined to meetings and professional development, with little change occurring within the classroom. While sometimes people in my district annoy me, they’re not taking over Congress or writing actual laws will this language which will impact millions of lives. I just think that the influence of performative activism, as well as the number who engage in or support it, is significantly exaggerated.

No, no, no, no. Argue that some vague entity known as "the left" does not deserve primary blame if you like, but you don't get to pretend that nothing significant is happening. Not anymore. This is not a matter of interpretation; it's happening before our eyes. You're not going to convince anyone in a discussion about how the mayor of one of the country's largest cities is abusing language in exactly this fashion.

How is this more significant than people like MTG being members of Congress? And it’s not like Lightfoot is popular or getting a warm reception to this. When schools start actually enacting policies that directly harm students due to language, or when we have members of Congress or a sitting president protected from legal recourse due to work language, then we can claim it’s one of the most catastrophic issues of this century. That’s not to say it isn’t a problem that should be addressed, but the problem rarely extends beyond annoyance and people in academia being pressured into “apologizing” for harmless statements.

[Octowakandi]

We had Republicans attempt to establish what was essentially a white supremacist caucus in the House, so I do not want to hear any "But if Republicans did" arguments.

Anyone with a mind knows that Black and Latino citizens have a very specific issue set that require focused attention. Speaking to Black and Brown journalists exclusively is not racist, it is helping to close a long term gap of minority issues not being heard.

Imagine if Trump had declared that only white journalists could ask him questions.

Why would you care? Aren't you a Sanders supporter?

Personally, I wish there was a way to silence all non white Atlas posters. I hear enough from white people as is in life and think it's ridiculous that even online, I have to hear from white voices and their opinions. This site would be better if we could make it purely a vehicle for non white voices like lfromnj, Deadprez, OSR, etc.

Hyperbole much?

What's hyperbole? That historically white voices have been magnified and that the effect continues even on online forums? Just because white voices are calling for equality doesn't take away from the fact that they are the primary voices we are forced to hear from. It's genuinely quite unsettling and tragic that more diverse voices don't have free spaces to speak and white voices have to listen while the reverse has been true for hundreds of years. The best way would be to have white Atlas users not allowed to post but allowed to react and recommend posts so we understand that they are indeed listening to non white voices.

[Suburbia]

She is a racist, yes.  And she released a statement doubling down on it this morning - she has no shame.

Prejudiced. Black people don't have the power to oppress.......

[Green Line]

She is a racist, yes.  And she released a statement doubling down on it this morning - she has no shame.

Prejudiced. Black people don't have the power to oppress.......

Yes, Lori Lightfoot, mayor of Chicago, has no power.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

She is a racist, yes.  And she released a statement doubling down on it this morning - she has no shame.

Prejudiced. Black people don't have the power to oppress.......

Never change, bronz.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

She is a racist, yes.  And she released a statement doubling down on it this morning - she has no shame.

Prejudiced. Black people don't have the power to oppress.......

Never change, bronz.

One of my college professors has actually said those exact 2 lines before

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

While there’s some influence of this sort of language to be found in academia, it does not have the impact on society that many online claim. And at the elementary/secondary level, most of the influence has been confined to meetings and professional development, with little change occurring within the classroom. While sometimes people in my district annoy me, they’re not taking over Congress or writing actual laws will this language which will impact millions of lives. I just think that the influence of performative activism, as well as the number who engage in or support it, is significantly exaggerated.

No, no, no, no. Argue that some vague entity known as "the left" does not deserve primary blame if you like, but you don't get to pretend that nothing significant is happening. Not anymore. This is not a matter of interpretation; it's happening before our eyes. You're not going to convince anyone in a discussion about how the mayor of one of the country's largest cities is abusing language in exactly this fashion.

How is this more significant than people like MTG being members of Congress?

Because mayor of the third largest city in the country is a more notable position than 1/435th of the House, especially when that individual has also been stripped of all her committee assignments and has no real power or influence aside from being able to vote. The House has always had whackjobs in it, MTG is nothing new. Granted Chicago has had bad mayors before as well (actually when's the last time it DIDN'T?) but this is a different way.

[lfromnj]

She is a racist, yes.  And she released a statement doubling down on it this morning - she has no shame.

Prejudiced. Black people don't have the power to oppress.......

Never change, bronz.

One of my college professors has actually said those exact 2 lines before

Wait naïve kids who graduated college in 2006 became professors by 2021?

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

She is a racist, yes.  And she released a statement doubling down on it this morning - she has no shame.

Prejudiced. Black people don't have the power to oppress.......

Never change, bronz.

One of my college professors has actually said those exact 2 lines before

Wait naïve kids who graduated college in 2006 became professors by 2021?

She was like 65, lol

[Fight for Trump]

She is a racist, yes.  And she released a statement doubling down on it this morning - she has no shame.

Prejudiced. Black people don't have the power to oppress.......

Never change, bronz.

One of my college professors has actually said those exact 2 lines before

Wait naïve kids who graduated college in 2006 became professors by 2021?

She was like 65, lol

I'm assuming no points awarded for guessing her skin color.

[HisGrace]

Where does one draw the line on this? Does mixed race count? What kind of mixed race? Do mixed race people who look more white count? I have cousins who are Korean on the other side of their family. Two look white, two look Korean. Do you only pick the ones who look Korean? Are East Asians “brown”? Do people of Iranian descent (who are actually mostly white) count? North Africans? Etc.

If race is a social construct then you can't make any value judgments based on it. That's a logical problem the woke left is not at all interested in reconciling because it would make their whole ideology fall apart.

She is a racist, yes.  And she released a statement doubling down on it this morning - she has no shame.

Prejudiced. Black people don't have the power to oppress.......

Never change, bronz.

One of my college professors has actually said those exact 2 lines before

There's nothing the white, supposedly "antiracist" left loves to talk about more than what black people can't do.

[Xing]

While there’s some influence of this sort of language to be found in academia, it does not have the impact on society that many online claim. And at the elementary/secondary level, most of the influence has been confined to meetings and professional development, with little change occurring within the classroom. While sometimes people in my district annoy me, they’re not taking over Congress or writing actual laws will this language which will impact millions of lives. I just think that the influence of performative activism, as well as the number who engage in or support it, is significantly exaggerated.

No, no, no, no. Argue that some vague entity known as "the left" does not deserve primary blame if you like, but you don't get to pretend that nothing significant is happening. Not anymore. This is not a matter of interpretation; it's happening before our eyes. You're not going to convince anyone in a discussion about how the mayor of one of the country's largest cities is abusing language in exactly this fashion.

How is this more significant than people like MTG being members of Congress?

Because mayor of the third largest city in the country is a more notable position than 1/435th of the House, especially when that individual has also been stripped of all her committee assignments and has no real power or influence aside from being able to vote. The House has always had whackjobs in it, MTG is nothing new. Granted Chicago has had bad mayors before as well (actually when's the last time it DIDN'T?) but this is a different way.

I did say people like MTG, since she's far from the only nut in Congress, and the whole Republican Party bends its will to the fringe, while the Democratic Party as a whole doesn't do the same for woke online types. Yes, this is annoying virtual signaling, but do people think that this sort of thing is actually going to catch on and that the next Democratic presidential candidate is going to demand that they are only covered by "black and brown" networks or only consider debates legitimate if there are "black and brown" moderators? Or refuse to accept the results of an election unless those certifying it are "black and brown"? The impact of this beyond annoyance and cringeworthiness is consistently exaggerated.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wow, so many left-wingers rushing to Lightfoot's defense!

...Oh wait, no one is, and pretty much every left-winger here is rightfully calling her out on her stupidity. Seriously, I hate performative activism as much as the next guy (and I actually have to deal with it more than most, who probably just read an annoying Tweet and conclude that it's the biggest issue of the 21st century) but the false equivalency drawn between this and what Trump/Republicans do, or implying that there's a double standard against them is downright silly.

The obvious purpose of the statement is to establish plausible deniability when it comes to controlling press access. Obviously, "the left" has nothing to do with that underlying motive, as it's purely cynical and self-interested.

The deeper problem is that the language and logic of diversity, equity, and inclusion is so murky that it is very easily abused for the sake of power plays like this one. For that there is plenty of blame to be placed. Social justice activism, professional managerial strivers, dysfunctional academic disciplines, and viral outrage stoked over new media have each been important vectors.

While there’s some influence of this sort of language to be found in academia, it does not have the impact on society that many online claim. And at the elementary/secondary level, most of the influence has been confined to meetings and professional development, with little change occurring within the classroom. While sometimes people in my district annoy me, they’re not taking over Congress or writing actual laws will this language which will impact millions of lives. I just think that the influence of performative activism, as well as the number who engage in or support it, is significantly exaggerated.

The number of people who engage in or support it may be exaggerated, but the people that do engage in or support it are often in positions of power and typically are among the most privileged and vocal people in the country. You can't deflect by saying, "Only a few people want to inject this stuff into the classroom," when those few people are often administrators, professors, school board representatives, etc. And that's not even mentioning how relatively small of an outcry you need in order to destroy someone's livelihood over a perceived offense.

You're right that this doesn't represent your average left-leaning voter, but it's getting to the point where it does represent your average socially progressive activist, and I think that does a lot of damage to pretty much every cause those people associate with.

I think a good analogy I've made before would be to the push by conservative evangelicals to take over school boards during the Bush Administration. These aren't offices that attract a lot of attention and are usually nonpartisan so a powerful minority was through organization able to get people on and implement policies like teaching stealth creationism or abstinence only sex ed curriculums or perhaps most tragically the Anoka-Hennepin's district's "neutrality" policy prohibiting teachers from openly taking a position on the morality of homosexual behavior, this was blamed for a few teen suicides since it effectively prevented teachers and counselors from consoling LGBT students being bullied. This resulted in lawsuits, an investigation by the state and eventually the school board was voted out and the policy repealed. Now Anoka-Hennepin is not a conservative area by any means, while the "Hennepin" part of it is just northern and western suburbs, it includes no part of Minneapolis or the affluent and educated southern suburbs it's definitely not some religious right stronghold and the district no doubt voted against banning gay marriage in 2012. They did this via the organization of the Parents Action League whose backed candidates at one point held 6 out of 7 seats on the board via low profile nonpartisan elections normies hardly paid attention to, they were later labeled a hate group by the SPLC, all of their backed members of the board were voted out and they're effectively defunct today but their prominence came at a very high price.

Now granted there are reasons why extreme wokesters are unlikely to have the success of the religious right in this type of approach, most obvious is they lack the organizational structure of evangelical churches and their numbers are even fewer than that of hard right religious socons, but they're also clearly overrepresented in a bit of an academic bubble that exists and that allows for things like San Francisco's Board of Education passing a bunch of sh!t that even people in San Francisco don't support. Most of that stuff was admittedly silly but harmless (although I'd argue refusing to allow a gay father of a mixed race child onto a parent volunteer committee because they effectively instituted a "no white males" policy even though the committee had more empty slots than volunteers and currently no men on it isn't), but all it really takes is some woke bubble driven school board deciding to do something like institute a sex ed curriculum encouraging students to "reexamine genital preferences" in dating or requiring (or at least "encouraging") teachers to use progressive stack in calling on students and then we got a sh!tshow on our hands that's going to be really uncomfortable for some students if actually implemented and distract teachers from doing their jobs. Now would these policies eventually be neutered by courts/state authorities/normie voters waking up and voting out their proponents? Probably. But every school year that passes before it does (not to mention school district funding being drained by litigation) is irrepreable damage done. And that's not even taking into account stuff more likely to fly under the radar like incredibly biased and dishonest 1619 Project-esque curriculums.

Now the good news is that there's already a backlash against this stuff and rollback underway and if you don't believe me take a look at the near universal response to Lightfoot over this including from some black and Latino journalists or what happened to the San Francisco Board of Education President and them being combatted by London Breed and other municipal politicians, or that even the academic bubble is taking note at times like denying the 1619 Project creator tenure, furthermore Biden is kind of the perfect President to have in office during a pushback, he's a boring white guy and not a culture warrior in either direction so he's going to neither inspire a backlash that fuels this stuff like Trump did nor fan the flames and encourage it like it's possible someone like Elizabeth Warren might've and after eight years of Biden the purple haired college students who make this so visible on social media will have grown up and instead be concerned with things like work, bills and family, Twitter will probably decline in the post-Trump era which matters because its format is very prone to spreading toxic ideology into the mainstream far more than other social media sites and in time this stuff might look as silly as some of the stranger 70s second wave feminist practices do today. But just pretending it's not a thing now doesn't help.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

While there’s some influence of this sort of language to be found in academia, it does not have the impact on society that many online claim. And at the elementary/secondary level, most of the influence has been confined to meetings and professional development, with little change occurring within the classroom. While sometimes people in my district annoy me, they’re not taking over Congress or writing actual laws will this language which will impact millions of lives. I just think that the influence of performative activism, as well as the number who engage in or support it, is significantly exaggerated.

No, no, no, no. Argue that some vague entity known as "the left" does not deserve primary blame if you like, but you don't get to pretend that nothing significant is happening. Not anymore. This is not a matter of interpretation; it's happening before our eyes. You're not going to convince anyone in a discussion about how the mayor of one of the country's largest cities is abusing language in exactly this fashion.

How is this more significant than people like MTG being members of Congress?

Because mayor of the third largest city in the country is a more notable position than 1/435th of the House, especially when that individual has also been stripped of all her committee assignments and has no real power or influence aside from being able to vote. The House has always had whackjobs in it, MTG is nothing new. Granted Chicago has had bad mayors before as well (actually when's the last time it DIDN'T?) but this is a different way.

I did say people like MTG, since she's far from the only nut in Congress, and the whole Republican Party bends its will to the fringe, while the Democratic Party as a whole doesn't do the same for woke online types. Yes, this is annoying virtual signaling, but do people think that this sort of thing is actually going to catch on and that the next Democratic presidential candidate is going to demand that they are only covered by "black and brown" networks or only consider debates legitimate if there are "black and brown" moderators? Or refuse to accept the results of an election unless those certifying it are "black and brown"? The impact of this beyond annoyance and cringeworthiness is consistently exaggerated.

I kind of covered this in the above post, the issue isn't that a Democratic President or candidates are going to start promoting this crap (especially not Biden LMAO) but that it could take hold at lower levels of government just like how a lot of the most effective conservative evangelical campaigns at policy changes came from that instead of George W. Bush.

And while the Democratic Party as a whole obviously doesn't bend to the will of these types, it does have a few prominent members who seem to think they personally should, like your beloved Elizabeth Warren.

[soundchaser]

Ah yes, famously fast friends Lori Lightfoot and Elizabeth Warren. Your absolute seething hatred for the woman who *has done absolutely nothing like this* is beyond me.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

There's nothing the white, supposedly "antiracist" left loves to talk about more than what black people can't do.

TBH, I've seen some Black people say the same thing (I'm a Black guy btw). They feel as though "racism = racial prejudice + power" and that Black people can't be racist in America and the Western world because of that.

I absolutely disagree with that "rationale" but it's a sentiment that's out there unfortunately.

[QAnonKelly]

To add irony to this, her wife is white lmao.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There's nothing the white, supposedly "antiracist" left loves to talk about more than what black people can't do.

TBH, I've seen some Black people say the same thing (I'm a Black guy btw). They feel as though "racism = racial prejudice + power" and that Black people can't be racist in America and the Western world because of that.

I absolutely disagree with that "rationale" but it's a sentiment that's out there unfortunately.

I mean even if you accept that definition, uh does the mayor of the third largest city in the country not have any power?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I mean even if you accept that definition, uh does the mayor of the third largest city in the country not have any power?

I guess so, yes.

However, I think what they're saying is that Black people don't control most institutions of power in the United States (governmental organizations, corporations, courts, banks, schools, churches, media, etc). It has always been white people in the overwhelmingly majority (or all) of those positions and thus they believe that "Black people can't be racist".

I don't agree with that rationale though. They are describing systemic/systematic/institutional racism. Systemic racism is not the only form of racism. ANYONE of any ethnicity or race can be racist.

For example, I have unfortunately seen a few Black people (mostly online) who are racist. I've seen a few Black people online call (East/Southeast) Asian people "ch*nks" and "g**ks", call Latino/Hispanic people "sp*cs" and "w*tbacks", call White people "white devils" and "cave beasts/monkeys" and so on. It's terrible. I have also seen a few Black people both online and in real life who are anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish. They believe that Jewish people "control everything" and are "evil". Some of them also believe that the Holocaust didn't happen or "wasn't as bad as they're saying". There are also a few Black people that believe that "we (Black people) are the real Jews/Israelites" and that white Jewish people are "imposters". It's all disgusting and sickening. Ignorance and racism is not limited to a single ethnicity or race. We, as a society, have to make sure we call out racism no matter where or who it's coming from.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

https://mobile.twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1395765298830012422


B A S E D

[DrScholl]

Gabbard rails against cancel culture, but is all for cancel culture when it serves her need to be a centerfold for conservatives.

[Bootes Void]

Gabbard rails against cancel culture, but is all for cancel culture when it serves her need to be a centerfold for conservatives.

Is there an example of her doing this