[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, it matches up anecdotally for me as well. The three most racist–referring to any form of racism imaginable–people I’ve ever met were both white. One was South African, one was South Carolinian, one was from Baton Rouge.[/quote]
Mine were all women. Most of whom born and raised in Western Mass.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I don’t think one black rapper wearing a coat disregards anything I said in my post.
[/quote]
No, and that wasn’t the intent.
Funny both you and smh, who are arguing there is no perception manipulation, missed that. (Here’s a hit, think in terms of “n-word”.)
Vermont has 1% of its population black, 5% non-white. Everyone thinks “hoe hmmm”. The area of the country with the most concentrated %'s of non-whites tend to show trends of racism (from opinion polls which apparently can only draw one conclusion), everyone thinks “white people in the south are racists.”
No one questions what those polls would show if Vermont was 25% black, no one asks why Vermont is 1% black… All they ask about, all they focus on, is the confirmation bias: “I believe most of the racists whites live in the south, therefore, it is good the data confirms this.”
[/quote]
Ding, ding, ding!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Now we’re getting somewhere
[quote]H factor wrote:
Obviously some of it is a perception thing, but how am I supposed to perceive a guy driving an old pickup with a confederate flag hat on, confederate flag bumper stickers, listening to David Allan Coe while spitting tobacco juice into a bottle? Is my mind inventing that that guy probably is racist? [/quote]
And, I would agree with your perception of that individual. I would also agree with the assumption that he likely votes “R”. (As in looks at a ballot and checks off all the people with an “R” next to the name.)
Would I be correct? Likely. But am I correct because he lives in KS or because we think he is a racist? One tribe, which is the current culture leader, tells us over and over, it is the latter, not the former.
That is the problem, that is the issue. We don’t expect to see “normal” distribution of what we are told is “abnormal” behavior. (Human history suggests “racism” isn’t really all that abnormal, nor exclusive to any race or culture.)
Which leads into the whole idea of the allegiance to the tribe, and the twisting and turning of perception to make sure you end up on top (or put the other side down enough to feel superior.)
We’re told what happened didn’t happen or didn’t matter, we’re told what to see, we’re fed data that suggests what we want it to. We look for what we want to find, not what is there.
Right, and social acceptance isn’t a vacuum either.
I don’t think being racist should be socially acceptable, and it isn’t where I live, openly. But it sure is in practice.
I’ve had someone who 5 mins earlier was talking about how he can’t take southern people serious because they are racist, complain he didn’t like shopping in Southern New Hampshire, because “there are so many Indians and they are so damn cheap.”
Now… You’re telling me, if we suddenly had an influx of Indian immigration, this proud democrat wouldn’t suddenly have a significant issue with that?
[/quote]
Again though this is focusing on political parties. The tribe speak and all that. These are not things I am saying. The left and right ARE BOTH tribes who are constantly manipulating narratives to gain power. Neither side is better or worse in this area. They are using what tools they have to attempt to paint their opposition as something which will make people dislike them.
Acting like “one team” is doing these things is stupid. Speaking in leftist and rightist terms for the most part is stupid. It’s all a line of thinking perpetuated by people looking to shift viewpoints.
We have millions of Democrats and Republicans and biased sites looking to exploit advantages by running certain narratives over and over in order to paint macro pictures about opposition. It is simply a never ending blame game because certain things sound better to certain people.
Saying “Democrats” or “Republicans” do this over and over is often fruitless. The political parties have the exact same tactics over and over again it’s just the content that will shift. It’s not complicated, you try and throw as much mud as you can and see what sticks. If some things are sticking you continue to throw that mud as long as you can.
I guess I don’t see the overall point. OF COURSE Democrats are saying Republicans are racist. OF COURSE Republicans are saying Democrats want everyone on welfare. OF COURSE Democrats are saying Republicans hate gay people. OF COURSE Republicans are saying Democrats want the country to be full of illegal aliens.
These things play well and if something may create an advantage that will be repeated and exploited over and over. I’m not even sure if Democrats are really the current leader. I mean they are, but I don’t think they are going to do well in 2014. We’re just getting ready to see yet another shift. Is your argument that Democratic attacks are being effective? Hell I think Republican attacks are being quite effective! We have many states with more right leaning people than in a long time.
I guess I just don’t see any of this as new. We have always been fed propaganda and we always will be. Of course we are told what to feel in 2014 by both teams. We were told what to feel about Communism. What to feel about the Japanese. What to feel about Muslims. Political parties will merely change what they feed people based on how effective it will be.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Frankly, the idea that there isn’t a normal distribution of racism that spans political allegiance and geography, but rather is concentrated in one party and one area of the country, argued by intelligent, thoughtful people is, in and of itself, perfect evidence of the entire point of the article.
[/quote]
This is a misrepresentation of the argument. As I explicitly noted, there are avowed anti-black racists on every end of the political spectrum. This is a fact.
This is another fact: According to the available data, there are more of them among Republican and conservative voters. I evidenced this claim.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Funny both you and smh, who are arguing there is no perception manipulation
[/quote]
I not arguing anything remotely like this. In fact, I believe exactly the opposite, and almost all of my disgust with contemporary American politics is predicated on the belief that everyone is always manipulating everything they can.
My argument here is simpler: Campaigns of manipulation or not, the available data suggest with great confidence that there are more anti-black racists among Republican voters and conservatives than among their ideological opposition.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The area of the country with the most concentrated %'s of non-whites tend to show trends of racism
[/quote]
This is something I would like to see evidenced.
Either way, though, it says nothing about my point. You’re talking about “why.” I’m talking about what is.
Do you contend that I’m wrong? And, if so, do you have evidence in support of your claim?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Is your argument that Democratic attacks are being effective? [/quote]
Using this article, which is pointing out the massive disconnect with realty and history that the modern leftist has, I’m making an argument that really, at base levels, boils down to:
“Don’t trust the government, and even less so, the people who aren’t in power that are fighting for those in power.”
Here we have a current “party”, a tribe, who’s history is riddled with “being on the wrong side of things”, now trying to play the moral champion. Some of their current positions will end up much the same as their position on slavery and fascism. And I see, daily, the cultish worship of their current leader, and past leaders.
I mean shit, I can’t wait to watch the feminists contort themselves to explain away how they support Hilary. A women too weak and foolish to leave a man who was ass fucking everything with a wet hole, and lied about it. I love watching these people hate on Brewer for vetoing the AZ bill, but still love the POTUS who signed DOMA…
People who are supposed stand for individual liberty and the constitution, stand by and let things like ACA (sorta), patriot Act, NSA spying, IRS targeting, American citizens droned without due process while driving to work…
No the republican’s aren’t saints, but good god man…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed. [/quote]
That is a legitimate question. I think it’s probably better than penis-length data, which strike me and my eleven-inch dick as the most unreliable sort that exist.
However, the data I’m referring to are gathered by some of the best polling firms on the planet. If that’s worth anything, it adds weight to my claim. Also, even accounting for ambiguity and imperfection, the breadth of the gap between the different rates of racism is a statistically significant one.
Do I think I can say, “There are exactly X number of racists in Alabama, and Y number among Republican voters, and Z number among New Yorkers?” Absolutely not. What I can say is that the data we have points in one decided and unanimous direction, which it does. From that, I can say that I understand why a black guy is reluctant to throw his weight behind a political machine that accommodates an inordinate number of people who think he should be legally barred from marrying their white daughters.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed. [/quote]
Because it is underpinned by sound and rigorous quantitative methodology. Urologists were the moderators of many of those “dick length” studies?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed. [/quote]
Because it is underpinned by sound and rigorous quantitative methodology. Urologists were the moderators of many of those “dick length” studies?[/quote]
Within the context of the analogy: I would expect that all groups over-report the length of their Johnsons at a comparable rate. Which would suggest–again, within the analogy–that all groups under-report their racism at a comparable rate. In which case, one party is still composed of more racists than the other, whether the absolute numbers are accurate or not.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed. [/quote]
Because it is underpinned by sound and rigorous quantitative methodology. Urologists were the moderators of many of those “dick length” studies?[/quote]
The point is that both sets of data rely on the integrity of the respondent. As far as I know there has never been a comprehensive study where a 3rd party does the measuring.
By the way, I think this will melt away as an issue as the old racists all around the country die off.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed. [/quote]
That is a legitimate question. I think it’s probably better than penis-length data, which strike me and my eleven-inch dick as the most unreliable sort that exist.
However, the data I’m referring to are gathered by some of the best polling firms on the planet. If that’s worth anything, it adds weight to my claim. Also, even accounting for ambiguity and imperfection, the breadth of the gap between the different rates of racism is a statistically significant one.
Do I think I can say, “There are exactly X number of racists in Alabama, and Y number among Republican voters, and Z number among New Yorkers?” Absolutely not. What I can say is that the data we have points in one decided and unanimous direction, which it does. From that, I can say that I understand why a black guy is reluctant to throw his weight behind a political machine that accommodates an inordinate number of people who think he should be legally barred from marrying their white daughters. [/quote]
Even the most respected polling agency has to rely on the integrity of the respondent in a survey like this. We can assume an even distribution of those that are liars, but we have no real way, that I can think of, to actually confirm this. Perhaps the people in the bible belt are more honest and thus skew the numbers. Maybe it’s the opposite and there are actually far more racist in the south. We really can’t know, which is my point.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed. [/quote]
Because it is underpinned by sound and rigorous quantitative methodology. Urologists were the moderators of many of those “dick length” studies?[/quote]
Within the context of the analogy: I would expect that all groups over-report the length of their Johnsons at a comparable rate. Which would suggest–again, within the analogy–that all groups under-report their racism at a comparable rate. In which case, one party is still composed of more racists than the other, whether the absolute numbers are accurate or not.[/quote]
I think that’s a pretty big assumption.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed. [/quote]
Because it is underpinned by sound and rigorous quantitative methodology. Urologists were the moderators of many of those “dick length” studies?[/quote]
The point is that both sets of data rely on the integrity of the respondent. As far as I know there has never been a comprehensive study where a 3rd party does the measuring. [/quote]
By that line of reasoning, there should be even MORE people who could be categorized as racist. Those in the study SMH posted voluntarily self-identified as such. What part of a dick doctor measuring someone’s erect penis don’t you understand?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed. [/quote]
Because it is underpinned by sound and rigorous quantitative methodology. Urologists were the moderators of many of those “dick length” studies?[/quote]
The point is that both sets of data rely on the integrity of the respondent. As far as I know there has never been a comprehensive study where a 3rd party does the measuring. [/quote]
By that line of reasoning, there should be even MORE people who could be categorized as racist. Those in the study SMH posted voluntarily self-identified as such. What part of a dick doctor measuring someone’s erect penis don’t you understand?[/quote]
Exactly, and the vast majority could also identify as Northern, Democrats, or both…
Dick doctors don’t measure, that is the point.The studies are based on the integrity of the respondent.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The area of the country with the most concentrated %'s of non-whites tend to show trends of racism
[/quote]
This is something I would like to see evidenced.
[/quote]
How is ti any different than what you’ve been saying the entire time?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
By that line of reasoning, there should be even MORE people who could be categorized as racist. [/quote]
This is kinda the point.
And just because someone is okay with a black/white marriage doesn’t mean they aren’t racist, doesn’t mean the person polled was white, and largely doesn’t speak to any larger issues.
I mean, the time it takes to accumulate the wealth to move from one state to another could be measure in generations for some people. However, how come black populations are still heavily concentrated in these places “the data suggest” are where the glut of racists are, when NYC/Detroit/Chicago have represented amounts of black people yet VT is baron.
If this is where the racist are? Why are the black people there? And if their are such a low amount of racists in VT, why AREN’T the black people there?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
the available data [/quote]
Do we believe this “data” is actually any good? I feel like this “data” would be about as accurate as dick length data. I mean what percentage of people are actually honest about the size of their dick?
Fyi, I’ve only been loosely following along so I apologize if this has been discussed. [/quote]
Because it is underpinned by sound and rigorous quantitative methodology. Urologists were the moderators of many of those “dick length” studies?[/quote]
The point is that both sets of data rely on the integrity of the respondent. As far as I know there has never been a comprehensive study where a 3rd party does the measuring. [/quote]
By that line of reasoning, there should be even MORE people who could be categorized as racist. Those in the study SMH posted voluntarily self-identified as such. What part of a dick doctor measuring someone’s erect penis don’t you understand?[/quote]
Exactly, and the vast majority could also identify as Northern, Democrats, or both…
Dick doctors don’t measure, that is the point.The studies are based on the integrity of the respondent. [/quote]
Dude, you don’t understand how basic social science methodology works and I frankly don’t have the patience to explain it to you. The fact that you’re trying to equate between a qualitative and qualitative study is indicative of that much.
Some studies were self reported, others were measured by a laboratory attendant trained to do just that. Guess which ones had the smaller mean measurements?