https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/934766109899579/
I found this video on Facebook the other day. The man in the video basically argues that Affirmative Action is both no longer necessary and demeaning to blacks, based on the assumption that blacks are not as capable of meeting the same standards as whites. I was raised in a Conservative family, but I've been drifting further and further away from Conservatism every year. I was prepared to laugh at the stupidity of a video that tried to shift the racist label from Conservatives to Liberals. However, this video does make some interesting points.
Personally, I think that the word "racist" is thrown around way too often these days, to the point that it means virtually nothing. It has become a word used for silencing opposition, rather than giving their opinions proper consideration. What are your thoughts?
As someone who lives in a place where it isn't as much 'conservatives vs liberals', I have to say that way you say is still recognizeable.
I've met racist 'conservatives' and racist 'progressives'. Same with sexism and whatever else you can think of. Thing is that people who exhibit it, seemingly don't tend to recognize it within themselves. I think this is because it comes from 'the best intentions'.
That being said, I'm not a fan of Affirmative action myself.
The man in the video says, "The irony is that those who accuse conservatives of being racist believe that blacks and other minorities are not as capable of whites at succeeding and therefore still need affirmative action almost a half century after it was first implemented." I don't think liberals believe minorities cannot succeed academically but that they still do not have the same opportunities. For example, education has become very expensive. The median household income of white and black households is $59,764 and $35,416. The unemployment rate for blacks is twice that of whites. A typical black household has accumulated less than one-tenth of the wealth of a typical white one. This makes a difference when a white kid get a private tutor and a SAT prep class and a black kid doesn't. In my opinion conservatives often underestimate how uneven the playing field actually is. I can foresee a time when Affirmative Action isn't necessary but I don't think as a society we are there yet.
Another factor in Affirmative Action is the liberal belief that diversity has benefits. Liberals tend to appreciate exposure to new and unfamiliar ideas and experiences. Most liberals don't want students selected just on test scores, where Asians outscore whites, who outscore blacks. Liberals want a cultural mix of students and therefore take a variety of criteria into consideration.
I would also add that if conservatives want to avoid being called racists they might want to reconsider when their preferred party nominates a presidential candidate like Donald Trump. Former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke is getting more support from black voters in his race than Donald Trump is in his!
As far as the term "racist", I do think in some cases it is just used as a generic pejorative, especially online. "Racist" now provokes the same anxiety that "communist" elicited in the 1950's. If someone is accused online of being a racist it could be anything from advocating white supremacy to simply being insensitive to the concerns of racial minorities.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 05, 2016, 11:10:04 PM
Personally, I think that the word "racist" is thrown around way too often these days, to the point that it means virtually nothing. It has become a word used for silencing opposition, rather than giving their opinions proper consideration. What are your thoughts?
Agreed.
I think it also has a negative effect on people who start believing everything that doesn't go their way is because of 'racism'.
We live in a social environment where nationally recognizable groups are claiming that everyone outside of their group is unavoidably, irrevocably X.
Fill in whatever you want for X. Racist, sexist, stupid etc.
Its the age of massive generalizations, and the rhetoric is so poisonous that no matter how logically you argue against it, your argument is simply used as evidence that you are racist, sexist etc.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on August 06, 2016, 03:26:44 AM
Thing is that people who exhibit it, seemingly don't tend to recognize it within themselves. I think this is because it comes from 'the best intentions'.
That's mostly true for all of the other forms of bigotry too. I think people view their own bigotry as the perception of reality that is self evident and true. Everyone thinks their views are normal.
All real Americans are racists. R people are honestly racist. D people are hypocritically racist. Which one you support depends on how self aware you are, and whether you are more tolerant of brutal honesty or of triangulating cynicism.
The Republican party is about 89% white (http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx) and the Democratic party is about 60% white. The US as a whole is 62.6% white. And that racial gulf doesn't just exist among voters, but also the elected officials (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/breakdown-114th-congress-demographics-gender) with the Dems electing far more minority candidates (which is strange, considering that the black belt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Belt_(U.S._region)#/media/File:New_2000_black_percent.gif) is predominantly in red states)
Even the interns are more proportional to the general population:
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Interns.jpg)
Okay, so there's a racial difference between the two parties. This tells us nothing about their attitudes. Do the Republicans hold any prejudice towards nonwhites?
(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-01-29/racefixed.png)
Source (https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/01/29/racial-attitudes-differ-ideology-class/)
Okay, so there's a bit of prejudice. No biggie. One could argue that it's actually directed against the lower class and that "black people" was just an indelicate way of putting it. I mean, it's not like a bunch of conservatives have praised slavery or anything (http://www.salon.com/2012/10/12/ten_conservatives_who_have_praised_slavery/).
So, to answer your question, Republicans are far more likely to hold racist views. What a surprise.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 06, 2016, 01:42:27 PM
The Republican party is about 89% white (http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx) and the Democratic party is about 60% white. The US as a whole is 62.6% white. And that racial gulf doesn't just exist among voters, but also the elected officials (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/breakdown-114th-congress-demographics-gender) with the Dems electing far more minority candidates (which is strange, considering that the black belt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Belt_(U.S._region)#/media/File:New_2000_black_percent.gif) is predominantly in red states)
Even the interns are more proportional to the general population:
(http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Interns.jpg)
Okay, so there's a racial difference between the two parties. This tells us nothing about their attitudes. Do the Republicans hold any prejudice towards nonwhites?
(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-01-29/racefixed.png)
Source (https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/01/29/racial-attitudes-differ-ideology-class/)
Okay, so there's a bit of prejudice. No biggie. One could argue that it's actually directed against the lower class and that "black people" was just an indelicate way of putting it. I mean, it's not like a bunch of conservatives have praised slavery or anything (http://www.salon.com/2012/10/12/ten_conservatives_who_have_praised_slavery/).
So, to answer your question, Republicans are far more likely to hold racist views. What a surprise.
Yeah. I figured that the video was kinda reaching to prove that Liberals are the true racists. When it comes to its point on affirmative action, I could see the logic in the speaker's words. However, I doubt that most Conservatives who are against affirmative action hold their views because their deep concern for the well being of black people. Most of the ones I've heard argue against it were more concerned about white applicants being denied in favor of less qualified black applicants.
Quote from: Nonsensei on August 06, 2016, 09:00:11 AM
We live in a social environment where nationally recognizable groups are claiming that everyone outside of their group is unavoidably, irrevocably X.
Fill in whatever you want for X. Racist, sexist, stupid etc.
Its the age of massive generalizations, and the rhetoric is so poisonous that no matter how logically you argue against it, your argument is simply used as evidence that you are racist, sexist etc.
We also are in a political phase where people focus on identity and not ideas, personality and not policy. "You are racist" isn't a valid argument against an idea. The average voter is more focused on Trump and Clinton's personal characteristics, not their policies.
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 06, 2016, 02:34:37 PMYeah. I figured that the video was kinda reaching to prove that Liberals are the true racists. When it comes to its point on affirmative action, I could see the logic in the speaker's words. However, I doubt that most Conservatives who are against affirmative action hold their views because their deep concern for the well being of black people. Most of the ones I've heard argue against it were more concerned about white applicants being denied in favor of less qualified black applicants.
To be honest, I'm not too keen on affirmative action myself. I hold an egalitarian/meritocratic position and think that applicants should be considered purely as individuals, not as part of a demographic quota. But the context of affirmative action was in the early 1960s, where racist hiring practices was a huge problem. There was definitely a need for affirmative action then. Things have gotten better since then, but there's still some lingering racism in hiring (http://fortune.com/2014/11/04/hiring-racial-bias/) (15.2% callbacks for black applicants vs 18% for white applicants). Ideally, I'd like to end both affirmative action and the need for affirmative action at the same time.
The end of college as we know it started in 2008-2009 with the financial crisis. The false solution was the government loan expansion, that has put a generation of young people into indentured servitude (any college loan after the change to "no discharge for inability to pay" was suicide).
College will be done on-line for now on, except for the Ivy League folks. We will be back to where we were before WW II ... but with better technology for off-campus students. This is a good thing. Too bad many parents didn't get the memo yet.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 06, 2016, 02:46:04 PM
We also are in a political phase where people focus on identity and not ideas, personality and not policy. "You are racist" isn't a valid argument against an idea. The average voter is more focused on Trump and Clinton's personal characteristics, not their policies.
We pay little attention to policy because we have been fooled too many times by past candidates. The voter base has been taught the hard way that campaign promises and stated policies are not to be trusted, and that once a candidate becomes president he is more likely than not to pursue whatever agenda he wishes regardless of what he promised people to get them to vote for him.
A presidential campaign is like a sales pitch. The candidate is selling you an idea, and you are paying for it with your vote. Unlike an actual monetary sale, however, this sales pitch has absolutely no rules or regulation. There are no consequences if a candidate does not live up to his promises. This encourages, if not outright requires candidates to misrepresent themselves (lie) in order to achieve the highest interest among voters.
Incidentally this mechanic is why Trump scares me less than he scares you. All of the most outrageous things he claims he will do as president are either utterly impractical or completely unconstitutional. Its clear to me hes just saying what his voter base wants to hear. I don;t know what hes really going to do as president, but there will be no wall building or mass deportation of Muslims.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 06, 2016, 01:42:27 PM
Okay, so there's a racial difference between the two parties. This tells us nothing about their attitudes. Do the Republicans hold any prejudice towards nonwhites?
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2016-01-29/racefixed.png
Source (https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/01/29/racial-attitudes-differ-ideology-class/)
One could argue that it's actually directed against the lower class and that "black people" was just an indelicate way of putting it.
So, to answer your question, Republicans are far more likely to hold racist views. What a surprise.
So I followed the yougov links to this:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/t5xd6b47t8/tabs_OP_Race_and_Class_20160125.pdf
The poll where they list the questions and answers. Compared to the graph, I am confused as to how they determined who was a working class white vs a liberal white vs a moderate white. Page 5 (question 6) is what I believe the graph was based on and the percents given just don't seem to represent the poll.
And nowhere do I see where they can determine via the poll questions who is a liberal democrat vs a conservative republican.
Apologies if the table I attempted does not format correctly:
6. Givers and Takers â€" Black people
For the following groups of people indicate whether you think they tend to give more to society than they take or take more than they give
- - - - - - D I R <$50k >$50K >$100K W B H
Give more 34% 14% 12% 23% 22% 12% 16% 45% 18%
Take more 32% 45% 65% 42% 48% 49% 50% 19% 44%
Not Sure 34% 41% 23% 35% 30% 39% 34% 36% 38%
One thing that is well represented in this particular survey is
In-Group/Out-Group . Q5 for example:
5. Givers and Takers â€" White people
For the following groups of people indicate whether you think they tend to give more to society than they take or take more than they give
- - - - - - D I R <$50K >50K >100K W B H
Give more 32% 39% 60% 39% 46% 50% 50% 12% 30%
Take more 36% 18% 15% 22% 22% 15% 14% 65% 34%
Not Sure 31% 43% 25% 32% 32% 35% 35% 23% 36%
So before drifting further, my question remains Can you explain to me how they came up with that graph based on the poll results? There is no liberal vs conservative, nor middle class/working class white category to review.
Additionally, I would say the whole premise of the graphs is contingent on which opinion(s) are correct. Do you have the answer for that; do black (or white, or hispanic) take more or give more?
Quote from: Baruch on August 06, 2016, 11:56:05 AM
All real Americans are racists. R people are honestly racist. D people are hypocritically racist. Which one you support depends on how self aware you are, and whether you are more tolerant of brutal honesty or of triangulating cynicism.
Great thundering herds of sweeping generalizations.
Quote from: chill98 on August 07, 2016, 09:40:16 AMCan you explain to me how they came up with that graph based on the poll results? There is no liberal vs conservative, nor middle class/working class white category to review.
Literally every page has the following categories: party ID, race, and family income. Presumably, the middle class white category is a blend of two categories. Just a bunch.
QuoteAdditionally, I would say the whole premise of the graphs is contingent on which opinion(s) are correct. Do you have the answer for that; do black (or white, or hispanic) take more or give more?
Heh, I'd wager you have a guess of your own...
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 07, 2016, 10:54:32 AM
Literally every page has the following categories: party ID, race, and family income. Presumably, the middle class white category is a blend of two categories. Just a bunch.
Sooo there is no way to verify the accuracy of the graphs? They could just be making the whole thing up regarding whether liberal vs conservative vs middle class white has any bearing on what they present in the graphs. Or is possible they had only a few (self defined) liberal vs conservative to base this graph on and because the pool was so small, the result is meaningless when applied to the whole?
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 07, 2016, 10:54:32 AM
Heh, I'd wager you have a guess of your own...
So you have no idea? Or is your answer deflection? After all, its the link you provided to (I assume) support a position. Can you support it or should we just dismiss the graph as unsupported? As I said, the poll itself seemed to me to better represent In-group/Out-group bias than 'racism'.
Quote from: chill98 on August 07, 2016, 11:24:40 AMThey could just be making the whole thing up regarding whether liberal vs conservative vs middle class white has any bearing on what they present in the graphs.
That seems to be your core assumption, probably prior to even reading the data. Good luck with that.
QuoteAs I said, the poll itself seemed to me to better represent In-group/Out-group bias than 'racism'.
(http://www.gamereactor.se/media/forum/se/16915993_78.jpg)
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 07, 2016, 11:31:49 AM
That seems to be your core assumption, probably prior to even reading the data. Good luck with that.
ah, more deflection...
But this doesn't answer my basic questions about the data as presented. Though I do appreciate the fact you are not disputing my observations regarding that data.
So I guess the answer is, a critical thinker would be obligated to dismiss the graph, as in the data as presented does not support the conclusion.
Okay...so what is racism anyway? A good starting place is a dictionary. This from Oxford:
Quoteracism
Pronunciation: /ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
noun
1Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: a programme to combat racism
1.1The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism
Other dictionary definitions that I've seen are similar.
Some on the left might argue for a much broader definition, one that would include "unconscious racism", "implicit racism" and so forth. I'm not convinced. It seems to me that there's a real danger in conflating what the British National Party or the KKK thinks/says/does with what many people, especially older folk brought up in a time when real racism was acceptable, think/say/do without any conscious malice. In these cases it might be better to use words like
discrimination and
prejudice. Dictionary racism is something that needs to be fought against wherever it raises its ugly head. Unconscious discrimination needs to be educated away.
Political racism in the dictionary sense is largely the preserve of the far right, and the mainstream right is guilty to the degree that it flirts with the Neo-Fascists, White Nationalists and other such bad guys. Since Trump has certainly done some such flirting he is to some degree guilty of racism, which is one of the reasons why I think he's so dangerous. And it doesn't reflect well on the party of Lincoln to nominate the shit. The left, on the other hand, are definitely not racist in the dictionary sense.
As far as affirminative action goes, I'm completely against it. Reasons as follows:
1. I believe in the principle that people shouldn't be discriminated against due to race/ethnicity. Discrimination for one group is necessarily discrimination against everyone else.
2. The people who are best able to reap the benefits of positive discrimination are often those that need it least, i.e. midddle class people from minority backgrounds. Reserving college places for black people doesn't help the folk in the inner cities who left high school with no qualifications- it helps the children of black lawyers and advertising executives.
3. The view of society that underpins affirmative action is just plain wrong. It kind of sees the goods that society produces (goods in a very broad sense) as being a sort of pie to be diivided up between that society's etnic groups. This is incredibly divisive.
I'm all for doing more, much more, for people in poverty. The UK (where I live) is hideously unequal; the US is even more so. In both countries ethnic minorities are a disproportionally large segment of the very poor. Lets help those people, but lets help them because they need it- not because of their skin colour.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 07, 2016, 09:59:18 AM
Great thundering herds of sweeping generalizations.
Don't like generalization? Or don't like seeing American unmasked for the menace they are? Trump and Hillary are Americans ... they are a menace because they are Americans.
So there are 320 million Americans. You define 320 million unique adjectives to describe them, that would suit their supposed individuality.
Quote from: Baruch on August 07, 2016, 04:33:20 PM
Don't like generalization? Or don't like seeing American unmasked for the menace they are? Trump and Hillary are Americans ... they are a menace because they are Americans.
So there are 320 million Americans. You define 320 million unique adjectives to describe them, that would suit their supposed individuality.
Sweeping generalizations are stupid.
Of course Affirmative Action is no longer necessary! It never was! It is one of the tools Democrat Liberals use to keep racism going! Liberals through the Democrat party are the very authors of racism in America. It is their main accusation program against Christians, Conservatives, and Americans in general. Their premise is that the slavery stemming from the Trade Revolution of the 1500s was about "racism". It was never about racism, but about economics. The world was languishing in the Dark Ages until the Reformation started right at 1500. Henry VIII bucked the authority of the all-powerful church, paving the way for modern-day government. Trade began to expand, and the European continent began progressing out of the days of feudalism. Industry started to emerge from trade, and more people were needed to expand the prosperity that was being created. Nations that progress always take over those who do not progress, and so primitive tribes including Africans were taken along forcefully so that they would take part in world progress. Democrats along the way tried to stop attempts by Republicans to stop slavery, which incidentally only became wrong when America was founded on human rights. BTW, the first black slaves were taken by Muslims in 1512.
This is the first part. As soon as America was founded, a new philosophy called liberalism sprang up by Satanic reaction against a country based on rights and God. Liberalism was an affront to the new law system, claiming social activism over laws based on natural law of God. Atheism had also begun during the same time period, an attempt to nullify our God, not any other god, just the god of Judeo-Christianity.
Later on, Socialism and Communism, first only philosophies, would become political systems. But Liberalism remains a Satanic cult system, not a political philosophy. Its followers now cling to the Democrat party, while Republicans traditionally are conservatives. Democrat liberals are characterized by undue hatred of God, Jews, Christians, and Conservatives, who believe in limited government intrusion into the economy and personal property. They devote themselves to accusation programs such as racism and environmentalism. Their political party is now nothing but organized crime, with Republicans not far behind them because of the widespread corruption. They elect the worst examples of government leadership that they can find, and will not fight terrorists who threaten to destroy even them along with the rest of us.
Quote from: Duncle on August 07, 2016, 02:23:49 PM
As far as affirminative action goes, I'm completely against it. Reasons as follows:
1. I believe in the principle that people shouldn't be discriminated against due to race/ethnicity. Discrimination for one group is necessarily discrimination against everyone else.
2. The people who are best able to reap the benefits of positive discrimination are often those that need it least, i.e. midddle class people from minority backgrounds. Reserving college places for black people doesn't help the folk in the inner cities who left high school with no qualifications- it helps the children of black lawyers and advertising executives.
3. The view of society that underpins affirmative action is just plain wrong. It kind of sees the goods that society produces (goods in a very broad sense) as being a sort of pie to be diivided up between that society's etnic groups. This is incredibly divisive.
I'm all for doing more, much more, for people in poverty. The UK (where I live) is hideously unequal; the US is even more so. In both countries ethnic minorities are a disproportionally large segment of the very poor. Lets help those people, but lets help them because they need it- not because of their skin colour.
I agree. I think class has more to do with inequality in education than race and, as you say, if poor people were aided it would help racially minorities because they are disproportionately poor. The consequences of the ‘birth lottery’â€"the income and education of parents to whom a child is bornâ€"makes a big difference in social mobility.
Sweet Jesus, this thread has attracted its share of kooks. Race issues tend to do that. Ah well, I guess you can't fix stupid.
Anyways, here's more data:
(http://tmsnrt.rs/294chjP)
Source (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-idUSKCN0ZE2SW)
Kaisch and Clinton supporters look pretty good in comparison to the Trump supporters' abysmal attitudes. Though the Kaisch people were definitely outnumbered by the Trump people at the Republican primaries.
1990s to 2012 Dem/Rep white attitudes towards blacks (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/) (At some points in time, the Republicans actually scored better, but generally the Dems had a narrow lead. A few graphs showed some pretty wide gulfs, though)
Can't argue with the facts, though I'm sure some nitwit is going come along soon to yet again play the role of the pseudoskeptic to dismiss data he doesn't like.
Quote from: truthman8 on August 07, 2016, 09:14:31 PM
Of course Affirmative Action is no longer necessary! It never was! It is one of the tools Democrat Liberals use to keep racism going! Liberals through the Democrat party are the very authors of racism in America. It is their main accusation program against Christians, Conservatives, and Americans in general. Their premise is that the slavery stemming from the Trade Revolution of the 1500s was about "racism". It was never about racism, but about economics. The world was languishing in the Dark Ages until the Reformation started right at 1500. Henry VIII bucked the authority of the all-powerful church, paving the way for modern-day government. Trade began to expand, and the European continent began progressing out of the days of feudalism. Industry started to emerge from trade, and more people were needed to expand the prosperity that was being created. Nations that progress always take over those who do not progress, and so primitive tribes including Africans were taken along forcefully so that they would take part in world progress. Democrats along the way tried to stop attempts by Republicans to stop slavery, which incidentally only became wrong when America was founded on human rights. BTW, the first black slaves were taken by Muslims in 1512.
This is the first part. As soon as America was founded, a new philosophy called liberalism sprang up by Satanic reaction against a country based on rights and God. Liberalism was an affront to the new law system, claiming social activism over laws based on natural law of God. Atheism had also begun during the same time period, an attempt to nullify our God, not any other god, just the god of Judeo-Christianity.
Later on, Socialism and Communism, first only philosophies, would become political systems. But Liberalism remains a Satanic cult system, not a political philosophy. Its followers now cling to the Democrat party, while Republicans traditionally are conservatives. Democrat liberals are characterized by undue hatred of God, Jews, Christians, and Conservatives, who believe in limited government intrusion into the economy and personal property. They devote themselves to accusation programs such as racism and environmentalism. Their political party is now nothing but organized crime, with Republicans not far behind them because of the widespread corruption. They elect the worst examples of government leadership that they can find, and will not fight terrorists who threaten to destroy even them along with the rest of us.
Hail Satan!
(https://67.media.tumblr.com/fc39cee1fc39877def19ce3c4132ca6e/tumblr_n5n8e9hzL31sq895zo1_500.gif)
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 07, 2016, 11:17:44 PM
Sweet Jesus, this thread has attracted its share of kooks. Race issues tend to do that. Ah well, I guess you can't fix stupid.
Anyways, here's more data:
Well I am sure your graph (without the questions/data asked attached) may answer someones questions but it does not answer the question I asked.
Quote from: original questionCan you explain to me how they came up with that graph based on the poll results? There is no liberal vs conservative, nor middle class/working class white category to review.
Looking at your newest attempt to answer my questions, it does not come close to what your original graph attempted to portray. Though it is apparent you are trying...
Quote from: newest attemptThe Trump supporters' views on affirmative action and neighborhood diversity do not necessarily reflect racial bias alone, said Michael Traugott, a polling expert and professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, who is not publicly supporting either Trump or Clinton. Rather, the results could also suggest anxieties about economic insecurity and social standing.
Which would help explain some of the 20+% of Clinton supports who agree with the Trump supporters on these issues you are trying to represent as racism. I admit I was surprised to see that many in the Clinton supporters regarding intelligence. But then, maybe it was an interpretation issue and intelligence was interpreted as educated. Less educated is what the respondents heard. So do you prefer to think +20% of Clinton supporters think Blacks are less intelligent or do you prefer to think that maybe they interpreted the question wrong?
Quote from: newest attemptIt sought responses from voters who support Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, and her rival U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. It also surveyed supporters of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and Ohio Governor John Kasich, the last two Republican candidates to drop out of the race.
So where is the Sanders people results from this poll?
Sanders drops out sometime after June 17 - results not shown
Cruz drops out around May 3 - results shown
Kasich drops out around May 4 - results shown
Have you considered that this puff piece you present is biased in multiple ways? Furthermore, this exclusion of the Sanders supporters and inclusion of the Dropped out Republican candidates makes me wonder a bit more about Sanders claims of Media/DNC bias towards his attempt to become president.
Or is this particular puff piece just another attempt at race baiting to get what they want? Did the Sanders supporter responses make the Clinton supporters look like a bunch of racists therefore we don't want to show those results? And did you consider these factors when posting this particular graph to support your position?
I don't consider you a kook/nitwit, just biased. But then again, you just can't seem to avoid turning any perceived disagreement into some kind of marginalization of the differing opinions you meet up with can you?
Finally, I would say that the origin of this exchange, the
yougov.com graph and whether it is supported by the data should be rejected as unsupported by the data. I would further present that your current attempt should also be discarded via the lack of data AND the exclusion of the Sanders supporter responses.
QuoteDid the Sanders supporter responses make the Clinton supporters look like a bunch of racists therefore we don't want to show those results?
Honestly even without Sander's numbers, Clinton supporters aren't looking very good. I'm just eyeballing it, but it looks like Kasich supporters are actually slightly less racist than Clinton supporters overall.
And lets look at the big picture here. If these numbers are trustworthy, then yes Trump supporters are notably more racist. But hes hovering just above 40% on average while Clinton is hovering just below 30%. Now imagine this report without Trump in it.
30% of Clinton supporters are racist against Black people? This is a liberal group, right? Did i miss something?
To me, this just confirms what I already knew. Both candidates, and the people supporting them, are nothing to write home about. Maybe even something to feel ashamed of.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 07, 2016, 09:30:40 PM
I agree. I think class has more to do with inequality in education than race and, as you say, if poor people were aided it would help racially minorities because they are disproportionately poor. The consequences of the ‘birth lottery’â€"the income and education of parents to whom a child is bornâ€"makes a big difference in social mobility.
Class has a lot to do with education, and also a lot to do with inherited wealth and with the valuable social contacts that being born into an economically priveleged group brings. Contrary to the myth of the US being a "Land of Opportunity", America has probably the lowest rate of social mobility in the industrial world. The UK is also very bad; places like Sweden and Denmark are best. And social mobility in the US and UK is almost certainly going down, just as inequality of wealth and income are going up- this has been the trend since the late 70s/early 80s.
Along with Climate Change, this is one of the 2 big political issues of our time.
Law of unintended consequences.. Much of the right wing policy is based on resentment, resentment that someone might be getting something you don't or can't get even if they deserve it or not.
Welfare is a prime example. I can recall back in the 70s and before then reading many opinion pieces written by readers in newspapers exousing resentment because they saw someone in a grocery store get out of a new car and buy a steak with food stamps then go on to tell us all how they work so hard and can't afford so much as stale bread from the markdown bin and then came along Reagan and his infamous welfare queen and so everyone who did receive benefits was lumped together as all lazy, black criminals despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of people receiving any type of government assistance were white people. Jobs were perceived to be threatened by Affirmative action although the vast majority of the jobs being lost had nothing at all to do with affirmative action, but globalization and corporate malfeasance and corporate merger takeover, but the average voter needed a scapegoat and policy is boring..
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 07, 2016, 06:06:28 PM
Sweeping generalizations are stupid.
Only when people disagree with them. Otherwise they are profound and penetrating ;-) The anti-Trump folks make similar generalizations about the Rs and Trump. I don't know if one can generalize about the Rs ... I just know I don't like them. My eyes are wide open on Trump too. Reagan did OK in spite of being a B movie actor. Trump might do the same. But the idea that some European-approved professor of the Ivy League (not Obama) ... who majored in political science, will be a dark horse in any election, happened just one time with Woodrow Wilson. And opinions are mixed on him.
Quote from: Nonsensei on August 08, 2016, 11:44:43 AM
Honestly even without Sander's numbers, Clinton supporters aren't looking very good. I'm just eyeballing it, but it looks like Kasich supporters are actually slightly less racist than Clinton supporters overall.
And lets look at the big picture here. If these numbers are trustworthy, then yes Trump supporters are notably more racist. But hes hovering just above 40% on average while Clinton is hovering just below 30%. Now imagine this report without Trump in it.
30% of Clinton supporters are racist against Black people? This is a liberal group, right? Did i miss something?
These numbers being trustworthy is questionable. Example from 2nd graph. When I saw 22% of Clinton supporters agreeing with Blacks are less intelligent, one of the things that went through my mind was "so what did they think about Asians?" and that is relevant for whether or not the response can be attributed to racism or repeating of things being discussed/researched for the last 50 years.
Quote from: wikiThe debate concerns the interpretation of research findings that test takers identifying as "White" tend on average to score higher than test takers of African ancestry on IQ tests, and subsequent findings that test takers of East Asian background tend to score higher than whites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligenceTo determine whether the response is 'racist' or just a response based on a specific criteria (test results for example) one would need to know why this percentage has responded to the poll in that way.
Which also brings up the question of whether or not the poll reflects peoples true thoughts on the intelligence of the various races or whether they are aware enough to know what response is expected/socially acceptable. For example, fundy kids who are taking tests in school complain about evolution/science based portions of the tests because they answer the question with what they are taught rather than what they believe to be true. Another example is polls on viewership of PBS programming. People lie about how often they watch PBS to appear more intelligent. There is no reason to believe that this polling is any different - more of Kasich and Clinton supporters have read that Asians test higher than whites, whites test higher than blacks..., but would still answer with the socially acceptable response.
And to go a bit further with the various questions regarding criminal and/or violent, same thing applies. We have been bombarded with statistics on who's in prison for which types of crimes - I think it is telling how the answers reflect what is socially more acceptable and why polls like this are useless to determine racist attitude.
And finally, all of this is contingent on which group is correct (Trump vs Clinton supporters) regarding the answers. If the correct answer is 'we don't know' the graph itself is misleading because we don't know what the percentage of each supporters groups responded that way or even what % responded No. Which is another reason to reject this graph. It is obviously bias.