My Senator
-
@89th said in My Senator:
I guess diverse = not white.
Byron York: "What made the Duckworth episode somewhat ironic is that President Biden has delivered on his promise to make his cabinet the "most diverse" in U.S. history. It is so diverse, in fact, that it does not precisely reflect the U.S. population. According to an analysis by National Public Radio, Biden's cabinet is "nearly 55 percent non-white." According to the Census Bureau, the number of Americans who are "white alone, not Hispanic or Latino," is 60 percent. So the Biden cabinet is more non-white than the country as a whole, just as, say, the Republican Party is more white than the country as a whole. In any event, it's hard to accuse Biden of not paying attention to the Democratic Party's diversity concerns. But Biden's idea of diversity is apparently not Duckworth's idea of diversity. Such controversies, sometimes pitting group against group, are sure to recur inside the president's party.
Finally, and almost needless to say, it is impossible to imagine the furor that would arise in the press and political world if a U.S. senator vowed to vote against every nominee of color -- voting only for nominees who were white and heterosexual -- unless the White House satisfied a specific demand."
@george-k said in My Senator:
Finally, and almost needless to say, it is impossible to imagine the furor that would arise in the press and political world if a U.S. senator vowed to vote against every nominee of color -- voting only for nominees who were white and heterosexual -- unless the White House satisfied a specific demand."
It's weird to me that this gets pointed out as something novel or clever.
Of course diverse = non-white. That's not even up for discussion. For centuries, white males perpetuated the patriarchal tyranny that has kept other races oppressed and lacking in opportunities. Therefore it's always better for a non-white minority to hold a position of power than it is a white male. It's correcting injustice.
We're far past the point of that story being a secret; I don't think it ever was. The woke community has been very vocal and consistent on this point for a long time now. I don't get the bewilderment.
-
@george-k said in My Senator:
Finally, and almost needless to say, it is impossible to imagine the furor that would arise in the press and political world if a U.S. senator vowed to vote against every nominee of color -- voting only for nominees who were white and heterosexual -- unless the White House satisfied a specific demand."
It's weird to me that this gets pointed out as something novel or clever.
Of course diverse = non-white. That's not even up for discussion. For centuries, white males perpetuated the patriarchal tyranny that has kept other races oppressed and lacking in opportunities. Therefore it's always better for a non-white minority to hold a position of power than it is a white male. It's correcting injustice.
We're far past the point of that story being a secret; I don't think it ever was. The woke community has been very vocal and consistent on this point for a long time now. I don't get the bewilderment.
@aqua-letifer said in My Senator:
@george-k said in My Senator:
Finally, and almost needless to say, it is impossible to imagine the furor that would arise in the press and political world if a U.S. senator vowed to vote against every nominee of color -- voting only for nominees who were white and heterosexual -- unless the White House satisfied a specific demand."
It's weird to me that this gets pointed out as something novel or clever.
Of course diverse = non-white. That's not even up for discussion. For centuries, white males perpetuated the patriarchal tyranny that has kept other races oppressed and lacking in opportunities. Therefore it's always better for a non-white minority to hold a position of power than it is a white male. It's correcting injustice.
It's somewhat about correcting injustice, but maybe more importantly it's about putting better, wiser, more compassionate people into positions of power. It's not that white people are necessarily genetically inferior, it's just that it is impossible for them to understand life, struggle, pain, compassion, love, and Tyler Perry movies to the extent they'd need to in order to be effective legislators. They simply lack the life experience necessary to be fully "human" for the purposes of integrating into a diverse society and having meaningful political opinions.
Education is extremely important.
-
@aqua-letifer said in My Senator:
@george-k said in My Senator:
Finally, and almost needless to say, it is impossible to imagine the furor that would arise in the press and political world if a U.S. senator vowed to vote against every nominee of color -- voting only for nominees who were white and heterosexual -- unless the White House satisfied a specific demand."
It's weird to me that this gets pointed out as something novel or clever.
Of course diverse = non-white. That's not even up for discussion. For centuries, white males perpetuated the patriarchal tyranny that has kept other races oppressed and lacking in opportunities. Therefore it's always better for a non-white minority to hold a position of power than it is a white male. It's correcting injustice.
It's somewhat about correcting injustice, but maybe more importantly it's about putting better, wiser, more compassionate people into positions of power. It's not that white people are necessarily genetically inferior, it's just that it is impossible for them to understand life, struggle, pain, compassion, love, and Tyler Perry movies to the extent they'd need to in order to be effective legislators. They simply lack the life experience necessary to be fully "human" for the purposes of integrating into a diverse society and having meaningful political opinions.
@horace said in My Senator:
@aqua-letifer said in My Senator:
@george-k said in My Senator:
Finally, and almost needless to say, it is impossible to imagine the furor that would arise in the press and political world if a U.S. senator vowed to vote against every nominee of color -- voting only for nominees who were white and heterosexual -- unless the White House satisfied a specific demand."
It's weird to me that this gets pointed out as something novel or clever.
Of course diverse = non-white. That's not even up for discussion. For centuries, white males perpetuated the patriarchal tyranny that has kept other races oppressed and lacking in opportunities. Therefore it's always better for a non-white minority to hold a position of power than it is a white male. It's correcting injustice.
It's somewhat about correcting injustice, but maybe more importantly it's about putting better, wiser, more compassionate people into positions of power. It's not that white people are necessarily genetically inferior, it's just that it is impossible for them to understand life, struggle, pain, compassion, love, and Tyler Perry movies to the extent they'd need to in order to be effective legislators. They simply lack the life experience necessary to be fully "human" for the purposes of integrating into a diverse society and having meaningful political opinions.
Yep, that's an important part of it, too.
I don't see what there is to be gained by being smug about how illogical the left is. It's obvious and misses the point. This shit is actually very dangerous. You gain notoriety and reinforce your own protection against cancel culture by exposing bad people. Especially if those bad people are one of your own, like Glenn Greenwald. It's East Germany.
-
@aqua-letifer said in My Senator:
@george-k said in My Senator:
Finally, and almost needless to say, it is impossible to imagine the furor that would arise in the press and political world if a U.S. senator vowed to vote against every nominee of color -- voting only for nominees who were white and heterosexual -- unless the White House satisfied a specific demand."
It's weird to me that this gets pointed out as something novel or clever.
Of course diverse = non-white. That's not even up for discussion. For centuries, white males perpetuated the patriarchal tyranny that has kept other races oppressed and lacking in opportunities. Therefore it's always better for a non-white minority to hold a position of power than it is a white male. It's correcting injustice.
It's somewhat about correcting injustice, but maybe more importantly it's about putting better, wiser, more compassionate people into positions of power. It's not that white people are necessarily genetically inferior, it's just that it is impossible for them to understand life, struggle, pain, compassion, love, and Tyler Perry movies to the extent they'd need to in order to be effective legislators. They simply lack the life experience necessary to be fully "human" for the purposes of integrating into a diverse society and having meaningful political opinions.
-
I always wonder why the people we elect, seemingly have absolutely no concept of critical thinking.
@mark said in My Senator:
I always wonder why the people we elect, seemingly have absolutely no concept of critical thinking.
Anybody with critical thinking skills would chew their own foot off before running for office and risk having to, y'know, actually deal with these people.
-
There's plenty of critical thinking in deciding what to say and how to say it, in an effort to maximize one's chances of winning an election. There just doesn't happen to be a lot of overlap between "things which maximize chances of winning elections" and "things which stand up to logical scrutiny". Elections are won by politicians who can figure out how to appeal to the broadest common denominators. Those broad common denominators will necessarily not be particularly thoughtful. The messaging has to be digestible by the half of the population with double digit IQs, after all.
-
There's plenty of critical thinking in deciding what to say and how to say it, in an effort to maximize one's chances of winning an election. There just doesn't happen to be a lot of overlap between "things which maximize chances of winning elections" and "things which stand up to logical scrutiny". Elections are won by politicians who can figure out how to appeal to the broadest common denominators. Those broad common denominators will necessarily not be particularly thoughtful. The messaging has to be digestible by the half of the population with double digit IQs, after all.
@horace said in My Senator:
You said three different things.
There's plenty of critical thinking in deciding what to say and how to say it, in an effort to maximize one's chances of winning an election. There just doesn't happen to be a lot of overlap between "things which maximize chances of winning elections" and "things which stand up to logical scrutiny". One wins elections by appealing to relatively low common denominators.
1.) "There's plenty of critical thinking in deciding what to say and how to say it, in an effort to maximize one's chances of winning an election. " Eh. Jobs. Chicken in every pot. Them lousy Democrats/Republicans/Russkies. Go team. I deny that scurrilous accusation categorically. That's about it.
2.) "There just doesn't happen to be a lot of overlap between "things which maximize chances of winning elections" and "things which stand up to logical scrutiny". Like I said.
3.) "One wins elections by appealing to relatively low common denominators." Yeah. Hence the foot chewing.
-
@horace said in My Senator:
You said three different things.
There's plenty of critical thinking in deciding what to say and how to say it, in an effort to maximize one's chances of winning an election. There just doesn't happen to be a lot of overlap between "things which maximize chances of winning elections" and "things which stand up to logical scrutiny". One wins elections by appealing to relatively low common denominators.
1.) "There's plenty of critical thinking in deciding what to say and how to say it, in an effort to maximize one's chances of winning an election. " Eh. Jobs. Chicken in every pot. Them lousy Democrats/Republicans/Russkies. Go team. I deny that scurrilous accusation categorically. That's about it.
2.) "There just doesn't happen to be a lot of overlap between "things which maximize chances of winning elections" and "things which stand up to logical scrutiny". Like I said.
3.) "One wins elections by appealing to relatively low common denominators." Yeah. Hence the foot chewing.
@catseye3 said in My Senator:
@horace said in My Senator:
You said three different things.
There's plenty of critical thinking in deciding what to say and how to say it, in an effort to maximize one's chances of winning an election. There just doesn't happen to be a lot of overlap between "things which maximize chances of winning elections" and "things which stand up to logical scrutiny". One wins elections by appealing to relatively low common denominators.
1.) "There's plenty of critical thinking in deciding what to say and how to say it, in an effort to maximize one's chances of winning an election. " Eh. Jobs. Chicken in every pot. Them lousy Democrats/Republicans/Russkies. Go team. I deny that scurrilous accusation categorically. That's about it.
2.) "There just doesn't happen to be a lot of overlap between "things which maximize chances of winning elections" and "things which stand up to logical scrutiny". Like I said.
3.) "One wins elections by appealing to relatively low common denominators." Yeah. Hence the foot chewing.
I suppose you can pick your poison. Did Clinton or Obama have "no critical thinking skills"? Or if they did, were they chewing their feet off before running for office?
-
@catseye3 said in My Senator:
@horace said in My Senator:
You said three different things.
There's plenty of critical thinking in deciding what to say and how to say it, in an effort to maximize one's chances of winning an election. There just doesn't happen to be a lot of overlap between "things which maximize chances of winning elections" and "things which stand up to logical scrutiny". One wins elections by appealing to relatively low common denominators.
1.) "There's plenty of critical thinking in deciding what to say and how to say it, in an effort to maximize one's chances of winning an election. " Eh. Jobs. Chicken in every pot. Them lousy Democrats/Republicans/Russkies. Go team. I deny that scurrilous accusation categorically. That's about it.
2.) "There just doesn't happen to be a lot of overlap between "things which maximize chances of winning elections" and "things which stand up to logical scrutiny". Like I said.
3.) "One wins elections by appealing to relatively low common denominators." Yeah. Hence the foot chewing.
I suppose you can pick your poison. Did Clinton or Obama have "no critical thinking skills"? Or if they did, were they chewing their feet off before running for office?
