So where is that study exactly and where are the finding regarding how Blacks voting ratios tend to be highly influenced by skin color? Or how Blacks treat Blacks who vote for a Republican?
The original post links to an article about the study; the title and source can be found at the bottom of that article.
It's 'Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes', found in Psychological Science. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187 (I posted the link back in post 359, as well.)
(I don't have a subscription, so haven't read the full text.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.
defended by Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin:
Quote from Jindal »
Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with.
Quote from Palin »
Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.
Then there's this asshat politician recommending that Michigan round up all its Native Americans, fence them inside Detroit, and (seriously not kidding) "throw in the blankets and the corn."
Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?)
The thing that disturbs me about these incidents is that the people involved are in positions of political authority, not on the fringes; and when called out on it, they turn around and accuse everyone else of being the true haters.
Believe me, as soon as I hear an elected official spout some equivalent nonsense on the left wing (probably something along the lines of "non-white people can't be racist!") I'll shake my head and criticize them just as much. But unless I'm missing something, it's just not happening yet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I mean, maybe I'm a victim of observer bias, but just in the last few months we've had Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty:
No, No....NO! You point out this instance likes is the "norm" and in reality, stuff like this is anything but the norm.
Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with.
Is there something wrong with someone who finds homosexuality immoral? I do not agree with the guy but damn, not everyone is going to find other people moral.
Then there's this asshat politician recommending that Michigan round up all its Native Americans, fence them inside Detroit, and (seriously not kidding) "throw in the blankets and the corn."
There's this city council member who sent out a pretty unambiguously racist email and barely issued a non-apology when called out for it.
There's Richard Cohen, who seems to think that it's a "conventional view" that interracial marriage is a nauseating prospect:
Again, we are talking about a population of 300 million people, some are bound to do insensitive things, irrelevant of their political affiliation.
The thing that disturbs me about these incidents is that the people involved are in positions of political authority, not on the fringes; and when called out on it, they turn around and accuse everyone else of being the true haters.
You know, you have a point here but this is the exception, not the rule. What get's me is, instead of communicating with the person that saying these offensive things, they immediately go for the political jugular. That's the issue the democrats have, its more important to make political hay out of instances like this to rile up the base to win elections instead of taking steps to address the issue. Do not fool yourself and think Democrat politicians really care about how insensitive some of these people are, all they care about is how they can politicize it.
You know, you have a point here but this is the exception, not the rule. What get's me is, instead of communicating with the person that saying these offensive things, they immediately go for the political jugular. That's the issue the democrats have, its more important to make political hay out of instances like this to rile up the base to win elections instead of taking steps to address the issue. Do not fool yourself and think Democrat politicians really care about how insensitive some of these people are, all they care about is how they can politicize it.
Does it matter what the Democratic response is? It's still worrisome that this is basically accepted practice within conservative politics today. I forgot to add people like Phyllis Schlafly who recommended that the GOP oppose immigration because basically only white people vote Republican so they should just double down on courting the white vote (while preventing immigrants from coming here and voting Democrat). Whether or not there's any actual racist thinking there (i.e. whites are better than nonwhites) it's extremely cynical and functionally racist (i.e., favorable to whites over nonwhites, based on some extremely shoddy collective assumptions).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Cheerios to my Adopted Grandchild because Only Whites can Racists
Thanks MSNBC for showing us all that Republicans are racists.
From the abstract of the study (all I can read without forking over more money than I care to), they found that lower intelligence predicts greater racism, and greater anti-homosexual prejudice - nothing is mentioned about breaking that down by race. For all I know, and it seems quite likely that, proportionately as many low-intelligence black people in the study were as racist/prejudiced as low-intelligence white people.
(If someone here has access to the journal and I'm wrong, they're welcome to correct me.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
And Benghazi doesn't fit the exact description you just gave for political hay?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
You know, you have a point here but this is the exception, not the rule. What get's me is, instead of communicating with the person that saying these offensive things, they immediately go for the political jugular. That's the issue the democrats have, its more important to make political hay out of instances like this to rile up the base to win elections instead of taking steps to address the issue. Do not fool yourself and think Democrat politicians really care about how insensitive some of these people are, all they care about is how they can politicize it.
That's true of most elected politicians.
And it's just natural that it would be that way. Nobody should surprised by the fact that our elected officials are all people who do things that cause them to be elected
http://kuow.org/post/how-politicians-use-racial-coding-win-elections
Basically republicans have accused Obama as being a Muslim to invoke fear into middle-class white people that he is a foreign entity encroaching on their rights. They call the ACA "Obamacare" because they want to link Obama being black to make people want to go against the ACA. Also things like welfare recipients and illegal immigrants.
That Republicans have race baited and done thing like that isnt being debated, thas really hard to argue against, but whether there is some sort of inherent thing that makes the racial stuff come up so much more from conservatives
Its simple really. There is no difference between Republicans & Democrats. Both are made of a specific type of person - a self serving human (a politician I think its called in Latin- joke) that are only interested in raping the same populous for their own or their benefactors (mega-corporations) gain, because that is where the cash flow comes from. The only real difference is the cultural trapping we use to divide people between the two group to keep them. Republicans pander to the elements of responsibility, greed, and fear while democrats use compassion and sharing to rope people in. But at the end of the day thous ideals are not carried out historically (in every god damn culture) in the political action of the government. Yes there is a democratic ideal on paper and a republican ideal on paper and you can debate the values of the two and get nowhere because its based on how you view life. Do you want to be more collective or more responsible for yourself, there is no winning argument there, just opinions.
Go listen to Dan Carlins podcast on the fall of Rome. He does a good good to show how time, culture, power, wealth changes, but people never do. And have fun guessing where the modern world is in therms of the collapse of Rome. Are we at the Death of Julius Caesar or are we at Pompi's corruption of the populari movement?!?!?!
Its simple really. There is no difference between Republicans & Democrats. Both are made of a specific type of person - a self serving human (a politician I think its called in Latin- joke) that are only interested in raping the same populous for their own or their benefactors (mega-corporations) gain, because that is where the cash flow comes from. The only real difference is the cultural trapping we use to divide people between the two group to keep them. Republicans pander to the elements of responsibility, greed, and fear while democrats use compassion and sharing to rope people in. But at the end of the day thous ideals are not carried out historically (in every god damn culture) in the political action of the government. Yes there is a democratic ideal on paper and a republican ideal on paper and you can debate the values of the two and get nowhere because its based on how you view life. Do you want to be more collective or more responsible for yourself, there is no winning argument there, just opinions.
Go listen to Dan Carlins podcast on the fall of Rome. He does a good good to show how time, culture, power, wealth changes, but people never do. And have fun guessing where the modern world is in therms of the collapse of Rome. Are we at the Death of Julius Caesar or are we at Pompi's corruption of the populari movement?!?!?!
You still have to explain the 99% who hold the voting power.
http://kuow.org/post/how-politicians-use-racial-coding-win-elections
Basically republicans have accused Obama as being a Muslim to invoke fear into middle-class white people that he is a foreign entity encroaching on their rights. They call the ACA "Obamacare" because they want to link Obama being black to make people want to go against the ACA. Also things like welfare recipients and illegal immigrants.
Calling Obama Muslim wasn't an attempt to make people view him as a "foreign entity encroaching on their rights", it was to attempt to align Christians with the candidate who was, in fact, a Christian. A better example would be people trying to claim he had a fake birth certificate and the like, however, none of these accusations
Calling the ACA Obamacare was an attempt to make it seem like Obama was the only person who liked it, and Obama has repeatedly agreed that he liked the name(see the Presidential debates). That name is now resulting in Obama's decreasing popularity, as he cannot distance himself from the current massive failure that is named after him. (Please don't argue that the ACA has been a success, it is a failure, the only question is whether it can be fixed).
"Also things like welfare recipients and illegal immigrants." No negative connotations there, what would you prefer that they be called? Illegal Immigrant is about as PC as you can get, that is exactly what they are. Same with welfare recipients.
The best examples would be Democrats saying that anyone who voted against Obama is a rascist (and I would bet anything that if Hillary is the Democratic candidate in 2016 and the Republican candidate is a man, they will call people sexist). Given a choice between any minority or a white who was openly rascist (assuming the two had exact same beliefs, policies, etc.), The overwhelming majority (at least 85%) would vote for the minority over the rascist. Recent politics have pretty much come down to Democrats being better at mudslinging and controlling the media than Republicans.
The original post links to an article about the study; the title and source can be found at the bottom of that article.
It's 'Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes', found in Psychological Science. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187 (I posted the link back in post 359, as well.)
(I don't have a subscription, so haven't read the full text.)
I mean, maybe I'm a victim of observer bias, but just in the last few months we've had Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty:
defended by Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin:
Then there's this asshat politician recommending that Michigan round up all its Native Americans, fence them inside Detroit, and (seriously not kidding) "throw in the blankets and the corn."
There's this city council member who sent out a pretty unambiguously racist email and barely issued a non-apology when called out for it.
There's Richard Cohen, who seems to think that it's a "conventional view" that interracial marriage is a nauseating prospect:
And there's the bizarrely still-somehow-relevant Ted Nugent who called President Obama a "sub-human mongrel" in a recent interview.
The thing that disturbs me about these incidents is that the people involved are in positions of political authority, not on the fringes; and when called out on it, they turn around and accuse everyone else of being the true haters.
Believe me, as soon as I hear an elected official spout some equivalent nonsense on the left wing (probably something along the lines of "non-white people can't be racist!") I'll shake my head and criticize them just as much. But unless I'm missing something, it's just not happening yet.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
No, No....NO! You point out this instance likes is the "norm" and in reality, stuff like this is anything but the norm.
Is there something wrong with someone who finds homosexuality immoral? I do not agree with the guy but damn, not everyone is going to find other people moral.
Again, we are talking about a population of 300 million people, some are bound to do insensitive things, irrelevant of their political affiliation.
You know, you have a point here but this is the exception, not the rule. What get's me is, instead of communicating with the person that saying these offensive things, they immediately go for the political jugular. That's the issue the democrats have, its more important to make political hay out of instances like this to rile up the base to win elections instead of taking steps to address the issue. Do not fool yourself and think Democrat politicians really care about how insensitive some of these people are, all they care about is how they can politicize it.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I didn't say it was the norm. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but the point is that it gets a lot of airtime even on the right.
Does it matter what the Democratic response is? It's still worrisome that this is basically accepted practice within conservative politics today. I forgot to add people like Phyllis Schlafly who recommended that the GOP oppose immigration because basically only white people vote Republican so they should just double down on courting the white vote (while preventing immigrants from coming here and voting Democrat). Whether or not there's any actual racist thinking there (i.e. whites are better than nonwhites) it's extremely cynical and functionally racist (i.e., favorable to whites over nonwhites, based on some extremely shoddy collective assumptions).
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
From the abstract of the study (all I can read without forking over more money than I care to), they found that lower intelligence predicts greater racism, and greater anti-homosexual prejudice - nothing is mentioned about breaking that down by race. For all I know, and it seems quite likely that, proportionately as many low-intelligence black people in the study were as racist/prejudiced as low-intelligence white people.
(If someone here has access to the journal and I'm wrong, they're welcome to correct me.)
What I said goes for both sides. Because the other side does it too does not make the political games being played over racism any better.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
That's true of most elected politicians.
And it's just natural that it would be that way. Nobody should surprised by the fact that our elected officials are all people who do things that cause them to be elected
Basically republicans have accused Obama as being a Muslim to invoke fear into middle-class white people that he is a foreign entity encroaching on their rights. They call the ACA "Obamacare" because they want to link Obama being black to make people want to go against the ACA. Also things like welfare recipients and illegal immigrants.
Go listen to Dan Carlins podcast on the fall of Rome. He does a good good to show how time, culture, power, wealth changes, but people never do. And have fun guessing where the modern world is in therms of the collapse of Rome. Are we at the Death of Julius Caesar or are we at Pompi's corruption of the populari movement?!?!?!
You still have to explain the 99% who hold the voting power.
Calling Obama Muslim wasn't an attempt to make people view him as a "foreign entity encroaching on their rights", it was to attempt to align Christians with the candidate who was, in fact, a Christian. A better example would be people trying to claim he had a fake birth certificate and the like, however, none of these accusations
Calling the ACA Obamacare was an attempt to make it seem like Obama was the only person who liked it, and Obama has repeatedly agreed that he liked the name(see the Presidential debates). That name is now resulting in Obama's decreasing popularity, as he cannot distance himself from the current massive failure that is named after him. (Please don't argue that the ACA has been a success, it is a failure, the only question is whether it can be fixed).
"Also things like welfare recipients and illegal immigrants." No negative connotations there, what would you prefer that they be called? Illegal Immigrant is about as PC as you can get, that is exactly what they are. Same with welfare recipients.
The best examples would be Democrats saying that anyone who voted against Obama is a rascist (and I would bet anything that if Hillary is the Democratic candidate in 2016 and the Republican candidate is a man, they will call people sexist). Given a choice between any minority or a white who was openly rascist (assuming the two had exact same beliefs, policies, etc.), The overwhelming majority (at least 85%) would vote for the minority over the rascist. Recent politics have pretty much come down to Democrats being better at mudslinging and controlling the media than Republicans.