A Word on White Liberals and Playing the Trump Card

[ronburgundy]

Athena's "white" was not in reference to Trump supporters, but to the liberals that oppose him. She singled out "whites" among liberals who irrationally believe that Trump's current supporters will magically move away from him once Hillary exposes his idiocy.

Not exactly. This is one example of a general belief that explanation and exposure to facts leads to people, in this particular case white people, to change their minds on issues.

A belief you criticized because these people already have all those facts, so their support clearly has more to do with who is supporters are as people than with their lack of information. The same info will only produce a different result with the addition of "magic". So, my characterization was rather accurate, and I agree with you that such liberals exist and this belief of theirs is irrational.

She'd be all over anyone making a parallel comment about blacks, when its obvious that race is at most a non-causal correlate for the behavior.

Feel free to make a parallel comment and find out.

There are plenty of examples on this board already. Are you going to claim you have not criticized a post for singling out "blacks" for some negative behavior that they are more likely to engage in (e.g., crime, low IQ scores, H.S. dropout, religious authoritarianism, spousal abuse, absent fathering, etc.), without at least alluding to the real causal variables responsible.

As for the choice of saying White People ...

White people are the dominant race and the beneficiaries of white supremacy in the US. It is the dominance that leads to certain behaviors that are only open to white people. No, it is not the deficiency of pigmentation that causes anything really, outside of sunburn.

Racial dominance is also only indirectly related to why this attitude is more common among white liberals. The proximal cause is the irrational belief among liberals in the goodness of human nature and their denial of fundamental differences between people that go beyond the immediate context that their ideology seeks to blame for everything. Non-whites in the current US are socialized by their communities with attitudes (including religion) that operate against this worldview and at the same time foster the intolerant authoritarianism that is greater among Hispanic and Black leftists than whites. Historical racial dominance (which includes mere numerical representation) come into play mostly as the distal cause for why these attitudes are socialized more into non-whites.

BTW, another plausible contributor for why this irrational benefit of the doubt given to Trump supporters is mostly found among white liberals is the racism among non-whites who presume that Trump's minions are the true evil face and mind of "white people". Non-white leftists (again, mostly not "liberal") are the first to give idiots of their own race such benefit of the doubt, but don't extend it to whites, because they are racist. They are more racist that white liberals who extend their irrational benefit of the doubt (ignoring stable person-centered causes of behavior) to all races, from Trump supporters to non-white criminals.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Not exactly. This is one example of a general belief that explanation and exposure to facts leads to people, in this particular case white people, to change their minds on issues.

A belief you criticized because these people already have all those facts, so their support clearly has more to do with who is supporters are as people than with their lack of information. The same info will only produce a different result with the addition of "magic". So, my characterization was rather accurate, and I agree with you that such liberals exist and this belief of theirs is irrational.

She'd be all over anyone making a parallel comment about blacks, when its obvious that race is at most a non-causal correlate for the behavior.

Feel free to make a parallel comment and find out.

There are plenty of examples on this board already.

And yet you have produced one. be careful when you do.

Are you going to claim you have not criticized a post for singling out "blacks" for some negative behavior that they are more likely to engage in (e.g., crime, low IQ scores, H.S. dropout, religious authoritarianism, spousal abuse, absent fathering, etc.), without at least alluding to the real causal variables responsible.

I am not claiming anything and you are not producing a parallel.

As for the choice of saying White People ...

White people are the dominant race and the beneficiaries of white supremacy in the US. It is the dominance that leads to certain behaviors that are only open to white people. No, it is not the deficiency of pigmentation that causes anything really, outside of sunburn.

Racial dominance is also only indirectly related to why this attitude is more common among white liberals. The proximal cause is the irrational belief among liberals in the goodness of human nature and their denial of fundamental differences between people that go beyond the immediate context that their ideology seeks to blame for everything. Non-whites in the current US are socialized by their communities with attitudes (including religion) that operate against this worldview and at the same time foster the intolerant authoritarianism that is greater among Hispanic and Black leftists than whites. Historical racial dominance (which includes mere numerical representation) come into play mostly as the distal cause for why these attitudes are socialized more into non-whites.

For clarification, are you saying that racial minorities are more intolerant and more authoritarian than the majority?

BTW, another plausible contributor for why this irrational benefit of the doubt given to Trump supporters is mostly found among white liberals is the racism among non-whites who presume that Trump's minions are the true evil face and mind of "white people". Non-white leftists (again, mostly not "liberal") are the first to give idiots of their own race such benefit of the doubt, but don't extend it to whites, because they are racist. They are more racist that white liberals who extend their irrational benefit of the doubt (ignoring stable person-centered causes of behavior) to all races, from Trump supporters to non-white criminals.

Could you explain this scale of racism you have that can be used to say who is more racist than who?

 

[untermensche]

Nonsense.

There is a belief among white liberals that humans are generally irrational and have to be carefully taught to think rationally.

The truth is all humans are frequently irrational no matter. So rational thinking is something a person must endeavor to achieve. I think reasoning is the best way to try and change viewpoints rather than teach a person how to think rationally.

There is no reasoning unless people are taught what reasoning is.

 

[laughing dog]

Funny how some people will explain away any alleged instances of white racist behavior with SES this or SES that but will jump up and down about alleged nonwhite racism.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Funny how some people will explain away any alleged instances of white racist behavior with SES this or SES that but will jump up and down about alleged nonwhite racism.

Racism no matter where it is rooted and originates it is equally bad.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The truth is all humans are frequently irrational no matter. So rational thinking is something a person must endeavor to achieve. I think reasoning is the best way to try and change viewpoints rather than teach a person how to think rationally.

There is no reasoning unless people are taught what reasoning is.

We can define reasoning and give examples but many of our irrational notices are subconscious and to generalize, we don't always realize this to be the case. For instance a person can hate Arabs having read about the terrible things a few have done (and never mind what the West has done). However meeting one in the workplace and discussing points of interest can minimize if not eliminate previously held bias.

 

[untermensche]

There is no reasoning unless people are taught what reasoning is.

We can define reasoning and give examples but many of our irrational notices are subconscious and to generalize, we don't always realize this to be the case. For instance a person can hate Arabs having read about the terrible things a few have done (and never mind what the West has done). However meeting one in the workplace and discussing points of interest can minimize if not eliminate previously held bias.

What you are talking about is not rational thinking.

Rational thinking is something like: All this violence in response to 911 has done nothing but make bad situations worse. We replaced Al Qaeda and Hussein with ISIS.

Therefore: Further violence is not in any way guaranteed to make the current situation better.

 

[whichphilosophy]

We can define reasoning and give examples but many of our irrational notices are subconscious and to generalize, we don't always realize this to be the case. For instance a person can hate Arabs having read about the terrible things a few have done (and never mind what the West has done). However meeting one in the workplace and discussing points of interest can minimize if not eliminate previously held bias.

What you are talking about is not rational thinking.

Rational thinking is something like: All this violence in response to 911 has done nothing but make bad situations worse. We replaced Al Qaeda and Hussein with ISIS.

Therefore: Further violence is not in any way guaranteed to make the current situation better.

Agreed, but I was talking about irrational thinking where you have shown the end product of such The problem with humans is we have evolved technologically during the past few hundred thousand years but essentially our minds have developed little if at all beyond this point. The replacement of Hussein with something far worse was born out of irrational thinking, logic and actions.

Chimps hate nothing more than other Chimps in their territory where they perceive their natural resources are in danger (even if they are not consciously aware of this). Perhaps this is how our common ancestor acted. Now we've replaced the fight for land filled with rich fruit, grubs wild honey, small monkeys and trees with the battle for control of oil producing areas.

 

[untermensche]

What you are talking about is not rational thinking.

Rational thinking is something like: All this violence in response to 911 has done nothing but make bad situations worse. We replaced Al Qaeda and Hussein with ISIS.

Therefore: Further violence is not in any way guaranteed to make the current situation better.

Agreed, but I was talking about irrational thinking where you have shown the end product of such The problem with humans is we have evolved technologically during the past few hundred thousand years but essentially our minds have developed little if at all beyond this point. The replacement of Hussein with something far worse was born out of irrational thinking, logic and actions.

Chimps hate nothing more than other Chimps in their territory where they perceive their natural resources are in danger (even if they are not consciously aware of this). Perhaps this is how our common ancestor acted. Now we've replaced the fight for land filled with rich fruit, grubs wild honey, small monkeys and trees with the battle for control of oil producing areas.

It is always a tiny minority that lead a population towards acceptance of acts of deliberate violence. The Nazi leadership. The Bush administration.

And there are always those within a population that will support any acts of violence proposed.

What is needed is for a majority to oppose these planners and initiators of violence.

I don't see any other way than through education. Education in history, morality, and rational argument.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Funny how some people will explain away any alleged instances of white racist behavior with SES this or SES that but will jump up and down about alleged nonwhite racism.

Funny how some people will scream discrimination when they see differences that stem from economic issues.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Agreed, but I was talking about irrational thinking where you have shown the end product of such The problem with humans is we have evolved technologically during the past few hundred thousand years but essentially our minds have developed little if at all beyond this point. The replacement of Hussein with something far worse was born out of irrational thinking, logic and actions.

Chimps hate nothing more than other Chimps in their territory where they perceive their natural resources are in danger (even if they are not consciously aware of this). Perhaps this is how our common ancestor acted. Now we've replaced the fight for land filled with rich fruit, grubs wild honey, small monkeys and trees with the battle for control of oil producing areas.

It is always a tiny minority that lead a population towards acceptance of acts of deliberate violence. The Nazi leadership. The Bush administration.

And there are always those within a population that will support any acts of violence proposed.

What is needed is for a majority to oppose these planners and initiators of violence.

I don't see any other way than through education. Education in history, morality, and rational argument.

What you suggest is the most workable way. I don't think we've found an ideal way yet. However what you mention does not work with the truly irrational. History can of course be slanted. It's sometimes like a recording of yesterday's politics. So I guess the person must learn to try and research things as best as possible