White people are kinda assholes

[ksen]

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5978551/study-racism-criminal-justice-stop-and-frisk-reform-support

But as reforms move from proposals to actual bills, the key question is how to persuade the general public that change is needed. A new study suggests that highlighting racism in the criminal justice system is not the answer, and in fact pushes white voters in the opposite direction. Even when whites believe the current laws are too harsh, they're less likely to support changing the law if they're reminded that the current prison population is disproportionately black.

 

[Derec]

But as reforms move from proposals to actual bills, the key question is how to persuade the general public that change is needed.

Certainly not by racist generalizations. But just like Michelle Obama's sexism, racism against whites is considered politically correct.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, yeah. If all those blacks weren't locked up, they'd be voting.
And probably voting for laws that would get white people locked up disproportionately.

 

[fromderinside]

Might, right, white, we got it all! Time to double down! /oshitiwrotethat

 

[Trausti]

Oy vey. This thread reminds me of this other thread: http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?1817-Liberal-Bias-in-Social-Psychology-Taints-Research

So they only used white test subjects? Got a result they wanted? Maybe next that can test fecal matter from only white people and announce a headline "White People's Shit Stinks." Peer review? Who needs that; this is psychology.

 

[ksen]

So they only used white test subjects?

If your testing for white reactions what other kinds of subjects should you use?

 

[Derec]

So they only used white test subjects?

If your testing for white reactions what other kinds of subjects should you use?

I guess neither you nor those "researchers" ever heard of control groups?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So they only used white test subjects?

If your testing for white reactions what other kinds of subjects should you use?

My first guess would be other racial groups in order to have some control data in the study so one can say whether this attitude is somehow particular to white people specifically or common across racial lines in general. Given that they're concluding that it's specific to white people without having that type of control included in their methodology, the findings are about as relevant as finding that hispanics are a bunch of drunks by doing a study where you interview hispanics at a bar.

 

[laughing dog]

If your testing for white reactions what other kinds of subjects should you use?

I guess neither you nor those "researchers" ever heard of control groups?

And who would that control group consist? If it were groups of non-whites, the results allow the researcher to assess the degree to which white people's responses differed from non-white responses, but it would not alter the results about whites.

 

[The Paul]

So they only used white test subjects?

If your testing for white reactions what other kinds of subjects should you use?

To be totally fair it might have been worth investigating to what extent racism against blacks exists among non-white people. It might even exist amongst blacks to some degree.

Not that any of that would actually contradict the findings. It would just give the guilty-feeling people who always complain about how the rest of the world is trying to make them feel "white guilt" something to work with when they try to deflect the blame and negativity.

 

[Trausti]

I guess neither you nor those "researchers" ever heard of control groups?

And who would that control group consist? If it were groups of non-whites, the results allow the researcher to assess the degree to which white people's responses differed from non-white responses, but it would not alter the results about whites.

And if they found no significant statistical difference between White people and Black people and Asian people and Hispanic people? This "study" isn't science. This is shit. And just the present readily example of the credibility problems endemic to psychology "research."

http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://blog.efpsa.org/2012/06/01/falsification-of-previous-results/

 

[dismal]

Well, yeah. If all those blacks weren't locked up, they'd be voting.
And probably voting for laws that would get white people locked up disproportionately.

Wow, that's a pretty offensive characterization of black people.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I guess neither you nor those "researchers" ever heard of control groups?

And who would that control group consist? If it were groups of non-whites, the results allow the researcher to assess the degree to which white people's responses differed from non-white responses, but it would not alter the results about whites.

Except that "White people are assholes" is a completely different finding from "People are assholes". If you're going to qualify your remarks to only single out one segment of a group as opposed to referring to the group as a whole, you need a reason to differentiate between the segment you're targetting and all the other segments you're not targetting. This research doesn't allow one to do that, so it's not valid to add any such qualifiers to a statement based on the findings.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, yeah. If all those blacks weren't locked up, they'd be voting.
And probably voting for laws that would get white people locked up disproportionately.

Wow, that's a pretty offensive characterization of black people.

Not at all, dismal.
It's an offensive characterization of those white people who would let race-based views drive them to keep unjust laws on the books, a possible, if satirical, justification for the finding in the OP, to wit:

they're less likely to support changing the law if they're reminded that the current prison population is disproportionately black.

But then, the whole point of satire is to aim a false statement towards those people who would accept it as a truth claim, thus allowing those who perceive the 'joke' to laugh at the sort of person who would be unable to identify it as satire.
In ancient times, like Monty Python's first season, satire was traditionally aimed at an imaginary audience, the main joke being that no one would REALLY accept this as a truth claim.

Since the development of the internet, satire is now sort of a reverse-POE. There's no statement one can make that someone, somewhere, will not claim, or attempt to claim, was stated in perfect sincerity.

 

[fromderinside]

And who would that control group consist? If it were groups of non-whites, the results allow the researcher to assess the degree to which white people's responses differed from non-white responses, but it would not alter the results about whites.

Except that "White people are assholes" is a completely different finding from "People are assholes". If you're going to qualify your remarks to only single out one segment of a group as opposed to referring to the group as a whole, you need a reason to differentiate between the segment you're targetting and all the other segments you're not targetting. This research doesn't allow one to do that, so it's not valid to add any such qualifiers to a statement based on the findings.

If one really wants to say something then the control group should be all people. Sure doing so would reduce the power of differences between control and just white people because white people are also in the control. But, boy what a statement it would make if one did that and still found significant differences in terms of assholeness.

As for the study itself. Things are going to change in 2044 when white people will be a minority.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If one really wants to say something then the control group should be all people. Sure doing so would reduce the power of differences between control and just white people because white people are also in the control. But, boy what a statement it would make if one did that and still found significant differences in terms of assholeness.

There should be multiple types of control groups. Some should be of single races and some should be of multiple races so that you can get a true picture which captures many of the variables. If it turns out that despite a more inclusive public face to their statements, there's still a strong undercurrent of a white supremicist mindset within the race which differentiates them from other races in their attitudes, then that is significant and something which needs to be addressed.

From this study, however, there's nothing significant which tells anything about anything that one can get from it.

 

[ksen]

If you're going to qualify your remarks to only single out one segment of a group as opposed to referring to the group as a whole, you need a reason to differentiate between the segment you're targetting and all the other segments you're not targetting.

Are you not aware how the internet works?

 

[arkirk]

The harsh reality is that racism exists and is deeply ingrained in all sectors of society. The question is not whether or not it exists. It does and causes immeasurable suffering. Some of it is blatantly paraded in front of us in the media in the form of things like Duck (dick) Dynasty. I do believe the survey in question here singled out a specific kind of racism in a specific sector. To every racist, their prejudice is subtly induced and often not even apparent. The study here just points to that. It really is not such a major discovery now is it?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you're going to qualify your remarks to only single out one segment of a group as opposed to referring to the group as a whole, you need a reason to differentiate between the segment you're targetting and all the other segments you're not targetting.

Are you not aware how the internet works?

Ya, a bunch of Jews networked computers together so that they could spread fake information about how that nice young man Adolf bullied them in order to justify their feasting on the flesh of defenceless Palestinian children and stealing money from naive white people.

I do know how to read a blog, dude.

 

[dismal]

Wow, that's a pretty offensive characterization of black people.

Not at all, dismal.
It's an offensive characterization of those white people who would let race-based views drive them to keep unjust laws on the books, a possible, if satirical, justification for the finding in the OP, to wit:

they're less likely to support changing the law if they're reminded that the current prison population is disproportionately black.

But then, the whole point of satire is to aim a false statement towards those people who would accept it as a truth claim, thus allowing those who perceive the 'joke' to laugh at the sort of person who would be unable to identify it as satire.
In ancient times, like Monty Python's first season, satire was traditionally aimed at an imaginary audience, the main joke being that no one would REALLY accept this as a truth claim.

Since the development of the internet, satire is now sort of a reverse-POE. There's no statement one can make that someone, somewhere, will not claim, or attempt to claim, was stated in perfect sincerity.

Saying if black people had political power they would use it to imprison white people is not an offensive characterization of black people?

Huh?