Matt's examples clearly illustrate how the woke exploit race to promote Marxism. They also exploit gender, sexual orientation and the mentally ill, disabled and obese. They will continue exploiting more and more groups that are not accepted as part of the traditional, normal society because Marxists use these groups as pawns to destroy everything that exists. For more on this topic, see my Substack article titled "Top 7 Marxism Clues" at https://2026.substack.com/p/top-7-marxism-clues
These Marxcissist do-gooders have no skin in the game; they have the money to shield themselves from all the problems their policies create, and they never face any professional consequences for getting it so spectacularly wrong time after time. Unless that changes, they'll keep pushing for more of what doesn't work.
Of course, some of these communities suffering under these destructive policies just keep voting for more of the same. AWFLs "vote blue no matter who," and black neighborhoods vote by skin color and party affiliation only, even if the candidate who ticks those boxes is proposing more of what caused the problems in the first place. Perfect example of this is Chicago electing as mayor Brandon Johnson, an open-the-jails Marxist, after voters were supposedly upset with soaring crime under Lori Lightfoot. They just keep voting for more of the same.
As long as stupid ideologues keep voting for criminal clowns to represent them and enact terrible policies, these cities will keep collapsing. If you can, move to a place where the voters and elected officials share your values, because these Marxcissist-run cities are not changing any time soon.
Marxcissist do-gooders? Lol. What a fitting description. These AWFLs do tend to be narcissistic in their virtue signalling righteous indignation. I see such new "church ladies" on the NextDoor app. They are the most annoying breed of human for they are so addicted to the high of righteous indignation that they fail to see how their ostensibly virtuous ideals have created an apocalyptic scenario.
Funny you mention NextDoor. I signed up years ago and never really used it but still get the emails. The comments in those emails are always so absurd. It's like a social media platform for hall monitors to voice their gripes about their neighbors.
Indeed. There are many busy bodies on there but I find the social justice warriors more irritating. Recently, for example, one woman posted that someone had broke her "Black Lives Matter" yard sign and so she felt compelled to post on ND that black lives matter (nanner nanner,) and that if anyone had another "Black Lives Matter" yard sign she would be eager to give it a new home; another AWFL posted about how indignant she was about the vitriol that is commonly directed at the "unhoused" so she felt compelled to share a recent anecdote regarding an "unhoused" person. I blocked both women and refrained from reading the comments they received. One interesting thing about the SJWs of the world is that they enjoy making up new terms or appropriating language that was previously used for other purposes, i.e., "unhoused" instead of "homeless,"; equity, intersection, privilege, etc.
I have a pretty good familiarity with the relevant academic literature on the matter - including in philosophy (analyzing the arguments for/against things such as "profiling") and fields combining such analysis with empirical data, and I can tell you that the amount of bias and false or misleading information in core academic fields such as philosophy and psychology (not just various specialized "xxx-studies" fields) on that particular matter is staggering. You'd be hard-pressed to find even basic reliable data and some points of unbiased context in works published by the best academic publishing houses.
Two points might further highlight the problems with the "woke" approach here, I think:
First, we need to put the biased and misleading application of various "disproportionality" arguments to rest.
Policing might disproportionally target certain communities. Not only is this not immediate evidence of racism/discrimination, but it is also important to keep in mind that such arguments can always go both ways! The LACK of policing ALSO brings about "disproportionate harms" for the same communities!
Hence, such biased appeals to disproportionality should be widely seen as non-starters in public discourse, unless one can point to a specific reason why they make sense in a particular context.
A second point also highlights why such arguments should be shelved.
In this particular context, there is (I think) robust literature (in criminology, on the "hot-spot" policing approach) supporting the claim that focusing on particular areas prone to crime yields higher benefits in terms of reducing crime, relative to spreading police force around (also 'disproportionate' - you see how this term is applicable to almost anything).
Hence there's no point in starting the discussion on how policing affects minority groups from random references to demographic statistics. It should start with comparisons of available policing strategies, and evaluating ALL of their costs and benefits in that regard. (before even starting to consider other things, such as their costs for the wider public).
Thankfully Hardesty was voted out last fall. Her replacement, Rene Gonzalez, is smart, pragmatic and committed to pursuing policies that actually help. Portland needs to elect a lot more like him in order to help right this sinking ship of a city.
I love the clarity of this analysis - the police and GVRT were actually giving hugely disproportionate support to the black community.
You can only view this as a bad thing if you instinctively are on the side of those arrested and your starting point is that you are against the community as well as against the police.
What a heartbreaking story, the politician hypothetically having to explain her culpability to three year old child. What a coward and evil person she is not to have done so in reality.
Matt's examples clearly illustrate how the woke exploit race to promote Marxism. They also exploit gender, sexual orientation and the mentally ill, disabled and obese. They will continue exploiting more and more groups that are not accepted as part of the traditional, normal society because Marxists use these groups as pawns to destroy everything that exists. For more on this topic, see my Substack article titled "Top 7 Marxism Clues" at https://2026.substack.com/p/top-7-marxism-clues
These Marxcissist do-gooders have no skin in the game; they have the money to shield themselves from all the problems their policies create, and they never face any professional consequences for getting it so spectacularly wrong time after time. Unless that changes, they'll keep pushing for more of what doesn't work.
Of course, some of these communities suffering under these destructive policies just keep voting for more of the same. AWFLs "vote blue no matter who," and black neighborhoods vote by skin color and party affiliation only, even if the candidate who ticks those boxes is proposing more of what caused the problems in the first place. Perfect example of this is Chicago electing as mayor Brandon Johnson, an open-the-jails Marxist, after voters were supposedly upset with soaring crime under Lori Lightfoot. They just keep voting for more of the same.
As long as stupid ideologues keep voting for criminal clowns to represent them and enact terrible policies, these cities will keep collapsing. If you can, move to a place where the voters and elected officials share your values, because these Marxcissist-run cities are not changing any time soon.
Marxcissist do-gooders? Lol. What a fitting description. These AWFLs do tend to be narcissistic in their virtue signalling righteous indignation. I see such new "church ladies" on the NextDoor app. They are the most annoying breed of human for they are so addicted to the high of righteous indignation that they fail to see how their ostensibly virtuous ideals have created an apocalyptic scenario.
Funny you mention NextDoor. I signed up years ago and never really used it but still get the emails. The comments in those emails are always so absurd. It's like a social media platform for hall monitors to voice their gripes about their neighbors.
Indeed. There are many busy bodies on there but I find the social justice warriors more irritating. Recently, for example, one woman posted that someone had broke her "Black Lives Matter" yard sign and so she felt compelled to post on ND that black lives matter (nanner nanner,) and that if anyone had another "Black Lives Matter" yard sign she would be eager to give it a new home; another AWFL posted about how indignant she was about the vitriol that is commonly directed at the "unhoused" so she felt compelled to share a recent anecdote regarding an "unhoused" person. I blocked both women and refrained from reading the comments they received. One interesting thing about the SJWs of the world is that they enjoy making up new terms or appropriating language that was previously used for other purposes, i.e., "unhoused" instead of "homeless,"; equity, intersection, privilege, etc.
The stupidity in our woke society seems to be unbounded.
I have a pretty good familiarity with the relevant academic literature on the matter - including in philosophy (analyzing the arguments for/against things such as "profiling") and fields combining such analysis with empirical data, and I can tell you that the amount of bias and false or misleading information in core academic fields such as philosophy and psychology (not just various specialized "xxx-studies" fields) on that particular matter is staggering. You'd be hard-pressed to find even basic reliable data and some points of unbiased context in works published by the best academic publishing houses.
Two points might further highlight the problems with the "woke" approach here, I think:
First, we need to put the biased and misleading application of various "disproportionality" arguments to rest.
Policing might disproportionally target certain communities. Not only is this not immediate evidence of racism/discrimination, but it is also important to keep in mind that such arguments can always go both ways! The LACK of policing ALSO brings about "disproportionate harms" for the same communities!
Hence, such biased appeals to disproportionality should be widely seen as non-starters in public discourse, unless one can point to a specific reason why they make sense in a particular context.
A second point also highlights why such arguments should be shelved.
In this particular context, there is (I think) robust literature (in criminology, on the "hot-spot" policing approach) supporting the claim that focusing on particular areas prone to crime yields higher benefits in terms of reducing crime, relative to spreading police force around (also 'disproportionate' - you see how this term is applicable to almost anything).
Hence there's no point in starting the discussion on how policing affects minority groups from random references to demographic statistics. It should start with comparisons of available policing strategies, and evaluating ALL of their costs and benefits in that regard. (before even starting to consider other things, such as their costs for the wider public).
Thankfully Hardesty was voted out last fall. Her replacement, Rene Gonzalez, is smart, pragmatic and committed to pursuing policies that actually help. Portland needs to elect a lot more like him in order to help right this sinking ship of a city.
I support the police. The end.
I love the clarity of this analysis - the police and GVRT were actually giving hugely disproportionate support to the black community.
You can only view this as a bad thing if you instinctively are on the side of those arrested and your starting point is that you are against the community as well as against the police.
What a heartbreaking story, the politician hypothetically having to explain her culpability to three year old child. What a coward and evil person she is not to have done so in reality.