Current Events > White People are Dying FASTER than Births reaching closer to MINORITY STATUS!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

26 states are showing that More White People are Dying FASTER than are born in 2016, a first in american history that is indicating that white people are edging faster toward a MINORITY SOONER rather than later as previously thought!!

The numbers are significant compared to 2004 when white deaths EXCEED births in just 4 states or even 2 years earlier in 2014 when the shift occurred in 17 states

White Deaths have surpassed White Births nationwide fort he first time ever according to the National Centre for Health Statistics

Rogelio Saenz said "We were really surprised. it seems that white people going under the 50% of the population mark might be happenign a few years earlier than projected. When births fail to keep pace with deaths, a region is said to have anatural decrease in population can only be offset by MIGRATION gains. The growing incidence of this white natural decrease has important implications for the nation's demographic future. America is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse"

Whites accounted for 78% of all deaths but only 53% of births

But there has been a substantial increase in LATINOS of births over deaths and coupled with immigration trends have contributed enormously.

African Americans saw a decline in one state only, West Virginia while Asians and Pacific Islanders saw a decline in Hawaii

but Latinos births exceed deaths in every state of the nation

Birth Rates however are falling among all races with the lack of young people and support aging baby boomers. Without immigrants, there seems to be a hole

The shift started 20 years ago in states with the a high proporation of aging white population in Pennsylvania and West Virginia that was accelerated in the 2008 economic downturn when births started dropping off and white mortality started increasing, in apart due to the opiates crisis

The 26 states where white deaths exceed births were evenly divided between Trump and Clinton, 13 each

Does this statistic "worry" you?

http://tinyurl.com/ydxe49lm

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/06/20/15/4D73B31200000578-0-image-a-143_1529506554359.jpg
---

I'm dead on the inside. Does that count?
---

Does it worry me? No. Why the fuck would I care?

Seriously, though, the very definition of it is massively stupid anyway. The definition is literally, "Oh, you have a single drop of non-white blood in you? You are no longer white". Meanwhile, someone who is half white and half black is considered 'black'. Of course there is going to be less 'white people' when the definition is so rigidly narrow.

Dash_Harber posted...

Does it worry me? No. Why the fuck would I care?

Seriously, though, the very definition of it is massively stupid anyway. The definition is literally, "Oh, you have a single drop of non-white blood in you? You are no longer white". Meanwhile, someone who is half white and half black is considered 'black'. Of course there is going to be less 'white people' when the definition is so rigidly narrow.

One drop rule is so dumb.

how many of those white people in the liberal states claim they aren't white because they are 1/256ths Native American

ProtoManSPx posted...

One drop rule is so dumb.

That's why everybody needs their DNA tested for ethnic ancestry percentage distributions so they can get actual data.
---

Fox News back in 2006: White people do your duty, have more babies!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0af-RiRDoGk" data-time="
---

Zack_Attackv1 posted...

I'm dead on the inside. Does that count?

---

White people are dying FASTER and half this board doesnt even care
---

Kazi1212 posted...

White people are dying FASTER and half this board doesnt even care

yes according to liberals this a good thing.

Dash_Harber posted...

Does it worry me? No. Why the fuck would I care?

imagine saying this and meaning it.

Not in Europe lol
---

kayoticdreamz posted...

imagine saying this and meaning it.

Can you explain why this is something I should care about? Because there's a whole lot of fucks that I can't quite bring myself to give.
---

*Reads topic title*

Oh, this is just for the USA.

Meh.
---

Black people are dying at the same rate. It's rising for both because people are acting like idiots.

It's not a liberal or conservative thing either. In some liberal states whites are dying at a faster rate. In others not so much. It's mainly because of the lack of jobs, people in middle age are more in crisis, dealing with more ignorance, etc...

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/death-rate-by-raceethnicity/

People are under attack in general. Blame politicians, the media etc trying to get rich and lots of ignorant people beating each other up. Even all the anti bullying stuff that is out there is completely hypocritical.

There are massive idiots in this world. They are sheep too. Lack of courage etc. Just look at gamefaqs moderators and blame them. People don't even talk anymore get bent over the dumbest things and usually the wrong people get blamed for it. That will kill people.

marthsheretoo posted...

kayoticdreamz posted...

imagine saying this and meaning it.

Can you explain why this is something I should care about? Because there's a whole lot of fucks that I can't quite bring myself to give.

Dash_Harber posted...

marthsheretoo posted...

kayoticdreamz posted...

imagine saying this and meaning it.

Can you explain why this is something I should care about? Because there's a whole lot of fucks that I can't quite bring myself to give.

I mean, I personally care about various species of animals that are dying off faster in the modern world. Its not a leap for me to care about a race of humans dying off faster either. Thats just me though, I dont have a reason why I care about it, its just a natural reaction for me to care about the well being of groups of living beings
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Does it worry me? No. Why the fuck would I care?

Seriously, though, the very definition of it is massively stupid anyway. The definition is literally, "Oh, you have a single drop of non-white blood in you? You are no longer white". Meanwhile, someone who is half white and half black is considered 'black'. Of course there is going to be less 'white people' when the definition is so rigidly narrow.

That's not the definition the census uses. I'm fact, it doesn't use one. It's whatever each person considers themselves.

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Does it worry me? No. Why the fuck would I care?

Seriously, though, the very definition of it is massively stupid anyway. The definition is literally, "Oh, you have a single drop of non-white blood in you? You are no longer white". Meanwhile, someone who is half white and half black is considered 'black'. Of course there is going to be less 'white people' when the definition is so rigidly narrow.

That's not the definition the census uses. I'm fact, it doesn't use one. It's whatever each person considers themselves.

First, people self-identifying isn't going to be very 'accurate' in a scientific sense.
Second, just because the one drop rule isn't enforced, doesn't mean that it doesn't affect people's view of themselves.

Dash_Harber posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Does it worry me? No. Why the fuck would I care?

Seriously, though, the very definition of it is massively stupid anyway. The definition is literally, "Oh, you have a single drop of non-white blood in you? You are no longer white". Meanwhile, someone who is half white and half black is considered 'black'. Of course there is going to be less 'white people' when the definition is so rigidly narrow.

That's not the definition the census uses. I'm fact, it doesn't use one. It's whatever each person considers themselves.

First, people self-identifying isn't going to be very 'accurate' in a scientific sense.
Second, just because the one drop rule isn't enforced, doesn't mean that it doesn't affect people's view of themselves.

I dont get it, what are you responding to here exactly? First, he didnt say self-identifying is more scientifically accurate, and second, he didnt say the one drop rule doesnt affect how people view themselves. Hes just saying the one drop rule isnt how the census bases a persons race, which is what you seemed to be saying in your prior post, is that not what you were saying?
---

Kazi1212 posted...

White people are dying FASTER and half this board doesnt even care

why would anyone care? it's a non issue
---

I think Duckbear finds some sick glee in this news. he reads about white people death statistics and smirks

So? It's not the 1950s anymore, so white supremacist opinions are irrelevant. SJWs are SJWs, so their opinions are irrelevant. And everyone else is pretty much race-blind, so they have no reason to care.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0" data-time="
---

Kazi1212 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Does it worry me? No. Why the fuck would I care?

Seriously, though, the very definition of it is massively stupid anyway. The definition is literally, "Oh, you have a single drop of non-white blood in you? You are no longer white". Meanwhile, someone who is half white and half black is considered 'black'. Of course there is going to be less 'white people' when the definition is so rigidly narrow.

That's not the definition the census uses. I'm fact, it doesn't use one. It's whatever each person considers themselves.

First, people self-identifying isn't going to be very 'accurate' in a scientific sense.
Second, just because the one drop rule isn't enforced, doesn't mean that it doesn't affect people's view of themselves.

I dont get it, what are you responding to here exactly? First, he didnt say self-identifying is more scientifically accurate, and second, he didnt say the one drop rule doesnt affect how people view themselves. Hes just saying the one drop rule isnt how the census bases a persons race, which is what you seemed to be saying in your prior post, is that not what you were saying?

He was saying what I said about how this sort of status is ridiculous due to the implicit social bias of the 'one drop rule' isn't true because the census doesn't use that.

I pointed out that it doesn't matter if they let people self-identify or if they measure, the very existence of the idea of the 'one drop rule' means that even people self-identifying are going to identify as non-white if they are even 20% non-white, so this sort of alarmist headline is bullshit anyway.

Dash_Harber posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Does it worry me? No. Why the fuck would I care?

Seriously, though, the very definition of it is massively stupid anyway. The definition is literally, "Oh, you have a single drop of non-white blood in you? You are no longer white". Meanwhile, someone who is half white and half black is considered 'black'. Of course there is going to be less 'white people' when the definition is so rigidly narrow.

That's not the definition the census uses. I'm fact, it doesn't use one. It's whatever each person considers themselves.

First, people self-identifying isn't going to be very 'accurate' in a scientific sense.
Second, just because the one drop rule isn't enforced, doesn't mean that it doesn't affect people's view of themselves.

I dont get it, what are you responding to here exactly? First, he didnt say self-identifying is more scientifically accurate, and second, he didnt say the one drop rule doesnt affect how people view themselves. Hes just saying the one drop rule isnt how the census bases a persons race, which is what you seemed to be saying in your prior post, is that not what you were saying?

He was saying what I said about how this sort of status is ridiculous due to the implicit social bias of the 'one drop rule' isn't true because the census doesn't use that.

Again, he didnt say there arent implicit biases when it comes to self-identifying, hes just pointing out that the one drop rule isnt the definition by which the census records race, which is what you seem to have claimed couple of posts prior. Just because hes pointing out a factual error doesnt mean he doesnt agree with the sentiment that theres bias when it comes to this.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Does it worry me? No. Why the fuck would I care?

Seriously, though, the very definition of it is massively stupid anyway. The definition is literally, "Oh, you have a single drop of non-white blood in you? You are no longer white". Meanwhile, someone who is half white and half black is considered 'black'. Of course there is going to be less 'white people' when the definition is so rigidly narrow.

That's not the definition the census uses. I'm fact, it doesn't use one. It's whatever each person considers themselves.

First, people self-identifying isn't going to be very 'accurate' in a scientific sense.
Second, just because the one drop rule isn't enforced, doesn't mean that it doesn't affect people's view of themselves.

I dont get it, what are you responding to here exactly? First, he didnt say self-identifying is more scientifically accurate, and second, he didnt say the one drop rule doesnt affect how people view themselves. Hes just saying the one drop rule isnt how the census bases a persons race, which is what you seemed to be saying in your prior post, is that not what you were saying?

He was saying what I said about how this sort of status is ridiculous due to the implicit social bias of the 'one drop rule' isn't true because the census doesn't use that.

Again, he didnt say there arent implicit biases when it comes to self-identifying, hes just pointing out that the one drop rule isnt the definition by which the census records race, which is what you seem to have claimed couple of posts prior. Just because hes pointing out a factual error doesnt mean he doesnt agree with the sentiment that theres bias when it comes to this.

No, I didn't say it was, I said even if people self-identify, it doesn't matter, because the one drop rule is not just a legal thing, but also ingrained in society, to the point that people are going to self-identify as minority even if they are over 50% 'white'.

Dash_Harber posted...

marthsheretoo posted...

kayoticdreamz posted...

imagine saying this and meaning it.

Can you explain why this is something I should care about? Because there's a whole lot of fucks that I can't quite bring myself to give.

would any of you have the same reaction if it said "black people are dying off"? i doubt it, there would be cries of racism and how we must preserve the african culture!

and judging by how many people here seem perfectly okay with this statistic, proves my point.

Dash_Harber posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Does it worry me? No. Why the fuck would I care?

Seriously, though, the very definition of it is massively stupid anyway. The definition is literally, "Oh, you have a single drop of non-white blood in you? You are no longer white". Meanwhile, someone who is half white and half black is considered 'black'. Of course there is going to be less 'white people' when the definition is so rigidly narrow.

That's not the definition the census uses. I'm fact, it doesn't use one. It's whatever each person considers themselves.

First, people self-identifying isn't going to be very 'accurate' in a scientific sense.
Second, just because the one drop rule isn't enforced, doesn't mean that it doesn't affect people's view of themselves.

I dont get it, what are you responding to here exactly? First, he didnt say self-identifying is more scientifically accurate, and second, he didnt say the one drop rule doesnt affect how people view themselves. Hes just saying the one drop rule isnt how the census bases a persons race, which is what you seemed to be saying in your prior post, is that not what you were saying?

He was saying what I said about how this sort of status is ridiculous due to the implicit social bias of the 'one drop rule' isn't true because the census doesn't use that.

Again, he didnt say there arent implicit biases when it comes to self-identifying, hes just pointing out that the one drop rule isnt the definition by which the census records race, which is what you seem to have claimed couple of posts prior. Just because hes pointing out a factual error doesnt mean he doesnt agree with the sentiment that theres bias when it comes to this.

No, I didn't say it was

You said: The definition is literally, "Oh, you have a single drop of non-white blood in you? You are no longer white". Meanwhile, someone who is half white and half black is considered 'black'.

Whos definition were you referring too here then? He and myself probably thought you were referring to the actual way the census defines race because the report in the article is based on census data
---

Kazi1212 posted...

Whos definition were you referring too here then? He and myself probably thought you were referring to the actual way the census defines race because the report in the article is based on census data

I meant in general when we are talking about race, but okay, I get the misunderstanding. I'll clear it up just to be safe; whether we recognize it or not, the 'one drop rule' has become so ingrained in society that even self-identifying people will often follow it, which means that in cases where you are measuring 'whiteness', you are measuring an incredibly narrow definition.

I am heavily worried

Spanish babes and asian babes are hot. Whites (and every other race) are making hybrid kids everywhere. Obviously it skews statistics because hybrids are universal and they come in many forms.

Im no scientist, but I hear having kids with your siblings and cousins increases the chances of their child to be born with bad genes. So if this is true... wouldnt the opposite be true as well? Meaning hybrids are the best of best because they are on the opposite side of their spectrum

End white people
---

Major minority status
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Whos definition were you referring too here then? He and myself probably thought you were referring to the actual way the census defines race because the report in the article is based on census data

I meant in general when we are talking about race, but okay, I get the misunderstanding. I'll clear it up just to be safe; whether we recognize it or not, the 'one drop rule' has become so ingrained in society that even self-identifying people will often follow it, which means that in cases where you are measuring 'whiteness', you are measuring an incredibly narrow definition.

Thats fair. But if whiteness has for so long now been so narrowly defined for data keeping purposes such as by the census, why is there a sharper change in the relationship between white deaths and white births in more recent data than previous ones? Even if whiteness had been narrowly defined, it was consistently narrowly defined through the decades, hence we should expect consistent results unless something actually changed. Do you see what Im saying? And according to the data something did sharply change, even though its not like whiteness is being radically redefined, it has always been narrowly defined.

The Census Bureau has projected that whites could drop below 50 percent of the population around 2045, a relatively slow-moving change that has been years in the making. But a new report this week found that whites are dying faster than they are being born now in 26 states, up from 17 just two years earlier, and demographers say that shift might come even sooner.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/white-minority-population.amp.html
---

Kazi1212 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Whos definition were you referring too here then? He and myself probably thought you were referring to the actual way the census defines race because the report in the article is based on census data

I meant in general when we are talking about race, but okay, I get the misunderstanding. I'll clear it up just to be safe; whether we recognize it or not, the 'one drop rule' has become so ingrained in society that even self-identifying people will often follow it, which means that in cases where you are measuring 'whiteness', you are measuring an incredibly narrow definition.

Thats fair. But if whiteness has for so long now been so narrowly defined for data keeping purposes such as by the census, why is there a sharper change in the relationship between white deaths and white births in more recent data than previous ones? Even if whiteness had been narrowly defined, it was consistently narrowly defined through the decades, hence we should expect consistent results unless something actually changed. Do you see what Im saying? And according to the data something did sharply change, even though its not like whiteness is being radically redefined, it has always been narrowly defined.

The Census Bureau has projected that whites could drop below 50 percent of the population around 2045, a relatively slow-moving change that has been years in the making. But a new report this week found that whites are dying faster than they are being born now in 26 states, up from 17 just two years earlier, and demographers say that shift might come even sooner.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/white-minority-population.amp.html

Fair enough, but assuming it's a racial issue is a bit spurious. It could be a number of things that are skewing the stats one way or another.

This doesn't bother me at all, being white isn't the only signifier that someone is American. People decrying this as the "death of America" are racist, as far as I'm concerned.

This especially doesn't bother me because I'm Australian, of course.
---

MrMallard posted...

This especially doesn't bother me because I'm Australian, of course.

What if they said the same thing about "Australia"?

Just substitute America for Australia in the Topic?
---

I guess the best thing is that white people wont have to feel ashamed anymore just for being white.
---

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

I guess the best thing is that white people wont have to feel ashamed anymore just for being white.

Why would they have to do that in the first place?
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

MrMallard posted...

This especially doesn't bother me because I'm Australian, of course.

What if they said the same thing about "Australia"?

Just substitute America for Australia in the Topic?

If it was Canada, where I live, I still wouldn't feel any different.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

I guess the best thing is that white people wont have to feel ashamed anymore just for being white.

Why would they have to do that in the first place?

No one, but if they actually have to accept that people aren't always born into a world that treats them all equally, then their persecution complex just falls apart.

Dash_Harber posted...

No one, but if they actually have to accept that people aren't always born into a world that treats them all equally, then their persecution complex just falls apart.

The Leftists are the ones persecuting White Folk. So of course most White Folks will feel persecuted.

Most people aren't persecuting others, it's just the Leftists are pushing that narrative and stirring up trouble.

As long as you aren't persecuting / discriminating against other folks, you shouldn't have anything to feel bad about.
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

No one, but if they actually have to accept that people aren't always born into a world that treats them all equally, then their persecution complex just falls apart.

The Leftists are the ones persecuting White Folk. So of course most White Folks will feel persecuted.

Most people aren't persecuting others, it's just the Leftists are pushing that narrative and stirring up trouble.

As long as you aren't persecuting / discriminating against other folks, you shouldn't have anything to feel bad about.

As someone who is generally identified as 'left', I don't reflect anything you just said. Acknowledging that a system might not be fair does not mean I'm actively campaigning to punish those who benefit from it. Perhaps you just don't understand what they are saying?

Dash_Harber posted...

As someone who is generally identified as 'left', I don't reflect anything you just said. Acknowledging that a system might not be fair does not mean I'm actively campaigning to punish those who benefit from it. Perhaps you just don't understand what they are saying?

You personally might not be persecuting other "White Folk", but there are plenty of other "Leftists" who go out of their way to do so.

This unnecessary action / behavior is what causes issues.
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

As someone who is generally identified as 'left', I don't reflect anything you just said. Acknowledging that a system might not be fair does not mean I'm actively campaigning to punish those who benefit from it. Perhaps you just don't understand what they are saying?

You personally might not be persecuting other "White Folk", but there are plenty of other "Leftists" who go out of their way to do so.

This unnecessary action / behavior is what causes issues.

That's literally a "No True Scotsman/Moving the Goalposts" fallacy.

Why all the ambiguity? Can you prove that the majority of people with left-wing politics are actively persecuting white people? Or is this just part of the deeply unresolved persecution complex?

Of course you can't because no one with any discernable following or power is actually doing that. The best you can do is come up with some weird fringe person who identifies as left saying something stupid and, realistically, being disavowed by every major left organization out there.

Dash_Harber posted...

Why all the ambiguity? Can you prove that the majority of people with left-wing politics are actively persecuting white people? Or is this just part of the deeply unresolved persecution complex?

Of course you can't because no one with any discernable following or power is actually doing that. The best you can do is come up with some weird fringe person who identifies as left saying something stupid and, realistically, being disavowed by every major left organization out there.

It's called deniable plausibility. One or two idiots do something bad, then everybody else can disavow it conveniently. Rinse & repeat.

We have countless Leftists advocating for segregation in colleges.

People needing their own Ethnic areas which is complete and utter hog wash.

You have those feminists who blame everything on the Cis White Male Patriarchy and all those who are a part of the system.

It's a literal endless shit storm of Leftists coming out and flooding the world with their views and educating children through indoctrination in the public / private school system.
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

It's called deniable plausibility. One or two idiots do something bad, then everybody else can disavow it conveniently. Rinse & repeat.

What the hell does that have to do with what we are talking about? You said the majority of leftists are actively persecuting white people. I pointed out you are factually wrong.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

We have countless Leftists advocating for segregation in colleges.

People needing their own Ethnic areas which is complete and utter hog wash.

Starting counting, because I think these views are rather extreme and rare in any serious political forum.

KamenRiderBlade posted...

It's a literal endless shit storm of Leftists coming out and flooding the world with their views and educating children through indoctrination in the public / private school system.

Again, you seem to be just making this stuff up. 'Endless shit storm'? You haven't even provided any examples of anything you said. This is the definition of a persecution complex.

Dash_Harber posted...

Starting counting, because I think these views are rather extreme and rare in any serious political forum.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25748/
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/08/finding-the-line-between-safe-space-and-segregation/496289/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/are-separate-dorms-a-good_b_11912864.html

Not that extreme when universities like CSULA are willing to cave in to it.

Dash_Harber posted...

Again, you seem to be just making this stuff up. 'Endless shit storm'? You haven't even provided any examples of anything you said. This is the definition of a persecution complex

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/liberal-bias-starts-long-before-college/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/liberal-indoctrination-on-campus-not-working/
https://mtstandard.com/opinion/columnists/liberal-indoctrination-in-our-learning-institutions/article_a2f83690-734a-59b0-9342-6c8830b571a7.html
https://www.quora.com/What-are-examples-of-liberal-indoctrination-in-universities-and-public-schools
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html

Why is it that the Conservative view point isn't allowed equal access to teaching time in schools?
Why is it that most News / Informational / Entertainment Networks only show 1 point of view and never really allow the other point of view equal time?
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Starting counting, because I think these views are rather extreme and rare in any serious political forum.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25748/
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/08/finding-the-line-between-safe-space-and-segregation/496289/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/are-separate-dorms-a-good_b_11912864.html

Not that extreme when universities like CSULA are willing to cave in to it.

Dash_Harber posted...

Again, you seem to be just making this stuff up. 'Endless shit storm'? You haven't even provided any examples of anything you said. This is the definition of a persecution complex

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/liberal-bias-starts-long-before-college/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/liberal-indoctrination-on-campus-not-working/
https://mtstandard.com/opinion/columnists/liberal-indoctrination-in-our-learning-institutions/article_a2f83690-734a-59b0-9342-6c8830b571a7.html
https://www.quora.com/What-are-examples-of-liberal-indoctrination-in-universities-and-public-schools
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html

Why is it that the Conservative view point isn't allowed equal access to teaching time in schools?
Why is it that most News / Informational / Entertainment Networks only show 1 point of view and never really allow the other point of view equal time?

Literally, none of this lines up with what you said. You said that all leftists were actively persecuting white people.

Dash_Harber posted...

Literally, none of this lines up with what you said. You said that all leftists were actively persecuting white people.

In a general sense, they are. Whether or not it's as direct or not is dependent on their actions.

You can literally watch most News, Entertainment, Media, etc.

It's right there in front of you for all to see.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Does it worry me? No. Why the fuck would I care?

Seriously, though, the very definition of it is massively stupid anyway. The definition is literally, "Oh, you have a single drop of non-white blood in you? You are no longer white". Meanwhile, someone who is half white and half black is considered 'black'. Of course there is going to be less 'white people' when the definition is so rigidly narrow.

maybe we should stop treating this black or white shit as...black or white

cuz it aint
---