If you do it because of race it's a clear indication of racism.
And what it is about minorities is liberal belief, not anything actually about them.
-
Features
White Liberals Present Themselves as Less Competent in Interactions with African-Americans
- Thread starter thebeave
- Start date
If you do it because of race it's a clear indication of racism.
And what it is about minorities is liberal belief, not anything actually about them.
Actually, there are things you can do for groups. Creating the FAA helped all pilots fly safer.
Note that such cases apply to groups defined by their actions, not groups defined by what they are.
What's the average educational attainment of "Greg", "Emily" and "Lakisha"?
Look at what the Freakonomics guys say about this. Lakishas are on average uneducated.
laughing dog
Contributor
Not under the normal understanding of racism.
No, it is about your imputation of liberal belief which is based on the implicit assumption that a dialect used by a minority indicates inferiority.
untermensche
Contributor
Has anybody actually looked at this "study".
It is absolute nonsense like so much from the social "sciences".
A staged interaction is examined using only volunteers.
No randomness. Nothing controlled. Outcomes are mere opinion.
It says absolutely nothing about the real world.
Totally worthless.
That anybody is taking it seriously shows they have ulterior motives.
It is absolute nonsense like so much from the social "sciences".
A staged interaction is examined using only volunteers.
No randomness. Nothing controlled. Outcomes are mere opinion.
It says absolutely nothing about the real world.
Totally worthless.
That anybody is taking it seriously shows they have ulterior motives.
ruby sparks
Contributor
It was resumes, submitted for genuinely advertised posts. The resumes were identical except for the name. Have another go, mister racism-denier.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
Here is a 2017 meta-analysis of 21 similar studies:
Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114.full
This is real, Loren. Repeatedly evidenced, not assumed. It's ongoing and commonplace. And since you have been shown other studies like this, and others of a related type, many, many times on this forum, you already know it to be the case, you just prefer to pretend otherwise.
Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114.full
This is real, Loren. Repeatedly evidenced, not assumed. It's ongoing and commonplace. And since you have been shown other studies like this, and others of a related type, many, many times on this forum, you already know it to be the case, you just prefer to pretend otherwise.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
And also, on the topic of what sorts of racism really do the damage, the reverse racism thing you bang on about apparently has a very limited impact:
There is little to no empirical evidence to support the idea of reverse racism. Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States generally lack the power to damage the interests of white people, who remain the dominant group. Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism.
Despite a lack of evidence, belief in reverse racism is widespread in the United States. While the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue, the concept of reverse racism has been used internationally to some extent wherever white supremacy has diminished, such as in post-apartheid South Africa. Allegations of reverse racism therefore form part of a racial backlash against gains by people of colour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_racism
And that little mantra you chant about objecting to affirmative actions because of the harm done to individuals in the majority group. Apparently making that particular 'principled' objection is correlated to having racist tendencies:
That principled-objection endorsement was driven not merely by race-neutral values but also by dominance-related concerns like racism.
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-12744-002
Not that I'm suggesting that in your case the objection stems from anything other than a genuine desire for a better society.
There is little to no empirical evidence to support the idea of reverse racism. Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States generally lack the power to damage the interests of white people, who remain the dominant group. Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism.
Despite a lack of evidence, belief in reverse racism is widespread in the United States. While the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue, the concept of reverse racism has been used internationally to some extent wherever white supremacy has diminished, such as in post-apartheid South Africa. Allegations of reverse racism therefore form part of a racial backlash against gains by people of colour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_racism
And that little mantra you chant about objecting to affirmative actions because of the harm done to individuals in the majority group. Apparently making that particular 'principled' objection is correlated to having racist tendencies:
That principled-objection endorsement was driven not merely by race-neutral values but also by dominance-related concerns like racism.
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-12744-002
Not that I'm suggesting that in your case the objection stems from anything other than a genuine desire for a better society.
Last edited:
I read the article and I am trying to understand how this equates at all to the charge of “dumbing down”. I had been going on discussion here to join the conversation, but clearly that was a mistake. So I’ve read the article now and it says nothing about “dumbing down,” but rather about trading warmth and connection for alpha posturing.
Liberals care about connecting rather than appearing competent.
Liberals find that when dealing with the racial issues current in the US, they care about reaching out and being warm more than they care about appearing assertive and competitive.
This is bad?
One possible reason is that people tend to do this when they care about their audience. But let’s throw that out and instead assign it to something besides the common.
...
I can see where it's tempting to try to use this study to assert your superiority over liberals and claim that conservatives really actually respect minorities more, but this study does not show that, and your attempts to claim it shows that completely misuse even the poor data shown here.
This "study" shows that liberal politicians really care about connecting with minority audiences. They don't walk in and try to strut and preen, they pause, connect, reflect, reach out. Moreover, these speeches are usually written for them, so they don't have any good data on the actual author.
This "study" shows little about how liberals and conservatives speak to their peers, (as noted the use of those two particular names are a pretty shameful prejudicial choice, aren't they? What, they weren't capable of finding out the most common black female name in the US?) especially when given words that the users may or may not even have in their own vocabulary.
This could be an interesting topic to discuss with real data, but this link not only doesn't study it well, the poor data don't even support the conclusions you're drawing.
Study: "liberals are friendlier to minorities than conservatives are."
Liberals care about connecting rather than appearing competent.
Liberals find that when dealing with the racial issues current in the US, they care about reaching out and being warm more than they care about appearing assertive and competitive.
This is bad?
So here we have them testing politicians who are trying to appeal. The liberals tried harder to appeal to warmth and the conservatives didn’t . This is neither a surprise nor is it patronizing. It may reflect that the liberals ACTUAL WANT to appeal to the minority voters and the conservatives don’t really care about them.
But not that the desire to connect is the opposite of patronizing?
One possible reason is that people tend to do this when they care about their audience. But let’s throw that out and instead assign it to something besides the common.
...
I can see where it's tempting to try to use this study to assert your superiority over liberals and claim that conservatives really actually respect minorities more, but this study does not show that, and your attempts to claim it shows that completely misuse even the poor data shown here.
This "study" shows that liberal politicians really care about connecting with minority audiences. They don't walk in and try to strut and preen, they pause, connect, reflect, reach out. Moreover, these speeches are usually written for them, so they don't have any good data on the actual author.
This "study" shows little about how liberals and conservatives speak to their peers, (as noted the use of those two particular names are a pretty shameful prejudicial choice, aren't they? What, they weren't capable of finding out the most common black female name in the US?) especially when given words that the users may or may not even have in their own vocabulary.
This could be an interesting topic to discuss with real data, but this link not only doesn't study it well, the poor data don't even support the conclusions you're drawing.
Study: "liberals are friendlier to minorities than conservatives are."
ruby sparks
Contributor
Along similar lines to the study I posted in my last post:
The Origins of Symbolic Racism
http://condor.depaul.edu/phenry1/2003 Sears & Henry, JPSP.pdf
"Numerous studies conducted by proponents and critics alike have shown that symbolic racism is strongly associated with Whites’ opposition to racially targeted policy proposals".
And
Searching for Common Ground between Supporters and Opponents of Affirmative Action
http://condor.depaul.edu/creyna/site/Publications_files/ReynaTuckeretal2005.pdf
"A wide range of research has pointed to racism as one of the driving factors behind affirmative action opposition."
It's not really surprising. For humans, perceived self-interest generally trumps declared or abstract principles when the chips are really down. That's probably why white students will cite SAT test scores as being a 'fair' way to judge college applications on merit when they compare themselves to blacks, who generally have lower scores, but will cite 'other criteria' when comparing themselves to groups that they believe have higher SAT scores:
Meritocracy or Bias?
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...-change-when-they-think-about-asian-americans
"Study finds that when white people are told of the success of Asian applicants, their commitment to basing admissions on grades and test scores drops."
The Origins of Symbolic Racism
http://condor.depaul.edu/phenry1/2003 Sears & Henry, JPSP.pdf
"Numerous studies conducted by proponents and critics alike have shown that symbolic racism is strongly associated with Whites’ opposition to racially targeted policy proposals".
And
Searching for Common Ground between Supporters and Opponents of Affirmative Action
http://condor.depaul.edu/creyna/site/Publications_files/ReynaTuckeretal2005.pdf
"A wide range of research has pointed to racism as one of the driving factors behind affirmative action opposition."
It's not really surprising. For humans, perceived self-interest generally trumps declared or abstract principles when the chips are really down. That's probably why white students will cite SAT test scores as being a 'fair' way to judge college applications on merit when they compare themselves to blacks, who generally have lower scores, but will cite 'other criteria' when comparing themselves to groups that they believe have higher SAT scores:
Meritocracy or Bias?
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...-change-when-they-think-about-asian-americans
"Study finds that when white people are told of the success of Asian applicants, their commitment to basing admissions on grades and test scores drops."
Last edited:
Did you not notice the article? The liberals lower their speech level, the conservatives don't.
You missed the point.
It's not racism to notice that Lakishas are on average nowhere near as educated as Emilys. We don't have a name for this, what it actually is is discrimination based on names--quite understandable as in this case there is on average a real difference.
Which assumes the studies are finding real discrimination. The vast majority of the research fails to control for simple things and isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
1) That's Wikipedia, worthless on politically sensitive issues like this.
2) This basically comes down to guilty until proven innocent. The vast majority of "racism" research treats a disparate result as proof.
Of course it does--the racists will take that position so you would expect to see such a relationship.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
You have got to be kidding.
"Connecting" = speaking at their level = dumbing down.
A good measure for whether we are after equality or are racists.
Note that I think everyone on here that opposes affirmative action realizes that the primary beneficiary of removing it would be Asians, not whites.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
This thread, it agrees with my lived experiences. Growing up poor and Hispanic, I came to the conclusion: conservatives say you need Jesus, progressives think they ARE Jesus. They do think that they people they are helping are their inferiors, and that the people they are helping should "tug their forelock" so to speak, and show proper thanks for the help by acknowledging the superiority of the progressives helping them. Oh, and if you don't show them proper respect, they get very upset at you. Oh and you should hear the racist terms they use on minorities who spurn their self-appointed superiority.
The other lived experience is seeing laughing dog deliberately misinterpret Loren's post. He does that to lots of people.
The other lived experience is seeing laughing dog deliberately misinterpret Loren's post. He does that to lots of people.
laughing dog
Contributor
First, two posters have shown the article, its research and conclusions are pretty much bogus. Second, for some reason, you think that "lowering their speech level" means they think their audience is inferior.
laughing dog
Contributor
Still laboring under the delusion you can mind read.