Ladies and gentlemen your new incoming members of the 116th Congress. Notice anyting??

[ecogen]

You may not be, but the OP certainly was.

Don't know what the OP was doing, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. That's for him to know.

Those evil evil white males.

If you've got nothing else I would appreciate it if you just stopped replying instead of resorting to strawmen. I didn't once call white males in general evil (or any racial group for that matter) and I never would considering I am one myself.

 

[Atreus21]

Don't know what the OP was doing, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. That's for him to know.

You don't think the purpose of the OP was to imply that democrats are better than republicans because they have less white men in their newly-elected members of congress?

 

[ecogen]

You don't think the purpose of the OP was to imply that democrats are better than republicans because they have less white men in their newly-elected members of congress?

I don't care what the OP intended to do, and I'm not gonna guess his intentions. If you wanna argue about that find someone else to do it with.

 

[alien42]

Skin color and appearance is 100% superficial. You're making assumptions based on superficial qualities.

Those who are oppressed based solely on their skin color and appearance would disagree with you.

 

[alien42]

You don't think the purpose of the OP was to imply that democrats are better than republicans because they have less white men in their newly-elected members of congress?

Democrats are better than Republicans because they more closely reflect the diversity of the US populace.

 

[WelshBloke]

You don't think the purpose of the OP was to imply that democrats are better than republicans because they have less white men in their newly-elected members of congress?

I think he was pointing out that the representation of a country should be representative of that country.

 

[Atreus21]

Those who are oppressed based solely on their skin color and appearance would disagree with you.

What would they say?

 

[ivwshane]

You don't think the purpose of the OP was to imply that democrats are better than republicans because they have less white men in their newly-elected members of congress?

I think the OP's point was to point out that the people who represent millions of Americans look like (and I'm not just talking about actual looks) the actual Americans who voted for them.

 

[Atreus21]

I think he was pointing out that the representation of a country should be representative of that country.

And it is, in the ways that matter. If a white candidate is elected in part by black voters, or vice versa, is it reasonable to say that the white person doesn't represent the people who elected him simply because he lacks common skin-tone? That's ridiculous.

 

[cytg111]

And it is, in the ways that matter. If a white candidate is elected in part by black voters, or vice versa, is it reasonable to say that the white person doesn't represent the people who elected him simply because he lacks common skin-tone? That's ridiculous.

- I am sorry man it only demonstrates that you havent got the slightest grip on statistics.

 

[dainthomas]

Your image speaks to the dangerous geographic Balkanization of America. Neither alt-right America nor periodic table of identity versions of America are very appealing, and if anything, Trump exploited this to claim the White House, reshape the judiciary and hold the Senate.

Nice attempt to demonize a diversity of viewpoints.

Odd how the vast majority of Americans are women or racial minorities (or both) and yet all but one new republican congress-critters are white men. What is it about republican policies and positions that the majority of Americans don't support them? Shouldn't they want to change that? Wouldn't it feel good to have your party win without voter suppression tactics and gerrymandering?

 

[ivwshane]

Nice attempt to demonize a diversity of viewpoints.

Odd how the vast majority of Americans are women or racial minorities (or both) and yet all but one new republican congress-critters are white men. What is it about republican policies and positions that the majority of Americans don't support them? Shouldn't they want to change that? Wouldn't it feel good to have your party win without voter suppression tactics and gerrymandering?

Its the old, "people who point out the problem are the problem" routine.

Its ok, he hasn't figured out how useful of an idiot he is.

 

[pmv]

All I'm trying to point out is that celebrating racial makeup A over racial makeaup B is grade-school level idiocy. If Republicans were doing exactly this (look at all the good whites we elected!) it'd be horrifying and, again, idiotic.

You guys put way too much emphasis on race.

That's such a glib (and probably deliberately disingenuous) thing to say. The usual "it's racist to notice racism" line, basically. Just embarrassing.

The point is that such lack of diversity is a _symptom_ of a problem. We all know what problem it's a symptom of with regard to the Republicans.

 

[WelshBloke]

And it is, in the ways that matter. If a white candidate is elected in part by black voters, or vice versa, is it reasonable to say that the white person doesn't represent the people who elected him simply because he lacks common skin-tone? That's ridiculous.

Really? You don't feel that you are stretching here a bit?

I'm trying to take your posts as open and honest so you really don't see any problems with one demographic being much more heavily represented at the cost of all other demographics?

 

[Atreus21]

I think the OP's point was to point out that the people who represent millions of Americans look like (and I'm not just talking about actual looks) the actual Americans who voted for them.

There's nothing good about electing a group of incompetent people to office because they happen to visually represent the ethnic makeup of the country. There is much good about electing good and competent people regardless of their ethnic makeup. If we could elect 100 wise and capable Senators, skilled in legislating and negotiation, who were all black, the very stupidest complaint I could devise would be that they don't look like the rest of the country.

I guess fundamentally that's my issue here. I suppose it'd be ideal if we could get a perfectly proportioned legislature that perfectly represented the whole of American diversity. But if I have to choose between diversity and competence, diversity loses, and should lose, without a moment's thought. I think it's wrong to see racial diversity as a good to be pursued. It's good if it happens naturally. It's necessarily prejudicial and wrong if it's sought out, because it involves saying "we want more of Race A and less of Race B."

 

[WelshBloke]

There's nothing good about electing a group of incompetent people to office because they happen to visually represent the ethnic makeup of the country. There is much good about electing good and competent people regardless of their ethnic makeup. If we could elect 100 wise and capable Senators, skilled in legislating and negotiation, who were all black, the very stupidest complaint I could devise would be that they don't look like the rest of the country.

I guess fundamentally that's my issue here. I suppose it'd be ideal if we could get a perfectly proportioned legislature that perfectly represented the whole of American diversity. But if I have to choose between diversity and competence, diversity loses, and should lose, without a moment's thought. I think it's wrong to see racial diversity as a good to be pursued. It's good if it happens naturally. It's necessarily prejudicial and wrong if it's sought out, because it involves saying "we want more of Race A and less of Race B."

You dont think that there are enough non white middle class guys that are qualified? Thats why you think the numbers skew to that demographic?

 

[pmv]

There's nothing good about electing a group of incompetent people to office because they happen to visually represent the ethnic makeup of the country. There is much good about electing good and competent people regardless of their ethnic makeup. If we could elect 100 wise and capable Senators, skilled in legislating and negotiation, who were all black, the very stupidest complaint I could devise would be that they don't look like the rest of the country.

I guess fundamentally that's my issue here. I suppose it'd be ideal if we could get a perfectly proportioned legislature that perfectly represented the whole of American diversity. But if I have to choose between diversity and competence, diversity loses, and should lose, without a moment's thought. I think it's wrong to see racial diversity as a good to be pursued. It's good if it happens naturally. It's necessarily prejudicial and wrong if it's sought out, because it involves saying "we want more of Race A and less of Race B."

You think the current US office-holders are all there because of their competence?

Just the things I've heard them come out with about climate-science alone suggests to me that is probably not exactly true. At the moment I see no reason to believe 'diversity' and 'competence' are mutually-exclusive. Quite the contrary - a lack of diversity seems to frequently go hand-in-hand with staggering levels of ignorance.

I _do_ have slight qualms about how _some_ liberals approach the topic, but I'm thinking it's probably not worth discussing that in the context of a disagreements with those with whom the gulf is far greater.

 

[Atreus21]

That's such a glib (and probably deliberately disingenuous) thing to say. The usual "it's racist to notice racism" line, basically. Just embarrassing.

No, it's racist to put such emphasis on race to the extent of saying "try to avoid electing white men" strictly because of the optics.

The point is that such lack of diversity is a _symptom_ of a problem. We all know what problem it's a symptom of with regard to the Republicans.

Completely disagree. In a society where people are free to pursue their own interests, there will be racial disparities in certain systems that are indicative of no inequity whatsoever. The fact that more blacks play in the NBA than whites isn't symptomatic of anything nefarious.

 

[Atreus21]

You dont think that there are enough non white middle class guys that are qualified? Thats why you think the numbers skew to that demographic?

Qualified is one thing. Willing and interested is another.

 

[pmv]

No, it's racist to put such emphasis on race to the extent of saying "try to avoid electing white men" strictly because of the optics.

Who said anything about "try to avoid electing white men"? I'm saying that the Republicans overwhelmingly elect white men tells me something about them and whose interests they are concerned with (it's not just that they favour white men, it's that they favour the interests of the rich and powerful, and that also translates to disproportionately white men, even aside from direct preferences).

Completely disagree. In a society where people are free to pursue their own interests, there will be racial disparities in certain systems that are indicative of no inequity whatsoever. The fact that more blacks play in the NBA than whites isn't symptomatic of anything nefarious.

So a political party is no different from a sports team? Uh, OK.

 

[WelshBloke]

No, it's racist to put such emphasis on race to the extent of saying "try to avoid electing white men" strictly because of the optics.

Is anyone saying that?
From the actual results it does seem the GOP is saying "anyone as long as they are white and male" though.

 

[WelshBloke]

Qualified is one thing. Willing and interested is another.

So you dont think that theres enough people out of a population of 320 million that are interested?

 

[Atreus21]

You think the current US office-holders are all there because of their competence?

No, certainly not. But that's beside the point.

Just the things I've heard them come out with about climate-science alone suggests to me that is probably not exactly true. At the moment I see no reason to believe 'diversity' and 'competence' are mutually-exclusive. Quite the contrary - a lack of diversity seems to frequently go hand-in-hand with staggering levels of ignorance.

I didn't say they're mutually exclusive. I say that if you have to choose one over the other, competence should win every time. Or rather it's simpler than that. If I see two competing candidates of different races, the worst basis for earning my vote would be either person's outward appearance. What should concern me is the totality of their character relative to the position they seek, not whether they'll make a pleasing addition to the collage of colors so that we can say our colors are better than the enemy's.

I _do_ have slight qualms about how _some_ liberals approach the topic, but I'm thinking it's probably not worth discussing that in the context of a disagreements with those with whom the gulf is far greater.

I see.

 

[Atreus21]

So you dont think that theres enough people out of a population of 320 million that are interested?

Wait let's clarify something here.

You're asking if I think ethnic minorities in the US lack interest in running for public office?

 

[ivwshane]

There's nothing good about electing a group of incompetent people to office because they happen to visually represent the ethnic makeup of the country. There is much good about electing good and competent people regardless of their ethnic makeup. If we could elect 100 wise and capable Senators, skilled in legislating and negotiation, who were all black, the very stupidest complaint I could devise would be that they don't look like the rest of the country.

I guess fundamentally that's my issue here. I suppose it'd be ideal if we could get a perfectly proportioned legislature that perfectly represented the whole of American diversity. But if I have to choose between diversity and competence, diversity loses, and should lose, without a moment's thought. I think it's wrong to see racial diversity as a good to be pursued. It's good if it happens naturally. It's necessarily prejudicial and wrong if it's sought out, because it involves saying "we want more of Race A and less of Race B."

And there it is.
The people of diversity were elected because of the diversity and had nothing to do with their competence and policies. Whereas white Republican men weren't elected because of their skin color but rather because of their policies and competence.

That's your claim and its a pretty stupid one, especially coming from a guy who supports a party that votes people currently under indictment, are credibly accused of being a pedo, have committed charity fraud, and are serial sexual harassers, as well as people who don't believe in science, and associate with white supremacy movements.

Your reality ain't reality at all.