(05-08-2019 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 03:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 02:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I probably should have said unacceptable in my opinion. How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint? But I'll concede you that point, plenty of politicians hold beliefs that seem anathemic to one group or another.

The mayor said that the city isn't ready for a black administrator. Is that OK with you? Does that fall within heterogeneity of belief as well?

Representatives are supposed to represent everybody, not just the PC viewpoints or the ones they agree with.

As for the mayor, I think he is a dinosaur - but he has the right to his opinion, and the voters can vote on him.

I live in a county that is 95% white and 67% Republican. Most people have guns. (I do) Most drive pick ups. (I don't) Yet somehow we old racists have elected two black city council members and appointed a black Chief of Police. Kind of tired of you trying to cherry pick your way into "proving" we are all racists and that racists are our heroes.

For what feels like the hundredth time, I am simply pointing out that picking out some rando state level politician who does dumb stuff doesn't mean that they represent the party. Or are a "hero" to the party. Nobody knows who this guy Sims is but you keep trying to make him some Democratic stalwart. Stop. It's silly.

I have never tried to make all Republicans out to be racists. Almost all my family are Republicans and none of them are racist.

Quote:Nobody worries about race any more.

LOL LOL LOL!

You are right. Democrats worry about race a lot. Republicans, not much.

I’ll agree with that - the Republican Party primarily appears to be ambivalent to race issues because, shocking, the group of supporters is rather homogenous.

It makes sense that a party that is more diverse, and therefore built on a more diverse set of perspectives, would be more conscious of race and worry about it and how policies affect races differently.

Lolz -- I guess 'more concious' is just a nice way of saying 'stupid fing deplorable'?

lad, I dont think you can be more wrong on your thesis sentence. If you want to get down to it, Republicans tend not to give a crap about the color of person's skin. Think of it as a meta-inclusiveness. For Democrats (progressives), race and ethnicity is (one of many) meta-distinctions.

As an example: my neighborhood (my house +- 6 houses, and across the street) has changed from pretty much lily-white to a very multi-ethnic area.

My neighbor's three year old is learning to swim, so last summer I volunteered my pool to them to use and help her 'practice' apart from the once-a-week lesson. The family is immigrant east Indian.

The conservative republican neighbor noted that 'awesome you lend you pool out to your next door neighbor for this.'

The three progressive neighbors noted how great it was that I lent my pool 'to [the] Hindi neighbor."

Me and the conservative neighbor dont give a rat's ass *who* people are in the neighborhood ethnic-wise. Our (much more plentiful) progressive neighbors always inject the racial component into it -- incessantly. I would say 'I wonder why' but I am not that stupid --- the note and distinction of racial composition (and any other 'difference' that can be leveraged') is part and parcel of progressive politics. At least in my neighborhood, it is part and parcel for the progressives to revel in making those racial and ethnic distinctions -- even when not nefarious.

So, get off your 'republicans are color blind because all they do is hang around with other vanilla milkshakes' tangent. Perhaps one reason the right side of the ice cream parlor has a prevalence of vanilla milkshakes is the 50 fing years that the other side has said what racist fks we were (are)..... naaaaah....... that has *nothing* to do with that......

As for 'policies affect races differently', hate to tell you that the 'real biggies' have been addressed --- i.e. deed restrictions, Loving v. Virginia, blacks at the back of the bus. And yes, for those 'biggies' racial distinctions were important. Compared to the items that made up that 'list of biggies', my guess is that the racial distinction component of those is pretty inconsequential compared to 'can't marry a black'-type impact.