353 Comments
User's avatar
Dough's avatar

They're still minorities because the only way to call them 'majority' is to combine them all into one group consisting of every minority group.The near-future Brooks is concerned about will still have a 49% white population - with no other race/ethnicity coming close to that number individually.Whites will still outnumber all other groups separately (ie. more whites than blacks, more whites than latinx, more whites than asian, etc).That's why it's a white-supremacist construct - because it's whites compared to all other ethnicities combined (aka 'minorities') as if they're all one group (aka not-white).

Rex Thorne's avatar

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Esther's avatar

Oh I forgot Alan Doucheowitz

RedemptionSong's avatar

Your "friend" sounds like a jerk. And meany of these "anti-government" jerks are potentially dangerous.

RedemptionSong's avatar

We all know people like that. And they're not mere assholes, they're corrupt assholes.

Esther's avatar

Let's list some people who need to be dropped in the middle of the forest with no supplies. I'll start

Tuck Chodd Chris Matthews Chris the Bernie humperDavid Brooks Maggie Bothsides of the NYT

SydneyP's avatar

Brooks. Lame, mealy-mouthed and the most derivative writer alive -- with the possible exception of copy-and-paste Megan McArdle (David's protegee, no less.)

Lily412's avatar

"How are the current minorities still 'minorities' if we suddenly outnumber what was once the 'majority'?"Yeah, some people don't logic very well.

ETA: "No one listened to Hillary. She's the Jor-El of electoral politics." <--This made me laugh out loud.

Kurt Weil's avatar

I haven't seen Alan Dershowitz in the news lately. Maybe he and Brooks can interview each other or some shit.

JDM's avatar

They got government up there too, and like most far north sections of countries (can you say "Alaska"?) it's heavily subsidized. Maybe he should try Somalia.

richardgrabman's avatar

No: ein volk, ein reich, ein...

The Villainess+'s avatar

You called it Steven. Brooks is just more noise at this point. He's like the homeowner who contracts someone to repaint the house. The painter does a great job but the home owner quibbles and quarrels and picks everything apart and then ends up saying they'll only pay half, and when the contractor gives up fighting, and swings by to pick up the check, its for 10% of the total value. That weekend the homeowner has a big party, and brags about what a great negotiator they are, and how they totally owned the dumb contractor. Meanwhile, the contractor barely survives, lives off rice and beans the rest of the year, and tells their daughter that she's not going to Stanford, instead she's gonna have to work the family business for a year or two, until its back on solid ground. There is no winning with a guy like that. We know, we elected one.

Mr. Evil's avatar

Maybe you can convince your friend to move to the Yukon Territory.

SomeBigRedDog's avatar

Only 15% reporting now, but I'm gonna have strong words tomorrow to my friend who lives in Northern New Mexico and told me he didn't vote because he's "anti government."

Gigglesnort's avatar

I'm not uniting behind any white supremacist, and I'm not nodding along with any white supremacist apologist either, especially not a self-important wanker like David Brooks.