pull down to refresh
Filming agents in public isn’t doxing. The memo targets organized doxing, but it creates a posture where footage can get treated as part of a doxing pipeline once it’s used to identify or target agents at home, even if someone else does the doxing.
Appreciate the honesty. That’s Christian nationalism in plain English: power worship. And it’s exactly why church/state fusion is poison.
Win what, this #1331737 'modern Christian' culture war?
I agree policy can change fast, and betting your whole future on government is not a good idea. It can backfire hard. We saw that with the crack vs. powder era: harsh sentencing and enforcement fell hardest on Black communities while other drug use was framed and treated very differently.
But that’s not an argument for “stop using policy.” It’s an argument for fighting for durable, fair rules and protections, building laws and institutions that don’t collapse the moment power flips.
The whole “Second Reconstruction” point is that fairness required policy: federal enforcement and voting protections are why rights became real in practice. And when the Court removed those guardrails, the result wasn’t “neutral freedom”. It opened the door for states to rewrite the rules. #1288677
Also, “colorblind” language has often been used as moral cover to roll back civil-rights protections while claiming it’s just equality.
So yes, we don’t worship government. But “government should only stop violence and theft” is too thin: rights can be stripped without a punch being thrown, just by changing rules. And we know how that goes.
I get the concern: when people feel targeted, it can push them toward reaction politics, and that’s bad.
But the article (and this comment) makes a jump: big shifts in who shows up in a few elite, gatekept industries don’t prove a coordinated “10-year campaign” to discriminate against white millennial men.
Even in Soave’s telling, the people who actually ran things mostly didn’t lose their seats. The “corrections” got concentrated at the entry level: internships, junior roles, first breaks.
And “just go back to colorblind” isn’t neutral at all. After SFFA, some elite schools saw sharp demographic swings, not because “merit changed,” but because old advantages snap back when rules designed to even the playing field change. #1311550
Related labor data point: White unemployment ~3.7–3.9 while Black unemployment moved 6.4 → 8.3 over the same window. #1347880
If it wasn’t advertised that way, a photo can’t prove discrimination. It only describes outcomes. The real question is what criteria/pipeline produced that group of interns. If it was explicit, there should be documentation or a complaint. My take on the broader pattern is here:
#1289513
Fair. That’s why anecdotes can’t carry a national argument. With the EEOC increasingly framing DEI as discrimination, anyone who believes they were discriminated against should file a complaint and bring evidence.
I appreciate the candor. One thing that stands out to me is that this exact “power shift” theory predates today’s immigration debate by a long time.
In White America (originally 1923; later reissued), Earnest Sevier Cox lays out a scenario where demographic change leads to political dependency and ends with “a mixed-breed would sit as President” (his phrasing). That’s essentially the same structure as modern “replacement” rhetoric: not just debating “how much immigration,” but claiming that legitimacy and power are inherently tied to ancestry and a specific cultural baseline.
That’s why I’m exploring the “90-year funnel” idea: the core question of who counts as a legitimate member or leader appears early in explicit texts, then resurfaces later in organized policy and campaign language, sometimes channeled through immigration policy, sometimes through voting rules and questions of political representation.
You can see the same “who legitimately represents whom” dispute playing out in current Section 2 and redistricting cases, which the Supreme Court is revisiting again.