Study finds State Legislatures Dominated By white Men

[San Lumen]

I for one agree with your sentiment. A diverse group of bad people might make them look less racist or sexist, but bad people are bad people regardless of gender or race and that's not worth celebrating.

Aye, I'm genuinely getting sick of this neoliberal shitfuckery on "we need to diversify our governments!!!!". When all it's going to accomplish is a rainbow of different people continuing the oppression of the people in the US and other countries. Nothing wrong with diversity as a concept obviously, it's the fact you have people actually thinking diversifying an oppressive system is suddenly going to make everything better.

Where is this notion of oppression coming from? I doubt you even know the meaning of the word. I know people who came from oppressive countries.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I for one agree with your sentiment. A diverse group of bad people might make them look less racist or sexist, but bad people are bad people regardless of gender or race and that's not worth celebrating.

Aye, I'm genuinely getting sick of this neoliberal shitfuckery on "we need to diversify our governments!!!!". When all it's going to accomplish is a rainbow of different people continuing the oppression of the people in the US and other countries. Nothing wrong with diversity as a concept obviously, it's the fact you have people actually thinking diversifying an oppressive system is suddenly going to make everything better.

Your fallacy is false dilemma. Doing something about the demographic balance MIGHT help with the other things, but so what if it doesn't?

I said the best way to achieve the balance is for the Democratic party to run more candidates of minority background (especially Hispanic it seems), and women, for seats that are winnable or safe. If the Republican party doesn't follow suit, they'll suffer the electoral consequences.

What does pursuing that in-party program to detract from the political capital available to elected government, to do something about your preferred issues?

It doesn't. You're just posting about a subject you don't think matters, to say "I don't care". What's the point of that?

[Chessmistress]

Nigeria isn't "mostly black": Nigeria is 99.9% black and they have 99.9% politicians who are black.
Still, most of their ethnolinguistic groups are underrepresented, while some are overrepresented.
So, in their case, talking about "black / not black" it's just a form of ignorance, very gross.

It can't be not mostly black and almost entirely black at the same time.

It can and it should, since "mostly" and "almost entirely" are different.
"Mostly" is used for much slighter numerical majorities and it can be applied to countries who have diversity.
Nigeria, in regard to skin color, does not have diversity: they're 99.9% blacks.
Their diversity is ethnolinguistic.

I also did say earlier that not all black people have the same culture and they should all have equal representation.

You also suggested that as long as the Nigerian politicians are black then it doesn't matter if many ethnolinguistic minorities are underrepresented or even not represented at all.

Someone else can argue about racial representation with this TER"F" in my place if they want, I'm already in 2 debates at the moment and I don't need a third.

How is "TERF" related to the discussion?
Why do you write TER"F"?

[Alcala-Cordel]

Aye, I'm genuinely getting sick of this neoliberal shitfuckery on "we need to diversify our governments!!!!". When all it's going to accomplish is a rainbow of different people continuing the oppression of the people in the US and other countries. Nothing wrong with diversity as a concept obviously, it's the fact you have people actually thinking diversifying an oppressive system is suddenly going to make everything better.

Your fallacy is false dilemma. Doing something about the demographic balance MIGHT help with the other things, but so what if it doesn't?

I said the best way to achieve the balance is for the Democratic party to run more candidates of minority background (especially Hispanic it seems), and women, for seats that are winnable or safe. If the Republican party doesn't follow suit, they'll suffer the electoral consequences.

What does pursuing that in-party program to detract from the political capital available to elected government, to do something about your preferred issues?

It doesn't. You're just posting about a subject you don't think matters, to say "I don't care". What's the point of that?

The end of capitalism isn't gonna come through bourgeoisie electoralism. No matter who we vote for, the bombs won't stop, corporations will continue to exploit the people and devastate the environment, and the system will remain basically unchanged. Acknowledging that isn't apathy.

At best we'll have the opportunity to elect Democrat with slight progressive leanings. Most candidates just want to keep or worsen the status quo, and the whole government's under the thumb of the billionaires. I personally do participate, but I know elections are just for show.

It can't be not mostly black and almost entirely black at the same time.

It can and it should, since "mostly" and "almost entirely" are different.
"Mostly" is used for much slighter numerical majorities and it can be applied to countries who have diversity.
Nigeria, in regard to skin color, does not have diversity: they're 99.9% blacks.
Their diversity is ethnolinguistic.

I also did say earlier that not all black people have the same culture and they should all have equal representation.

You also suggested that as long as the Nigerian politicians are black then it doesn't matter if many ethnolinguistic minorities are underrepresented or even not represented at all.

Someone else can argue about racial representation with this TER"F" in my place if they want, I'm already in 2 debates at the moment and I don't need a third.

How is "TERF" related to the discussion?
Why do you write TER"F"?

First two parts: I misunderstood your argument and you misunderstood mine. I agree with you.
Third part: You already know the answer to the first question. As for the second question, I intended to leave this thread for some other arguments that died out with a jab at trans exclusionism. It's off-topic so I'm gonna drop it now.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Your fallacy is false dilemma. Doing something about the demographic balance MIGHT help with the other things, but so what if it doesn't?

I said the best way to achieve the balance is for the Democratic party to run more candidates of minority background (especially Hispanic it seems), and women, for seats that are winnable or safe. If the Republican party doesn't follow suit, they'll suffer the electoral consequences.

What does pursuing that in-party program to detract from the political capital available to elected government, to do something about your preferred issues?

It doesn't. You're just posting about a subject you don't think matters, to say "I don't care". What's the point of that?

The end of capitalism isn't gonna come through bourgeoisie electoralism.

Good. That makes "bourgeois" electoralism a safe option then. We just need to reform it, one step at a time (since revolution is the only way to reform it all at once, and revolution sucks dog balls) until we can strike a satisfactory balance between socialism and capitalism.

Reform of government should proceed the way technology does. Cycles of redesign/implementation/testing/feedback/redesign.

No matter who we vote for, the bombs won't stop, corporations will continue to exploit the people and devastate the environment, and the system will remain basically unchanged.

Incorporation is a legal construct. It could be changed (if only gradually) by elected government.
And what about banks? When did the Left make their peace with banks and start punching up on corporations instead?

At best we'll have the opportunity to elect Democrat with slight progressive leanings. Most candidates just want to keep or worsen the status quo, and the whole government's under the thumb of the billionaires. I personally do participate, but I know elections are just for show.

I will grant that the pace of political reform is very slow. The electoral system and the two-party system that it incubates, is not immutable, but getting it right by gradual changes will take a long time.

[Alcala-Cordel]

The end of capitalism isn't gonna come through bourgeoisie electoralism.

Good. That makes "bourgeois" electoralism a safe option then. We just need to reform it, one step at a time (since revolution is the only way to reform it all at once, and revolution sucks dog balls) until we can strike a satisfactory balance between socialism and capitalism.

Reform of government should proceed the way technology does. Cycles of redesign/implementation/testing/feedback/redesign.

No matter who we vote for, the bombs won't stop, corporations will continue to exploit the people and devastate the environment, and the system will remain basically unchanged.

Incorporation is a legal construct. It could be changed (if only gradually) by elected government.
And what about banks? When did the Left make their peace with banks and start punching up on corporations instead?

At best we'll have the opportunity to elect Democrat with slight progressive leanings. Most candidates just want to keep or worsen the status quo, and the whole government's under the thumb of the billionaires. I personally do participate, but I know elections are just for show.

I will grant that the pace of political reform is very slow. The electoral system and the two-party system that it incubates, is not immutable, but getting it right by gradual changes will take a long time.

We have different goals, and mine isn't possible through tedious reform. Compromising with parasites can only do so much, and at the end of the day they're still parasites.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I will grant that the pace of political reform is very slow. The electoral system and the two-party system that it incubates, is not immutable, but getting it right by gradual changes will take a long time.

We have different goals, and mine isn't possible through tedious reform. Compromising with parasites can only do so much, and at the end of the day they're still parasites.

Well I expected that from you.

But I'm a victim both ways of the saying "If you're not a communist at 20 you have no heart, if you're still a communist at 50, you have no brains". Because I haven't been fully for Communist since I was 15, and though I still have some sympathy, I don't have the brains to see a way past the flaws.

Having the heart for it and the brains for it, at the same time, is a very rare combination. *shrug*

[Aureumterra]

To which the same can be said for most African nations. It’s estimated there are over 120 languages and dialects spoken in Nigeria alone, three of which are major, and numerous ethnolinguistic groups. Diversity isn’t an American thing

And they should all be equally represented. The thing is, those countries are mostly black and as such most of their government is.

No one cares about if you’re black or white outside of the West, there, it’s based on linguistic and religious groups… do you not understand the concept of diversity, and take it to mean things other than the American concept of race?

[Vistulange]

This is exactly how I like it, most legislatures being majority White. This (unfortunately from my perspective) doesn't correlate to laws that'll better protect a White majority and ensure that the country won't become diverse. I'd expect that it won't be the case for forever. In more diverse states the legislature will become more diverse overtime. But in states like Maine, that has a better chance of remaining predominately White indefinitely if it remains a mostly White state.

Class is ultimately more important in terms of who gets into government beyond the most local level than race is. If you have money or donors, you can get into elected office. If you don't, you can't for the most part; unless your campaign and platform really is so brilliant and popular.

And there's the Saibomb. I'm honestly surprised it took this long, seeing it had the word "White" in the title.

But please, Sai, tell us, why is the level of melanin in one's skin so important in regards to governance?

[Diarcesia]

And they should all be equally represented. The thing is, those countries are mostly black and as such most of their government is.

No one cares about if you’re black or white outside of the West, there, it’s based on linguistic and religious groups… do you not understand the concept of diversity, and take it to mean things other than the American concept of race?

It's certainly ironic that as the present inheritors of the Roman civilization, this distinction got lost to the West.

[Ostroeuropa]

White people not being smart enough to understand the complex thinkin of us coloured folks bullshit again. Its not like they could ask, or any of a million ways to work shit out.

Stop being so fucking racist.

So your response to my post saying essentialism is a strawman of me... is to strawman me with more essentialism. Ok buddy.

I know bait when I see it. This reverse psychology bullshit of "you're the real racist for thinking White folks might not entirely be in touch with Black people" isn't going to work. Someone could indeed ask and try to learn the issues, but the problem is: will they? And will they learn it from the perspective of those who suffer the consequences or will they learn it from an abstracted position where they don't get a real sense of it all?

If they listened to minorities and women, then they wouldn't adopt progressive positions. Progressive politics represents the views of those groups even less well than boomer white males.

[Alcala-Cordel]

And they should all be equally represented. The thing is, those countries are mostly black and as such most of their government is.

No one cares about if you’re black or white outside of the West, there, it’s based on linguistic and religious groups… do you not understand the concept of diversity, and take it to mean things other than the American concept of race?

I do know that, I just misunderstood an earlier argument as calling for more white representation in those countries.

[San Lumen]

So your response to my post saying essentialism is a strawman of me... is to strawman me with more essentialism. Ok buddy.

I know bait when I see it. This reverse psychology bullshit of "you're the real racist for thinking White folks might not entirely be in touch with Black people" isn't going to work. Someone could indeed ask and try to learn the issues, but the problem is: will they? And will they learn it from the perspective of those who suffer the consequences or will they learn it from an abstracted position where they don't get a real sense of it all?

If they listened to minorities and women, then they wouldn't adopt progressive positions. Progressive politics represents the views of those groups even less well than boomer white males.

I’m sorry what?

[Alcala-Cordel]

So your response to my post saying essentialism is a strawman of me... is to strawman me with more essentialism. Ok buddy.

I know bait when I see it. This reverse psychology bullshit of "you're the real racist for thinking White folks might not entirely be in touch with Black people" isn't going to work. Someone could indeed ask and try to learn the issues, but the problem is: will they? And will they learn it from the perspective of those who suffer the consequences or will they learn it from an abstracted position where they don't get a real sense of it all?

If they listened to minorities and women, then they wouldn't adopt progressive positions. Progressive politics represents the views of those groups even less well than boomer white males.

I've typed and erased several responses to this because it's just so wrong I don't know what to say.

[Stylan]

Nazis when Jews make up 41% of billionaires - "Proof of a Jewish conspiracy!!!11!!"

Nazis when non-Jewish whites dominate literally everything - "Hehe, so what?"

[Kowani]

So your response to my post saying essentialism is a strawman of me... is to strawman me with more essentialism. Ok buddy.

I know bait when I see it. This reverse psychology bullshit of "you're the real racist for thinking White folks might not entirely be in touch with Black people" isn't going to work. Someone could indeed ask and try to learn the issues, but the problem is: will they? And will they learn it from the perspective of those who suffer the consequences or will they learn it from an abstracted position where they don't get a real sense of it all?

If they listened to minorities and women, then they wouldn't adopt progressive positions. Progressive politics represents the views of those groups even less well than boomer white males.

...No. On some social issues (mostly LGBT+ stuff), this is true, but for the vast majority of what is considered "progressive" in the US, minorities are fully on board.
Plus... you're doing the age conflation and taking that to be representative of all minorities.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If they listened to minorities and women, then they wouldn't adopt progressive positions. Progressive politics represents the views of those groups even less well than boomer white males.

I’m sorry what?

Minorities and women don't know what is in their own interests. Therefore they vote for the wrong party. If they'd only get on side with boomer white males imagine what they could achieve together.

Or some crap.

[James_xenoland]

Ok, why should we care exactly?

[Diahon]

so?

[Ostroeuropa]

I’m sorry what?

Minorities and women don't know what is in their own interests. Therefore they vote for the wrong party. If they'd only get on side with boomer white males imagine what they could achieve together.

Or some crap.

No. It's that the overwhelming majority of women aren't feminists, and some polls suggest more of them are anti-feminist than feminist.

You've also got polling showing minority groups dislike progressive ideas and talking points on social issues.

The problem is acting like progressive identity politics is the only way to fix racism. Like asking "Should we grow the economy? Okay! Tax cuts for the rich.". And you acting perplexed because obviously people want the economy grown when I tell you "That's not what people want".

While women and minorities are on board with equality, their conception of what equality is and how to achieve it is wildly out of step with the progressive lefts conception of those ideas. If progressives wanted women "represented" there would be far more anti-feminists and far more people critical of feminism in the progressive left. If they wanted minorities represented, there would be a shift in how they discuss issues and what issues they discuss regarding racism. For example, there's that poll saying white progressives tend to buy in to the idea that white people should "Shut up and listen to minorities" on racism. This is not a sentiment minorities tend to agree with, as they are in fact interested in a constructive dialogue.

That's the kind of thing people like, you know.

Me.

Are trying to have, while white progressives get in the way and start throwing tantrums akin to;


Black person;
"I think we should get pizza."

Me;
"That might be alright, but only if we also get chicken wings."

White progressive throwing a tantrum;
"Stop derailing their food order! This is about pizza! We should shut up and listen to minorities for once!"

Black person being shouted over by a white progressive trying too hard to be woke
"I also want chicken wings though..."

Maybe its some kind of self-awareness buried deep within the progressive mind that they should just "shut up and listen" to minorities, but they project that outwards. This also applies to issues like cultural appropriation and a wide array of other issues where progressives have a disconnect with racial minorities. One example is white privilege and how it effectively centers the conversation around white people and their lives. This is not a popular concept among any group, except progressives.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Minorities and women don't know what is in their own interests. Therefore they vote for the wrong party. If they'd only get on side with boomer white males imagine what they could achieve together.

Or some crap.

No. It's that the overwhelming majority of women aren't feminists, and some polls suggest more of them are anti-feminist than feminist.

You've also got polling showing minority groups dislike progressive ideas and talking points on social issues.

The problem is acting like progressive identity politics is the only way to fix racism. Like asking "Should we grow the economy? Okay! Tax cuts for the rich.". And you acting perplexed because obviously people want the economy grown when I tell you "That's not what people want".

While women and minorities are on board with equality, their conception of what equality is and how to achieve it is wildly out of step with the progressive lefts conception of those ideas. If progressives wanted women "represented" there would be far more anti-feminists and far more people critical of feminism in the progressive left. If they wanted minorities represented, there would be a shift in how they discuss issues and what issues they discuss regarding racism. For example, there's that poll saying white progressives tend to buy in to the idea that white people should "Shut up and listen to minorities" on racism. This is not a sentiment minorities tend to agree with, as they are in fact interested in a constructive dialogue.

That's the kind of thing people like, you know.

Me.

Are trying to have, while white progressives get in the way and start throwing tantrums akin to;


Black person;
"I think we should get pizza."

Me;
"That might be alright, but only if we also get chicken wings."

White progressive throwing a tantrum;
"Stop derailing their food order! This is about pizza! We should shut up and listen to minorities for once!"

Black person being shouted over by a white progressive trying too hard to be woke
"I also want chicken wings though..."

Maybe its some kind of self-awareness buried deep within the progressive mind that they should just "shut up and listen" to minorities, but they project that outwards. This also applies to issues like cultural appropriation and a wide array of other issues where progressives have a disconnect with racial minorities. One example is white privilege and how it effectively centers the conversation around white people and their lives. This is not a popular concept among any group, except progressives.

Oh, I see. You're comparing what Progressives want with the broad classes of people Progressives think they're speaking for (or to).

I don't see that as a problem. If the Progressives were the whole of the Democrat party, it would be a big problem. They'd never get elected, and 10% or so of the population would be super pissed about that. "Why don't all women care about our feminist issues ...etc"

Luckily there are plenty of other Democrats who speak to the mainstream. They don't get elected every time ... but then nor do Republicans. Giving your base what they want while also growing your base, is a dilemma that neither party has solved.

[Exogenous Imperium]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/politics/state-legislature-diversity-study-2020/index.html

A study from the not for profit New American Leaders has found that of the 7883 state legislators in the US 81 percent are white and 71 are male. Black legislators make up just under 10% while Latinx politicians represent about a little more than 4% and Asian Pacific Islanders about 2%. Women are about 30 percent.

I would have thought after the 2018 elections it would be much lower than that. The results were quite surprising. As to why it’s so white male dominated I do not know. Perhaps some states prefer men or men are seen as more likely to be elected?

Some progress has been made though. A record number of women are running for state legislatures this year breaking 2018’s record. Hopefully state legislatures become more diverse after this year. Here in New York both our legislative chambers has the majority caucus lead by black woman

I would assume this isn’t just a US phenomenon. I would imagine it’s the case in other countries as well though I can’t speak for them without data. Your thoughts NSG on why this is the case?

So you are surprised that an abstract thing is mostly made up of descendants of its creators?

Latinos are very small in number compared to the Blacks because most of them only arrived in the past two three generations. The Blacks have been around a lot longer.

[San Lumen]

Ok, why should we care exactly?

You don’t see a problem here? A legislature not reflecting the demographics of its constituency? The previous congress which Republicans controlled their caucus was almost entirely white men. Same goes for republican majority in state legislatures it’s almost all white men. But that is no issue right?

[Picairn]

You don’t see a problem here? A legislature not reflecting the demographics of its constituency? The previous congress which Republicans controlled their caucus was almost entirely white men. Same goes for republican majority in state legislatures it’s almost all white men. But that is no issue right?

Uh, politicians are voted in by their constituents, not their party members. If the legislature is dominated by white men then it's quite clear these white men were voted in by the people, and I don't see any fault with democracy making its voice.

[The Two Jerseys]

You don’t see a problem here? A legislature not reflecting the demographics of its constituency? The previous congress which Republicans controlled their caucus was almost entirely white men. Same goes for republican majority in state legislatures it’s almost all white men. But that is no issue right?

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe it's because the majority of the population in each constituency is in fact white?