[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But we have to use what we think we know–and, in this case, the white Republican South loses out, big time.
And the white South is perceived–correctly–to be a concetrated enclave of anti-black racism.[/quote]
I mean, you have to know you are playing into, perfectly the entire point of the thread and this guys article right?
I mean, is that perception correct? Is what we think we know, what we know?
I think this is a false equivalency that is being set up.
There is racism everywhere. There is racism in Queens, Beacon Hill, Montreal, Paris. There has most assuredly been racism on the International Space Station, at one point or another.
However, the data say that whites Americans in the Deep South are more racist and more often racist than, say, white Americans in Seattle, or white Americans in Massachusetts, or white Americans in New York, or white Americans in Buffalo, or white Americans in Hawaii.
Which, given that it’s been argued in this very thread that history is indeed important in understanding the present day, should come as a shock to exactly no one.
I knew a kid from Mass who told me that there was one black kid in his high school and they called him Buckwheat (IIRC). I told him that seemed pretty racist but his reply was that the kid never complained about it. I replied that he was outnumbered a few hundred to one so what could he say. He thought about it a second and came back with, “yeah, I see your point.”
And the crap I would hear about the Portuguese in New Bedford was pretty bad as well. My roommate was from New Bedford and Portuguese and I could feel this tension between him and other students who were “white.” It was funny because I’m not from MA and I’m not Portuguese so I would hear both sides, unfiltered. And this was at a so-called liberal, progressive, commie university.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But we have to use what we think we know–and, in this case, the white Republican South loses out, big time.
And the white South is perceived–correctly–to be a concetrated enclave of anti-black racism.[/quote]
I mean, you have to know you are playing into, perfectly the entire point of the thread and this guys article right?
I mean, is that perception correct? Is what we think we know, what we know?[/quote]
I don’t think I’m playing into what he’s talking about. He’s talking about misconception–misconception, based in distortion, that can be exposed as such.
I’m talking about conclusions from data. If the inherent ambiguity of opinion polling renders any conclusion from it meaningless, then yes, you can discard my opinion. If not, then my opinion is the strongest of the alternatives.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I knew a kid from Mass who told me that there was one black kid in his high school and they called him Buckwheat (IIRC). I told him that seemed pretty racist but his reply was that the kid never complained about it. I replied that he was outnumbered a few hundred to one so what could he say. He thought about it a second and came back with, “yeah, I see your point.”
And the crap I would hear about the Portuguese in New Bedford was pretty bad as well. My roommate was from New Bedford and Portuguese and I could feel this tension between him and other students who were “white.” It was funny because I’m not from MA and I’m not Portuguese so I would hear both sides, unfiltered. And this was at a so-called liberal, progressive, commie university. [/quote]
Anecdotal evidence tends to hurt, rather than help, in these kinds of discussions.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Is what we think we know, what we know?[/quote]
I don’t know that I wasn’t created, ex nihilo, exactly one second prior to having begun to write this post, with an entire lifetime’s worth of memories implanted among my neurons. I had a dream last night–this is true–that was so vivid that I keep having to remind myself that none of it actually happened. I didn’t know, in the middle of it, that I was actually sleeping.
In other words, if knowledge is what we’re after in the realm of politics, then we’re all striving after wind. Every statement should begin with “the data suggest.”
Is it just me, or isn’t it racist using a subset of people based on their appearance and creating policies based on the idea that they cannot help themselves, therefore we have to right it into law that they get preferential treatment. Or continual support for the drug war which overwhelming targets minorities. Instead you get called racist for believing that all are created equal under the law and no special treatment should be given to anyone, regardless of their color, race, creed or religion.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
There is racism everywhere.
However, the data say that whites Americans in the Deep South are more racist [/quote]
Are you still not seeing it?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I think this is a false equivalency that is being set up.
There is racism everywhere. There is racism in Queens, Beacon Hill, Montreal, Paris. There has most assuredly been racism on the International Space Station, at one point or another.
However, the data say that whites Americans in the Deep South are more racist and more often racist than, say, white Americans in Seattle, or white Americans in Massachusetts, or white Americans in New York, or white Americans in Buffalo, or white Americans in Hawaii.
Which, given that it’s been argued in this very thread that history is indeed important in understanding the present day, should come as a shock to exactly no one.[/quote]
One reason it appears that way is that in the North (or Paris) there is “unforced” segregation. A white, affluent Manhattanite can afford to be liberal on the subject of racism because he/she is separated from most blacks. Sure, he/she might have some black friends but they will be from the same socioeconomic class. Things like AA and welfare don’t matter because they won’t change things (as they really haven’t). That person will still be affluent and his children will have an excellent chance of duplicating or even surpassing his success. In other words, it’s hard to hate what is unfamiliar. Now, ask that person how he would feel if they were going to rent out apartments in his building to section 8 or build a housing project next door and you might see how they truly feel about race, among other things. This is the reason why I hate the liberal elite. They are benevolent, from a distance, and as long as they can still afford to buy coffee at Starbucks, drive an SUV and send their kids to private school.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I knew a kid from Mass who told me that there was one black kid in his high school and they called him Buckwheat (IIRC). I told him that seemed pretty racist but his reply was that the kid never complained about it. I replied that he was outnumbered a few hundred to one so what could he say. He thought about it a second and came back with, “yeah, I see your point.”
And the crap I would hear about the Portuguese in New Bedford was pretty bad as well. My roommate was from New Bedford and Portuguese and I could feel this tension between him and other students who were “white.” It was funny because I’m not from MA and I’m not Portuguese so I would hear both sides, unfiltered. And this was at a so-called liberal, progressive, commie university. [/quote]
Anecdotal evidence tends to hurt, rather than help, in these kinds of discussions.[/quote]
No more than perception which is pretty much the same thing.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
There is racism everywhere.
However, the data say that whites Americans in the Deep South are more racist [/quote]
Are you still not seeing it?
[/quote]
What is there to see? What exactly is your contention? Southern whites tell pollsters racist things more often than do Northeastern whites. Where, exactly, is there any room for misunderstanding here?
[quote]johngalt191 wrote:
Is it just me, or isn’t it racist using a subset of people based on their appearance and creating policies based on the idea that they cannot help themselves, therefore we have to right it into law that they get preferential treatment. Or continual support for the drug war which overwhelming targets minorities. Instead you get called racist for believing that all are created equal under the law and no special treatment should be given to anyone, regardless of their color, race, creed or religion.[/quote]
More whites benefit from AA than blacks, which is ignored by those who seek to inflame racial tensions, and that is one reason why it has failed in its original mission to help blacks. No white male should fear AA because of what it might do for blacks at his expense as the odds are still stacked in the white male’s favor when it comes to blacks however, he should worry about white women as they have a much better chance at getting ahead because of AA at his expense.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But we have to use what we think we know–and, in this case, the white Republican South loses out, big time.
And the white South is perceived–correctly–to be a concetrated enclave of anti-black racism.[/quote]
I mean, you have to know you are playing into, perfectly the entire point of the thread and this guys article right?
I mean, is that perception correct? Is what we think we know, what we know?[/quote]
I don’t think I’m playing into what he’s talking about. He’s talking about misconception–misconception, based in distortion, that can be exposed as such.
I’m talking about conclusions from data. If the inherent ambiguity of opinion polling renders any conclusion from it meaningless, then yes, you can discard my opinion. If not, then my opinion is the strongest of the alternatives.[/quote]
Think about it for a second though. If someone is openly racist, does calling them a racist effect them? No. Does calling their political party racist bother them? Nope. It is their tribe.
No if someone who is a racist belong to the tribe that has the culture convinced they are the anti-racist tribe, whether that be by shouting loud the other side is racist, through action, or just general misconception, do you think that polling data would show them as they really feel, or as the tribe mantra says they feel?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
There is racism everywhere.
However, the data say that whites Americans in the Deep South are more racist [/quote]
Are you still not seeing it?
[/quote]
What is there to see? What exactly is your contention? Southern whites tell pollsters racist things more often than do Northeastern whites. Where, exactly, is there any room for misunderstanding here?[/quote]
I’m not calling you a liar or anything but just for my own edification I would like to see those polls. I’m curious about what the questions actually were.
“Unsurprisingly, the South shows the least approval of black-white intermarriage of any region of the country. And Republicans and conservatives are less approving of black-white intermarriage than Democrats, independents, moderates and liberals.”
I don’t form my opinions in these matters by listening to what my gut tells me.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No if someone who is a racist belong to the tribe that has the culture convinced they are the anti-racist tribe, whether that be by shouting loud the other side is racist, through action, or just general misconception, do you think that polling data would show them as they really feel, or as the tribe mantra says they feel?
[/quote]
Which is why I say that every political contention of the kind we’re talking about tacitly begins with, “The data suggest…”
Could an inordinate number of Democrats have lied? Yeah. (Same with Republicans.) Can we do anything about that possibility? No.
So, we have evidence–imperfect, as evidence has always been and will always be–and it points in one direction. All we can say is, “The data suggest…”
By the way, the polls use miscegenation because it is among the purest barometers of anti-black racism that exist. I deliberately avoid referencing polls that couch their questions in terms of welfare/laziness/ambition/crime, because those are nowhere near as clear and clean, and those do often exaggerate racist attitudes.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
There is racism everywhere.
However, the data say that whites Americans in the Deep South are more racist [/quote]
Are you still not seeing it?
[/quote]
What is there to see? What exactly is your contention? Southern whites tell pollsters racist things more often than do Northeastern whites. Where, exactly, is there any room for misunderstanding here?[/quote]
COnsider things like:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
One reason it appears that way is that in the North (or Paris) there is “unforced” segregation. A white, affluent Manhattanite can afford to be liberal on the subject of racism because he/she is separated from most blacks. Sure, he/she might have some black friends but they will be from the same socioeconomic class. Things like AA and welfare don’t matter because they won’t change things (as they really haven’t). That person will still be affluent and his children will have an excellent chance of duplicating or even surpassing his success. In other words, it’s hard to hate what is unfamiliar. Now, ask that person how he would feel if they were going to rent out apartments in his building to section 8 or build a housing project next door and you might see how they truly feel about race, among other things. This is the reason why I hate the liberal elite. They are benevolent, from a distance, and as long as they can still afford to buy coffee at Starbucks, drive an SUV and send their kids to private school.
[/quote]
Point being, I’m simply curious if we are swallowing the blue pill here. (We being the collective, the culture consumer.)
The left has some pretty ugly policy that gets dressed up in culture “perception” as the correct thing…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The left has some pretty ugly policy that gets dressed up in culture “perception” as the correct thing… [/quote]
Well said. I wouldn’t dream of arguing the opposite. My contention here is very narrow.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
“Unsurprisingly, the South shows the least approval of black-white intermarriage of any region of the country. And Republicans and conservatives are less approving of black-white intermarriage than Democrats, independents, moderates and liberals.”
I don’t form my opinions in these matters by listening to what my gut tells me. [/quote]
unsurprisingly, the data just happens to fit into the expectation.
Chicken or the egg?