[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Sharpton pipes in on Mi and FL delagates

[explanation of relevance goes here]

DRUDGE REPORT FLASH�

.

[BRussell]

Is it really racism or sexism to have a preference to vote for someone similar to you, or to vote for someone of your race or gender who has never been president? It seems like that would be pretty natural, and not necessarily sexist or racist. It's not gender- or color-blind, but I think there's some distance between not being blind to race/gender and being a racist/sexist.

[besson3c]

WHat does Sharpton's alleged letter have to do with racism or sexism?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

WHat does Sharpton's alleged letter have to do with racism or sexism?

Some have said that not seating delegations from Florida and Michigan disenfranchises Democratic voters -- especially African American voters -- from those two states. That claim, if true, should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters. To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument.

Hillary kept her name on the MI and FL ballots(the other candidates withdrew theirs) for just this purpose. Now the she is falling behind she will use the " disenfranchising of African American voters" to seat those uncontested election delegates. If she were ahead she would not give a rats behind about them.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Is it really racism or sexism to have a preference to vote for someone similar to you, or to vote for someone of your race or gender who has never been president? It seems like that would be pretty natural, and not necessarily sexist or racist. It's not gender- or color-blind, but I think there's some distance between not being blind to race/gender and being a racist/sexist.

In my opinion there are many beliefs and ideas that people hold that are labeled as racist that really are not. I think that different types of bias are natural to being a human. Really, there is no such thing as "objectivity" when people are involved. But when it comes to other issues like say the environment many people argue that we have a special responsibility to go out of our way to protect it…because we are uniquely smart enough as humans to be able to. Doesn't this logic apply to this as well? Should we hold ourselves to higher standard?

Personally, I support any legal voter's right to support whomever they want for whatever reasons they want. That includes "I like him because he's handsome" as well as "I ain't votin' for no n*ggers!" Really, it's not up to me to judge them no matter how I personally feel about it.

Also, I think it's been brought up before, but there is a double standard here. Maybe or maybe not with you personally, but to many that would agree with your sentiment. That is…is it then ok for me to support the white males based upon their white male-ness? Are you willing to accept that? I think that a lot wouldn't but I suspect that is mostly due to some misguided idea that to fighting bias with bias is somehow fair or logical. I don't think it is. It only fosters more resentment.

[BRussell]

Yes. Bias, stereotyping, pre-judgments/prejudice are not wrong; it's called being human and having a brain.

I agree in theory with the idea that there's a double standard. But when it comes to voting for president, it's a bit different because all the presidents so far have been white males, and l think that's driving a lot of the interest in electing a woman or a black man - just to have a "first."

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Yes. Bias, stereotyping, pre-judgments/prejudice are not wrong; it's called being human and having a brain.

I agree in theory with the idea that there's a double standard. But when it comes to voting for president, it's a bit different because all the presidents so far have been white males, and l think that's driving a lot of the interest in electing a woman or a black man - just to have a "first."

And I think that there is a certain value in having a "first" to sort of "breakthrough" if you will. I just hope people aren't overlooking too many glaring flaws in order to facilitate that.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

there is a double standard here. …is it then ok for me to support the white males based upon their white male-ness?

It's perfectly reasonable to support a candidate solely because they share your demographic if that demographic is disadvantaged in some way. A female candidate will undoubtedly keep issues of women's rights in mind, so if you are a woman concerned about your equal rights, supporting that candidate on that basis alone is logical. There is no such thing as "white male rights," at least not currently while white males suffer no disadvantages to any other groups. Therefore supporting a white male candidate based on their white male-ness can only be interpreted as promoting inequality.

It's not a double-standard. People who work to promote inequality don't deserve the same deference as those who work to diminish it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Really, it's not up to me to judge them no matter how I personally feel about it.

This is off-topic, but the above applies to everyone for everything, always.

Carry on.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I saw a report a while back on how black women were going to have a difficult decision because they had to pick Hillary or Obama. And then they interviewed black women, and I thought it would have been awesome if one had answered, "The entire basis of this piece — the assumption that black women are invariably Democrats, and, even if we are, that we must vote for somebody who is racially or sexually similar to ourselves — is horribly flawed and highly offensive. Shame on you people." But no, they actually agreed with the piece. They just couldn't decide whether they were more enthusiastic about being sexist or being racist. That made me sad.

Well, but what are black women's choices ? Picking McCain ?

Unless you are / were in the military, then you had no problem with it.

-t

[turtle777]

Oh, I failed to mention that I'm indeed one of those sexist and racist people out there.

I'm very discriminating: I like black women

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's perfectly reasonable to support a candidate solely because they share your demographic if that demographic is disadvantaged in some way. A female candidate will undoubtedly keep issues of women's rights in mind, so if you are a woman concerned about your equal rights, supporting that candidate on that basis alone is logical.

Because assuming a man necessarily won't give a crap isn't sexist at all.

This is no more fair or rational than the people who say we shouldn't have a female president because women are too flighty — hey, it's true, some women are flighty. There are women who believe in the subjugation of other women, and there are men who believe women deserve to be treated as equals. Choosing a candidate based solely on his or her sex is sexism, plain and simple and in the dictionary. If you're OK with people bringing their feelings about the sexes into important decisions, you support sexism. I do not like being discriminated against any more than a woman does.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe they coalesce around a woman because they feel that a man isn't representing them? Maybe they feel like they are being ignored?

Instead of just blowing this off as some strange problem of theirs, maybe we should consider the possibility that there might be something there? For instance, look at Bush's "I do not talk to terrorists" tough guy attitude. Look at who it panders to (testosterone fueled men). Would this be the same if a woman was president?

Women and men think fundamentally differently in some respects. No male politician is ever going to properly understand the interests of a female electorate, nor is a female politician ever going to properly understand the interests of a male one.

Politics is historically a man's game, invented by men, for controlling other men, back in the days when women's opinions simply weren't a consideration.

Taking these facts into account, the only just way in which everyone can have a vote would be to have two separate governments, one for women, consisting of women, elected by women, and only in charge of women, as well as one for men, consisting of men, elected by men, and only in charge of men.

The method would eliminate any unjust gender bias.

Remember, there's only one woman running here. Female voters don't have much of a choice, it's either the Clinton woman (take it or leave it), or one of a number of patriarchs.

[BadKosh]

You become distressed to easily.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Remember, there's only one woman running here. Female voters don't have much of a choice, it's either the Clinton woman (take it or leave it), or one of a number of patriarchs.

So anyone with a penis is a patriarch? Sweet. That sounds so much cooler than "twentysomething editor who is actually quite respectful of all humans' rights." Come on, BO-RING. Now I can just introduce myself with, "Hi, I'm Chuck. I'm a patriarch."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Because assuming a man necessarily won't give a crap isn't sexist at all.

It's reasonable to expect that a woman will put women's rights at a higher average priority in her daily decision-making process than a man will. That's just a fact, it's not sexist any more than the fire department is sexist for acknowledging that women generally have a more difficult time lifting unconscious people and carrying them to safety. There are exceptions of course, and it's possible for a woman to dispel that generalization (like Ann Coulter has) and for a man to (like I don't know lets say Dennis Kucinich), by making clear that their priorities are abnormal. But those are statistical outliers, and in fact none of the current candidates have done much to indicate they are as well.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So anyone with a penis is a patriarch? Sweet. That sounds so much cooler than "twentysomething editor who is actually quite respectful of all humans' rights." Come on, BO-RING. Now I can just introduce myself with, "Hi, I'm Chuck. I'm a patriarch."

You're running for president? I don't think you can be a patriarch unless you actually are a powerful leader, like a senator.

[subego]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Politics is historically a man's game, invented by men, for controlling other men, back in the days when women's opinions simply weren't a consideration.

Taking these facts into account, the only just way in which everyone can have a vote...

So, politics is historically unjust, therefore the only way for it to be just is to keep it unjust?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Women and men think fundamentally differently in some respects. No male politician is ever going to properly understand the interests of a female electorate, nor is a female politician ever going to properly understand the interests of a male one.

Politics is historically a man's game, invented by men, for controlling other men, back in the days when women's opinions simply weren't a consideration.

Taking these facts into account, the only just way in which everyone can have a vote would be to have two separate governments, one for women, consisting of women, elected by women, and only in charge of women, as well as one for men, consisting of men, elected by men, and only in charge of men.

The method would eliminate any unjust gender bias.

Remember, there's only one woman running here. Female voters don't have much of a choice, it's either the Clinton woman (take it or leave it), or one of a number of patriarchs.

No offense, but I don't know how this argument could be any lamer.

Why don't we create a government for blacks, jews, hispanics, muslims while we're at it? Or how about governments for the rich, poor, and middle class?

This country is a mix of all sorts of different people with all sorts of experiences and opinions. You can't chop it up into smaller pieces like this, nor should you.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's reasonable to expect that a woman will put women's rights at a higher average priority in her daily decision-making process than a man will. That's just a fact, it's not sexist any more than the fire department is sexist for acknowledging that women generally have a more difficult time lifting unconscious people and carrying them to safety. There are exceptions of course, and it's possible for a woman to dispel that generalization (like Ann Coulter has) and for a man to (like I don't know lets say Dennis Kucinich), by making clear that their priorities are abnormal. But those are statistical outliers, and in fact none of the current candidates have done much to indicate they are as well.

Are you saying it's a fact that a woman will put women's rights as a higher priority than a man will, or that it's a fact that it's reasonable to assume so?

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Are you saying it's a fact that a woman will put women's rights as a higher priority than a man will, or that it's a fact that it's reasonable to assume so?

Has to be the second. He gives exceptions.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah, the second