Over at Q&O, McQ says: [1]
You know sometimes you think that something is so obvious that even Ellen Goodman [2] might figure it out. But then you’d be wrong. In one of the more absurd columns it has been my misfortune to read in a long time, Goodman tells us that the political blogosphere just isn’t diverse enough for her:
Last week, these progressive political bloggers not only attracted 1,200 to Chicago for the Yearly Kos convention, but made it a designated stop for seven out of the eight Democratic candidates.
Nevertheless, there is another, less flattering way in which broadband has followed broadcast and the liberal political bloggers mimic the conservative talk-show hosts. The chief messengers are overwhelmingly men — white men, even angry white men.
Huh. I mean, how do you answer someone as seemingly clueless as this?
You do so by noting what’s at the heart of the complaint, and the words used.
Pull back a bit, and get a wider shot, here. The big picture take-away from all of this is the lesson of how ‘diversity’ gets used by liberals. Goodman deems that blogdom is “not diverse enough” because it isn’t populated, much less dominated, by those of her gender and leftist-driven politics. Which, for all that has been attributed to the word the last decade or three, is all the intention of such liberals ever was…. making everyone else’s politics more like theirs.
And, yes, that is the goal of anyone who is active in politics. That is, making other people’s politics more like your own. But notice which hand of the political spectrum is, that labels such efforts “diversity”. Also note, who is who gets to decide what “diversity” is.