Staff Reports
The 2024 election results revealed a telling sentiment among voters: they are fed up with the absurdities peddled by the far-left regarding race, gender, and all their other pet projects. The notion that public libraries should showcase gay porn, while being touted as a civil rights triumph of our time, is as far-fetched as claiming that candy can make you immune to diabetes. The American public has had quite enough of the Democrats’ misguided priorities.
One recent gem from the left came from The New York Times, which, in a moment of profound introspection—or perhaps surreal insanity—pondered whether a white man could date women of color to bolster his antiracist credentials. This might be the most confusing quest for social justice the world has ever seen. Instead of picking up a book on basic human interaction, this lefty hero seems to be taking notes from the Babylon Bee, mistaking parody for reality. But alas, this bizarre headline was entirely serious, making it hard for anyone with common sense to take the left seriously again.
The New York Times thinks these are negative headlines for us on their front page.
The joke is on them. We WANT these headlines because this is exactly what Americans voted for— to ensure taxpayers dollars are spent wisely and that government works for the people. pic.twitter.com/Gj6jGZKN0S
— Steven Cheung (@StevenCheung47) February 9, 2025
The story’s protagonist claims to be a progressive straight white man who is open to dating anyone, provided they tick the right boxes on his misguided diversity checklist. Apparently, in his mind, dating a woman of color is akin to earning social justice points. Rather than exploring genuine relationships, he seems more intent on checking off progressive goals as if they were items on a grocery list. This not-so-casual admission raises eyebrows not only for its absurdity but for its unintended implications—it borders on a new-age form of colonialism, where the white man’s quest for virtue comes at the expense of authentic human connection.
This quest for “antiracism” through dating might be labeled as progressive, but what it really highlights is a troubling level of condescension. Treating people as mere tokens in a charade of social justice makes one wonder what the true motivation is. In his attempt to navigate the choppy waters of race and dating, he inadvertently reduces women of color to just another box to check off, stripping them of individual worth in the process. This ideology misses the forest for the trees and ultimately risks objectifying those he claims to champion.
With these increasingly outlandish views, Democrats may find themselves sinking deeper into the rabbit hole of their own making. If they truly hope to regain any shred of credibility, it would help if they hit the brakes on the incessant ramblings about race and gender—starting to sound like they’re just a step away from joining an episode of a low-budget reality show. The idea that one’s dating life could be a tool for social engineering shows just how far removed some on the left are from reality. As the political landscape continues to shift, it’s safe to predict that voters will want solid policies over abstract theories.
