What's Wrong With This Picture?

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I have never understood it.

You can't force diversity in schools, parties, etc. The dominoes fall how they do. These things are random.

Nooo, pretty much the exact opposite of "random" actually. That's kind of the point.

 

[Curious George]

So personal, never felt any need to treat anyone different because of the tone of their skin, religion, nationality, gender. People I deal with personally, I just never consider these things.

However, being light skinned, blue eyed, brown hair, male. Movies, games, my preference is to someone similar to myself as the protagonist. Just easier to identify with that person.

I've tried but I lose interest. I suppose it is kind of prejudice but I don't particularly feel guilty for it.

Many people lose interest in other peoples perspectives and the issues that contribute to that perspective. I assume this is because it is much easier to judge the world from your own perspective.

 

[Father Heathen]

Both parties have this. No one gets to claim noble here.

Sure, but in equal proportion? Regardless, people will join/vote for the party they believe has their rights and interests in mind, hence the racial/gender disparity.

 

[Earthling]

I have never understood it.

You can't force diversity in schools, parties, etc. The dominoes fall how they do. These things are random.

I think that what you are failing to appreciate in this case, as the image shows, the first group, the Republicans are the ones likely to care about race. The result of it not being an issue is far more likely to be represented in the second group, the Democrats.

Of course, it makes no difference because the game is rigged, they are all owned by the same corporations and we are all slaves to a debt based economy.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It should be noted that without any prompting or context regarding race, you were the first one to determine that race was the point of this pictorial representation.

Because it was. Race and gender were the bullet points in the emoji game. Why are you spinning this against someone who pointed out the obvious?

 

[Axe Elf]

Because it was. Race and gender were the bullet points in the emoji game. Why are you spinning this against someone who pointed out the obvious?

Basically because they were saying that if race really wasn't an issue, then nobody would be talking about it. (Which I agree with, by the way.)

However, the fact that they were the first person to talk about it seemed rather ironic. If race really wasn't an issue to that poster, then they might have focused on the gender inequality instead, for instance.

 

[Axe Elf]

Not enough women/minorities running as republicans?

BINGO!

(And, of course, the reasons for that...)

 

[Axe Elf]

Is the answer too many Republicans?

Well, I suppose that's ONE answer...

 

[SalixIncendium]

Basically because they were saying that if race really wasn't an issue, then nobody would be talking about it. (Which I agree with, by the way.)

However, the fact that they were the first person to talk about it seemed rather ironic. If race really wasn't an issue to that poster, then they might have focused on the gender inequality instead, for instance.

I won't presume to speak for @Rival, but perhaps she looks at a person similarly to how I do: for who they are rather than the color of their skin. Perhaps, she has, like me, become blind to skin color and takes exception to those who spin political diversity into a race issue.

That said, what does one's party of favor have to do with whether one has a penis or a vagina?

 

[Axe Elf]

Perhaps, she has, like me, become blind to skin color and takes exception to those who spin political diversity into a race issue.

I think we can rule that out, based on the first response to this thread.

Just out of curiosity, though, what is left of diversity if every member of a group is the same as every other member? Isn't diversity a race issue (as well as a gender issue and a religious issue and an age issue and an ideological issue and so on) by definition?

That said, what does one's party of favor have to do with whether one has a penis or a vagina?

Judging from the congressmen elect, I think it's the other way around.

 

[Curious George]

I won't presume to speak for @Rival, but perhaps she looks at a person similarly to how I do: for who they are rather than the color of their skin. Perhaps, she has, like me, become blind to skin color and takes exception to those who spin political diversity into a race issue.

That said, what does one's party of favor have to do with whether one has a penis or a vagina?

Saying you are blind to skin is a nice sentiment, but ultimately an unreasonable stance given history. In some situations it works and is admirable. In others, it fails and is ignorant.

 

[Nakosis]

BINGO!

(And, of course, the reasons for that...)

Normally Republicans represent business interests, Democrats represent labor interests.

So not enough women and minorities represented in business.

 

[Revoltingest]

Making race an issue again, I see. If we really cared about fighting racism, we actually wouldn't care about race.

Like, at all.

So it wouldn't matter if your party were full of white people, mixed, black, Asian, cyberman, it wouldn't be an issue.

Listening to NPR during the pre-election campaigns, the Democrats were
very concerned with race & gender. Diversity in those areas was the goal,
ie, for the winners to be non-white &/or non-male. What the candidates
stood for was less relevant.

 

[Rival]

I think we can rule that out, based on the first response to this thread.

I think you're intentionally misrepresenting me, either that or you haven't a clue what you are talking about. The op was about gender and race, so people are going to comment on that. If you can't understand why people would comment on your OP then you really shouldn't be on a forum.

 

[Rival]

Saying you are blind to skin is a nice sentiment, but ultimately an unreasonable stance given history. In some situations it works and is admirable. In others, it fails and is ignorant.

Such as?

 

[74x12]

Listening to NPR during the pre-election campaigns, the Democrats were
very concerned with race & gender. Diversity in those areas was the goal,
ie, for the winners to be non-white &/or non-male. What the candidates
stood for was less relevant.

Which proves how insincere they are about actual issues. It's just politics, politics.

 

[Axe Elf]

The op was about gender and race, so people are going to comment on that. If you can't understand why people would comment on your OP then you really shouldn't be on a forum.

Since I created the OP, I don't believe you are in a position to tell me what the OP was about. The OP was an open question; your answer was exclusively about race (with no mention of gender). Another person might interpret it as being exclusively about gender (with no consideration given to race). Yet another responder made it exclusively about parties ("too many Republicans"), without respect to race or gender.

You're allowed to see what you want to see. You're not allowed to project your perceptions onto others ("this is how I see it, so any sensible person must also see it that way"). That's part of the problem in the first place.

 

[Curious George]

Such as?

When race is a factor.

 

[Rival]

When race is a factor.

But when is that? When should one's race be a factor in a political party or a school choice or a career?

 

[Estro Felino]

Our senate has 210 senators, 110 senatrixes