AZ lawmaker: "There aren't enough white kids"

[HillGoose]

The whole "diversity is strength" mantra is about how the less white something is, the "stronger" it is.

no i just dont think anyone cares how white or dark something is. diversity isn't a good thing or a bad thing.. its just a thing.

which is why I don't get the issue with interracial dating. If everyone is mixed as hell then race won't even exist, I fail to see how that's negative. Then you won't have racial supremacist idiots.

You don't think anyone cares? Well, you are wrong. Most of the media and academia and the people who have their opinions shaped by media and academia (which is most people) do care and they have been taught diversity is a good in and of itself. That something being less white is better is an article of faith that is repeated in classrooms and on TV daily without challenge.

Tell me what is your opinion on interracial relationships?

I'm fine with them. I've said nothing to suggest I wasn't.

You seem determined to protect whiteness though. So you'd be okay if interracial marriage became so common in America that after a couple of generations race didn't even matter because everyone was mixed with everything?

I would have no problem with that but I don't think it's going to happen, looking at trends on interracial marriage.

I also think it's really disturbing that we only talk about white people being bred out of existence in this way (suddenly the left loves eugenics). No one ever talks about Blacks ceasing to exist because of intermarriage and they certainly never talk about it being a good thing, if they did so publicly, they wouldn't be able to get a job.

According to the Brookings Institution, interracial marriage is becoming a lot more common, actually. If you think interracial marriages are becoming less common, that's just not true.



America won't be completely mixed within 2 generations, but that was an example. It'll still get there if these trends continue.

Also, to answer you on interracial marriage removing whiteness vs. removing blackness, I don't care what color people become. I'm fine with everyone being mixed and no one having "blackness" or "whiteness" because I think the entire concept of race is stupid. There's no biological differences big enough to justify tribalistic behavior based on skin color.

[Person Man]

It doesn't really matter. Whiteness is considered aesthetically ideal. Even in Africa and India, light skin is considered better and skin bleaching cream is very popular, weaves are popular among black women for hair, while in Asia, surgery to get wider eyes and raise nose bridges is popular and lighter skin is also considered better.

Once genetic engineering and our ability to modify our bodies becomes technologically feasible, America will only need to solve poverty to be 95% white, as even people who today are non-white will modify themselves to look white. At that time we may become even more homogeneous white-looking than in the 1950s. And that's okay.

I could see this being a thing when I am reaching retirement age.

[kyc0705]

It doesn't really matter. Whiteness is considered aesthetically ideal. Even in Africa and India, light skin is considered better and skin bleaching cream is very popular, weaves are popular among black women for hair, while in Asia, surgery to get wider eyes and raise nose bridges is popular and lighter skin is also considered better.

Once genetic engineering and our ability to modify our bodies becomes technologically feasible, America will only need to solve poverty to be 95% white, as even people who today are non-white will modify themselves to look white. At that time we may become even more homogeneous white-looking than in the 1950s. And that's okay.

The overwhelming eurocentricity of beauty standards in non-European settings is something to be challenged, not blatantly placated.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

It doesn't really matter. Whiteness is considered aesthetically ideal. Even in Africa and India, light skin is considered better and skin bleaching cream is very popular, weaves are popular among black women for hair, while in Asia, surgery to get wider eyes and raise nose bridges is popular and lighter skin is also considered better.

Once genetic engineering and our ability to modify our bodies becomes technologically feasible, America will only need to solve poverty to be 95% white, as even people who today are non-white will modify themselves to look white. At that time we may become even more homogeneous white-looking than in the 1950s. And that's okay.

I literally cannot wait! My skin whitening creams never seem to have much of an effect unfortunately. But I'm way more excited on the eyes!

[Devout Centrist]

It doesn't really matter. Whiteness is considered aesthetically ideal. Even in Africa and India, light skin is considered better and skin bleaching cream is very popular, weaves are popular among black women for hair, while in Asia, surgery to get wider eyes and raise nose bridges is popular and lighter skin is also considered better.

Once genetic engineering and our ability to modify our bodies becomes technologically feasible, America will only need to solve poverty to be 95% white, as even people who today are non-white will modify themselves to look white. At that time we may become even more homogeneous white-looking than in the 1950s. And that's okay.

I literally cannot wait! My skin whitening creams never seem to have much of an effect unfortunately. But I'm way more excited on the eyes!

Don’t forget hair removal. We’re evolving without it. We came from the apes and look at us now! We gotta be pure.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

This thread has taken a wild turn.

[Badger]

This thread has taken a wild turn.

If I wild you mean ugly, then yes.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

This thread has taken a wild turn.

If I wild you mean ugly, then yes.

Yes, that's what I meant.

[Fuzzy Bear]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56140#ixzz1Za5Dit3S

Once upon a time, Bill Clinton made sense.

Democrats condone illegal immigration today for the sake of fostering demographic changes that will restore their political hegemony.  The main points of Bill's 1998 speech were not evident in the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

[Badger]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56140#ixzz1Za5Dit3S

Once upon a time, Bill Clinton made sense.

Democrats condone illegal immigration today for the sake of fostering demographic changes that will restore their political hegemony.  The main points of Bill's 1998 speech were not evident in the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

Or, is it Republicans have given up on trying to do Outreach to anyone who isn't basically a white person and not young, so they view any immigration as attacking their own gold political hegemony?

Perhaps the greatest argument in favor of this Theory is that Republicans, specifically Trump, has cracked down on legal, repeat legal, repeat one more time for all the cultist in the house legal, immigration throughout his presidency.

 And, as a general point of political truth, the same people who oppose illegal immigration, tend to oppose legal immigration for pretty much the same reasons.

[Devout Centrist]

It doesn't really matter. Whiteness is considered aesthetically ideal. Even in Africa and India, light skin is considered better and skin bleaching cream is very popular, weaves are popular among black women for hair, while in Asia, surgery to get wider eyes and raise nose bridges is popular and lighter skin is also considered better.

Once genetic engineering and our ability to modify our bodies becomes technologically feasible, America will only need to solve poverty to be 95% white, as even people who today are non-white will modify themselves to look white. At that time we may become even more homogeneous white-looking than in the 1950s. And that's okay.

The overwhelming eurocentricity of beauty standards in non-European settings is something to be challenged, not blatantly placated.

Oh I find this future horrific, but it may be inevitable. In any case, it may be better for technology to give people the option to turn themselves, or failing that, their kids white than the constant racist violence and oppression that goes on today. As Barack Obama would say, these questions are above my pay grade.

It isn’t and you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about

[Famous Mortimer]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56140#ixzz1Za5Dit3S

Once upon a time, Bill Clinton made sense.

Democrats condone illegal immigration today for the sake of fostering demographic changes that will restore their political hegemony.  The main points of Bill's 1998 speech were not evident in the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

Or, is it Republicans have given up on trying to do Outreach to anyone who isn't basically a white person and not young, so they view any immigration as attacking their own gold political hegemony?

Perhaps the greatest argument in favor of this Theory is that Republicans, specifically Trump, has cracked down on legal, repeat legal, repeat one more time for all the cultist in the house legal, immigration throughout his presidency.

 And, as a general point of political truth, the same people who oppose illegal immigration, tend to oppose legal immigration for pretty much the same reasons.

Yes, yes, all true. Democrats are trying to get a political advantage. Republicans are trying to get a political advantage too. Why is it okay for Democrats to do but bad for Republicans to do? Especially when Republicans are favoring current Americans.

[kyc0705]

Oh I find this future horrific.

You literally said "and that's okay" when describing a (very) hypothetical future America that's 95% white.

[Cold War Liberal]

We should maintain the culture which created a country which people seek to move to.

Rather than allow our country to be taken over by cultures which create countries people seek to flee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony)

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

he's just citing stats?

No, he’s saying that the US becoming less white is very bad.

The left says the US becoming less white is very good and they say it all the time.

Why is one offensive and the other not?

My question as to how many kids you've had to help white birth rates still stands, Santander.

Santander is Asian, he is Alt White, not Alt Right.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This seems to be the bottom line of this State Senator's issue.  Is he wrong?

If he's not wrong, what are the political and social consequences he's talking about?

[Person Man]

It doesn't really matter. Whiteness is considered aesthetically ideal. Even in Africa and India, light skin is considered better and skin bleaching cream is very popular, weaves are popular among black women for hair, while in Asia, surgery to get wider eyes and raise nose bridges is popular and lighter skin is also considered better.

Once genetic engineering and our ability to modify our bodies becomes technologically feasible, America will only need to solve poverty to be 95% white, as even people who today are non-white will modify themselves to look white. At that time we may become even more homogeneous white-looking than in the 1950s. And that's okay.

I literally cannot wait! My skin whitening creams never seem to have much of an effect unfortunately. But I'm way more excited on the eyes!

Don’t forget hair removal. We’re evolving without it. We came from the apes and look at us now! We gotta be pure.

I wish I had a jacuzzi filled with hand sanitizer.

[Person Man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is utter horsesh**t, of course. Statistics indicate that 83,7% of all live births in Arizona are to white mothers.

Of course, you probably take a more exclusionary view of whiteness when compared to the Census; excluding Hispanic whites, that comes out to 42%.

If you mean that this will be the case eventually, I would caution you to not read that much into short term trendlines.

If you’re concerned about changing the culture of white America (however you define it), I would point out that Southern European ethnicities readily adopted white American ‘culture’ when they were allowed to be considered white. The same phenomenon (for good or ill) is happening with 3rd or 4th generation Latinx children.

1) Southern Europeans were always considered white legally.

2) They assimilated because we heeded the words of the 1920s era Trumps and closed off most immigration in 1924.

3) If Whites are a minority, why would people assimilate to White culture?

4) Since the media and the educational system teaches us the dominant white culture is evil and racist, why would people assimilate to it?

4) As a leftist, do you even want people to assimilate to White culture? So why are you even making this faulty argument?

What does "White Culture" even mean?

This is what I'm talking about. The audacity of people on the left to claim that immigrants will assimilate to our culture and then claim we have no culture.

Although in fairness, a growing number of people on the left don't even bother to advocate for assimilation anymore.

Or could it be that culture isn't "white" but is what we make it? We could talk about having a successful culture rather than assimilation into some sort of Platonic and mythical culture from folklore.

The United States was 85% White in living memory. That shaped the culture. If the United States had been 95% Black, it would look very different culturally. You can call it "White culture" or you can insist it's "mainstream American culture which just so happens to have been mostly White for most of its history" but that's just semantics. I'm talking about mainstream American culture. If mainstream American culture isn't the majority culture, immigrants will have no reason to assimilate to it, which is actually bad since mainstream American culture produced better outcomes than immigrant cultures (evidenced by the fact that Americans, up until this point, haven't had to immigrate elsewhere).

So culture is biological? There has never been a successful nonwhite culture?

[TheSaint250]

A true disgrace to America. He should be excommunicated from politics forever.

[KingSweden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This seems to be the bottom line of this State Senator's issue.  Is he wrong?

If he's not wrong, what are the political and social consequences he's talking about?

IMO guys like this overstate the rate of demographic change and downplay assimilation. The same things were said about Italians 100 years ago. I don’t see any reason why people from Latin America or India won’t tirn out the same way.