Why not a woman?
-
To answer @George-K's question "why not a woman," probably because they've already got Sen. Diane Feinstein.
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.This is the criterion by which we choose public "servants" apparently.
There was a time when only straight white Christian men could be hired/chosen/elected/appointed public servants in the country. I suppose this is karma now that some population now wants "non-White", "not-male" be hired/chosen/elected/appointed. Maybe we will get to a point where no one thinks in tribal terms anymore, maybe not. But as long as competence is still considered, the identity preference wheel can rotate and change over time but on the whole we should come out alright.
wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 23:51 last edited by@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
To answer @George-K's question "why not a woman," probably because they've already got Sen. Diane Feinstein.
Nothing says "fairness" more than quotas.
"Well, we already have a woman here, we don't DARE appoint ANOTHER one!"
-
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
To answer @George-K's question "why not a woman," probably because they've already got Sen. Diane Feinstein.
Nothing says "fairness" more than quotas.
"Well, we already have a woman here, we don't DARE appoint ANOTHER one!"
wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 23:53 last edited by@George-K said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
To answer @George-K's question "why not a woman," probably because they've already got Sen. Diane Feinstein.
Nothing says "fairness" more than quotas.
"Well, we already have a woman here, we don't DARE appoint ANOTHER one!"
Not stating a gender preference is not the same as excluding a gender.
Have you any evidence that suggests Californians oppose the appointment of another woman? -
@George-K said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
To answer @George-K's question "why not a woman," probably because they've already got Sen. Diane Feinstein.
Nothing says "fairness" more than quotas.
"Well, we already have a woman here, we don't DARE appoint ANOTHER one!"
Not stating a gender preference is not the same as excluding a gender.
Have you any evidence that suggests Californians oppose the appointment of another woman?wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 23:56 last edited by George K 11 Oct 2020, 23:57@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
Have you any evidence that suggests Californians oppose the appointment of another woman?
No, but I have evidence that a Californian governor should oppose anyone who is not
LatinoLatinx. -
To answer @George-K's question "why not a woman," probably because they've already got Sen. Diane Feinstein.
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.This is the criterion by which we choose public "servants" apparently.
There was a time when only straight white Christian men could be hired/chosen/elected/appointed public servants in the country. I suppose this is karma now that some population now wants "non-White", "not-male" be hired/chosen/elected/appointed. Maybe we will get to a point where no one thinks in tribal terms anymore, maybe not. But as long as competence is still considered, the identity preference wheel can rotate and change over time but on the whole we should come out alright.
wrote on 10 Nov 2020, 23:59 last edited by@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
To answer @George-K's question "why not a woman," probably because they've already got Sen. Diane Feinstein.
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.This is the criterion by which we choose public "servants" apparently.
There was a time when only straight white Christian men could be hired/chosen/elected/appointed public servants in the country. I suppose this is karma now that some population now wants "non-White", "not-male" be hired/chosen/elected/appointed. Maybe we will get to a point where no one thinks in tribal terms anymore, maybe not. But as long as competence is still considered, the identity preference wheel can rotate and change over time but on the whole we should come out alright.
Bull shit. Did they teach you that garbage in Social Studies class?
-
To answer @George-K's question "why not a woman," probably because they've already got Sen. Diane Feinstein.
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.This is the criterion by which we choose public "servants" apparently.
There was a time when only straight white Christian men could be hired/chosen/elected/appointed public servants in the country. I suppose this is karma now that some population now wants "non-White", "not-male" be hired/chosen/elected/appointed. Maybe we will get to a point where no one thinks in tribal terms anymore, maybe not. But as long as competence is still considered, the identity preference wheel can rotate and change over time but on the whole we should come out alright.
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 00:02 last edited by xenon 11 Nov 2020, 00:02@Axtremus as someone who is involved in recruiting on a couple of fronts (alumni and for my company) - I can assure you there is little white / male preference these days.
I'd hate to be one of those shmucks - especially if they don't have a rich daddy like everyone now just assumes they do.
-
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
Have you any evidence that suggests Californians oppose the appointment of another woman?
No, but I have evidence that a Californian governor should oppose anyone who is not
LatinoLatinx.wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 00:05 last edited by@George-K said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
Have you any evidence that suggests Californians oppose the appointment of another woman?
No, ...
OK, the threat title seems to move increasingly further from available evidence now, does it not?
-
@Axtremus as someone who is involved in recruiting on a couple of fronts (alumni and for my company) - I can assure you there is little white / male preference these days.
I'd hate to be one of those shmucks - especially if they don't have a rich daddy like everyone now just assumes they do.
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 00:08 last edited by@xenon said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus as someone who is involved in recruiting on a couple of fronts (alumni and for my company) - I can assure you there is little white / male preference these days.
Not "these days", my post said "there was a time."
-
@George-K said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
Have you any evidence that suggests Californians oppose the appointment of another woman?
No, ...
OK, the threat title seems to move increasingly further from available evidence now, does it not?
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 00:09 last edited by George K 11 Nov 2020, 00:09@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
OK, the threat (sic) title seems to move increasingly further from available evidence now, does it not?
See my comment to @jon about a sense of irony.
-
To answer @George-K's question "why not a woman," probably because they've already got Sen. Diane Feinstein.
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.This is the criterion by which we choose public "servants" apparently.
There was a time when only straight white Christian men could be hired/chosen/elected/appointed public servants in the country. I suppose this is karma now that some population now wants "non-White", "not-male" be hired/chosen/elected/appointed. Maybe we will get to a point where no one thinks in tribal terms anymore, maybe not. But as long as competence is still considered, the identity preference wheel can rotate and change over time but on the whole we should come out alright.
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 00:41 last edited by@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.It's that kind of marginalizing talk that's led to gay suppression for decades, Ax. I'm ashamed and appalled you'd say something this insensitive about a group who obviously needs as much representation in the legislature as possible, now more than ever. I think you should think hard about your own dismissive and marginalizing biases towards gays in America and how you can be part of a solution instead of the problem.
-
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.It's that kind of marginalizing talk that's led to gay suppression for decades, Ax. I'm ashamed and appalled you'd say something this insensitive about a group who obviously needs as much representation in the legislature as possible, now more than ever. I think you should think hard about your own dismissive and marginalizing biases towards gays in America and how you can be part of a solution instead of the problem.
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:01 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.It's that kind of marginalizing talk that's led to gay suppression for decades, ...
No, the suppression was mostly due to ignorance and intolerance, and in Western Hemisphere this is often rationalized by outmoded religious teachings rooted in the Abrahamic tradition. Luckily this is changing. Societies and more organized religions are becoming more accepting of gays.
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:08 last edited by
What do y'all have against Jews?
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:27 last edited by
The Left is now a religion. The democrat party is its church. They have chosen a new Pope. All other religions must be mocked and minimized. You WILL bow to their new religion.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.It's that kind of marginalizing talk that's led to gay suppression for decades, ...
No, the suppression was mostly due to ignorance and intolerance, and in Western Hemisphere this is often rationalized by outmoded religious teachings rooted in the Abrahamic tradition. Luckily this is changing. Societies and more organized religions are becoming more accepting of gays.
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:34 last edited by@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.It's that kind of marginalizing talk that's led to gay suppression for decades, ...
No, the suppression was mostly due to ignorance and intolerance, and in Western Hemisphere this is often rationalized by outmoded religious teachings rooted in the Abrahamic tradition. Luckily this is changing. Societies and more organized religions are becoming more accepting of gays.
Ax, just an hour ago you said there shouldn't be any more gay legislators. You—not "religious teachings," you—said they're not worth representing. More accepting of gays? Start with yourself, Ax. I can't believe what I'm hearing here.
-
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.It's that kind of marginalizing talk that's led to gay suppression for decades, ...
No, the suppression was mostly due to ignorance and intolerance, and in Western Hemisphere this is often rationalized by outmoded religious teachings rooted in the Abrahamic tradition. Luckily this is changing. Societies and more organized religions are becoming more accepting of gays.
Ax, just an hour ago you said there shouldn't be any more gay legislators. You—not "religious teachings," you—said they're not worth representing. More accepting of gays? Start with yourself, Ax. I can't believe what I'm hearing here.
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:37 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.It's that kind of marginalizing talk that's led to gay suppression for decades, ...
No, the suppression was mostly due to ignorance and intolerance, and in Western Hemisphere this is often rationalized by outmoded religious teachings rooted in the Abrahamic tradition. Luckily this is changing. Societies and more organized religions are becoming more accepting of gays.
Ax, just an hour ago you said there shouldn't be any more gay legislators. You—not "religious teachings," you—said they're not worth representing. More accepting of gays? Start with yourself, Ax. I can't believe what I'm hearing here.
I thought Ax was gay. Or at least was like a garden gate and swung both ways.
Did I miss something?
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:44 last edited by
Ax has no personal convictions. He is a zealot follower of the religion of Leftism, defending its church. All his beliefs are told to him by the church. Those beliefs are only valid in the moment they are spoken, and are subject to change as need dictates. One must not question the teachings of the church. If a teaching contradicts an earlier teaching, the latest version is to be followed.
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:47 last edited by
Ax is a queer???
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:48 last edited by
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 01:48 last edited by
Not nearly as confused as A.... never mind...
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 02:32 last edited by
@George-K I agree that there should not be quotas.
Same with recent Supreme Court judge. "I will appoint a woman!" Appoint the best person I think.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Why not a woman?:
@Axtremus said in Why not a woman?:
Why not someone who's gay?
Probably because there aren't that many gay voters.It's that kind of marginalizing talk that's led to gay suppression for decades, ...
No, the suppression was mostly due to ignorance and intolerance, and in Western Hemisphere this is often rationalized by outmoded religious teachings rooted in the Abrahamic tradition. Luckily this is changing. Societies and more organized religions are becoming more accepting of gays.
Ax, just an hour ago you said there shouldn't be any more gay legislators. You—not "religious teachings," you—said they're not worth representing. More accepting of gays? Start with yourself, Ax. I can't believe what I'm hearing here.
I thought Ax was gay. Or at least was like a garden gate and swung both ways.
Did I miss something?
wrote on 11 Nov 2020, 02:46 last edited by@Jolly said in Why not a woman?:
I thought Ax was gay. Or at least was like a garden gate and swung both ways.
Did I miss something?Nah, don't think Ax is. His family's pretty cool
even if Ax is cantankerous at timesthough.