CNN Only Took Hours To Play Race Card.....

[SMR 368]

You're dismissing the data because it doesn't reconcile with your intuitions. I would be fired for such a thing!

At some point, you have to determine what data is useful and meaningful and which data isn't. I find this data to be useless. There is no way to control the demographic make-up of the Senate without limiting the freedom of voters. We're all free to vote (those of us that are citizens) and what happens, happens.

Measuring demographics and trying to require a fulfillment of quotas is a barrier to freedom, not an enabler of it.

[alienlovechild 75]

You're dismissing the data because it doesn't reconcile with your intuitions. I would be fired for such a thing!

I'm not just referring to you.

I already explained it yet no one directly refuted it. Pointless to discuss race and the political dynamics involved with people that don't know the basics.

For example. . .

Would you say that Walter Moseley is more or less black than 50 Cent?

Incredible.

[Jenn! 918]

At some point, you have to determine what data is useful and meaningful and which data isn't. I find this data to be useless. There is no way to control the demographic make-up of the Senate without limiting the freedom of voters. We're all free to vote (those of us that are citizens) and what happens, happens.

Measuring demographics and trying to require a fulfillment of quotas is a barrier to freedom, not an enabler of it.

I never said anything about institutng a quota.

What if there were no white people in the Senate. You're telling me you wouldn't be the least bit curious as to why that is because merely asking the question is a barrier to freedom?

[Jenn! 918]

I'm not just referring to you.

I already explained it yet no one directly refuted it. Pointless to discuss race and the political dynamics involved with people that don't know the basics.

I'm not sure I understand your post. I read your earlier post and I don't think that we disagree. It is quite probable that there are legitimate reasons as to why blacks are underrepresented and that a quota would be necessary if we wanted to change it. I'm not suggesting that is the correct course. I just object to the idea that even making an observation and looking into the reasons why there are no blacks in the Senate is somehow racist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not just referring to you.

I already explained it yet no one directly refuted it. Pointless to discuss race and the political dynamics involved with people that don't know the basics.

For example. . .

Incredible.

Indeed. It's one thing to suggest that a black politician doesn't represent the interests of black communities. Quite a different (and meaningless) thing to claim that they are somehow "less black". What does that even mean anyway?

[SMR 368]

I'm not sure I understand your post. I read your earlier post and I don't think that we disagree. It is quite probable that there are legitimate reasons as to why blacks are underrepresented and that a quota would be necessary if we wanted to change it. I'm not suggesting that is the correct course. I just object to the idea that even making an observation and looking into the reasons why there are no blacks in the Senate is somehow racist.

On the most basic level, it's not racist. If you are really just intrigued by the statistical anomaly that senators are more likely to have low skin melanin than Americans at large, then I admit that there is nothing fundamentally racist about a healthy curiosity. Where this becomes racist is when you start to assume that black is more than just a skin color. There has been the suggestion in this thread that there are certain "African American issues" (I'm still waiting for an explanation of which issues in specific are "African American issues) and that black people need black senators to represent them and the issues that are important to them. That is what I am calling racist.

I judge senators based on the issues they support, not how many physical characteristics I happen to share with them. If all the senators were black, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

In short, racism is not noticing that some people have different colors of skin. If that is all you're noticing when you say that there are no black senators, then it's not racist. It becomes racist when you start to attach a meaning to skin color. I sincerely doubt that this "statistically anomaly" would be anything more than an interesting factoid if it weren't for people that attach more than a trivial meaning to skin color.

[SMR 368]

Indeed. It's one thing to suggest that a black politician doesn't represent the interests of black communities. Quite a different (and meaningless) thing to claim that they are somehow "less black". What does that even mean anyway?

Exactly the point. What does it mean to be black? If it's just a skin color, then it can be defined by photo-analysis of skin pigmentation. But in any sort of legally definable way, races don't exist unless you rely on physical characteristics to define race. That is, if you don't rely on physical characteristics, you can't prove that I'm not black or that Bill Cosby is. Black is a skin color. Races don't exist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As a social construct, they certainly do exist.

[SMR 368]

As a social construct, they certainly do exist.

Then prove that there are no black senators without using the physical characteristics of those senators as evidence (or the physical characteristics of their relatives).

Or to make it easier, prove that Mitch McConnell is not black.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then prove that there are no black senators without using the physical characteristics of those senators as evidence (or the physical characteristics of their relatives).

Or to make it easier, prove that Mitch McConnell is not black.

Are you serious? Do you honestly think that makes any kind of sense?

[SMR 368]

Are you serious? Do you honestly think that makes any kind of sense?

It makes all kinds of sense unless you're stuck on dividing people by their skin color (ie. you're a racist). There is no consistent non-physical characteristic basis by which Obama is "black" and McConnell is "white."

Edited November 5, 2010 by SMR

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you want to deny that ethnic communities, as opposed to ethnic individuals face similar issues and concerns, then you have a dubious rationale for claiming that those realities don't exist.

[SMR 368]

If you want to deny that ethnic communities, as opposed to ethnic individuals face similar issues and concerns, then you have a dubious rationale for claiming that those realities don't exist.

From a scientific and legal perspective, for something to exist, there has to be evidence of it. That is, there is no way to prove that something doesn't exist beyond the fact that we have no evidence to believe that it does exist. Thus, in this case, the burden of proof rests squarely on you to prove that race does exist. If you think it is so ridiculous to suggest that race does not exist beyond physical characteristics, you clearly have evidence of what race is and can define it. I'm waiting.

Edited November 5, 2010 by SMR

[SMR 368]

If you want to deny that ethnic communities, as opposed to ethnic individuals face similar issues and concerns, then you have a dubious rationale for claiming that those realities don't exist.

Also, what do you see as the specific concerns unique to certain ethnic communities (as you would define those communities)?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're crazy