WaPo reports on a new study by Cydney Dupree, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Yale School of Management, and Susan Fiske, a professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton:
You have recently joined a book club.
Before each meeting, one member of the literary collective sends an email to the club secretary offering a few thoughts on the assigned text. This month, it’s your turn to compose the brief review.
A new study suggests that the words you use may depend on whether the club secretary’s name is Emily (“a stereotypically White name,” as the study says) or Lakisha (“a stereotypically Black name”). If you’re a white liberal writing to Emily, you might use words like “melancholy” or “euphoric” to describe the mood of the book, whereas you might trade these terms out for the simpler “sad” or “happy” if you’re corresponding with Lakisha.
But if you’re a white conservative, your diction won’t depend on the presumed race of your interlocutor....
The social psychologists call what liberals do a "competence downshift."
“White liberals may unwittingly draw on negative stereotypes, dumbing themselves down in a likely well-meaning, ‘folksy,’ but ultimately patronizing, attempt to connect with the outgroup,” argues the paper, titled “Self-Presentation in Interracial Settings: The Competence Downshift by White Liberals.”...
“It’s somewhat counterintuitive,” said Dupree, who is the lead author and whose research was supported by the National Science Foundation as well as by Princeton’s Joint Degree Program in Social Policy. “The idea that people who are most well-intentioned toward racial minorities, the people actually showing up and wanting to forge these connections, they’re the ones who seem to be drawing on stereotypes to do so.”
Was there a scientific study done that determined that liberals are more "well-intentioned" than conservatives? I mean, it wouldn't be "counterintuitive" if you abandoned the prejudgment about who means well and who does not. And what does it really mean to say people have good intentions? When you show up to help, you're displaying the belief that help is needed. When you stand back, it might not be because you don't care. It could be that you think other people are able to handle their own life.
[W]hite liberals are “concerned about appearing racist”... Dupree said. In their role as “impression managers,” white liberals may even take on the negative stereotypes they harbor toward people of other races, in an effort, as the paper puts it, to “get on their level.”
Their conservative counterparts, meanwhile, appear not to employ these stereotypes in the same way, as Dupree said, because, “We know empirically that white conservatives are less likely to be interested in getting along with racial minorities.”...
We know empirically.... I know "empirically" — or is it intuitively? — not to trust studies by social psychologists, but I must say that when the results make liberals look bad, I'm more likely to believe that the social psychologists are onto something and to suspect that they are framing the results as well as they can to make liberals look better than conservatives: Liberals are racists because they care and they're trying so hard to make a connection and surely if conservatives weren't so awful they'd be just as racist.
१२५ टिप्पण्या:
Is there anyone more racist in 2018 America than a white liberal?
It's only counterintuitive if you believe the Leftist lie that they're the good guys.
It's called code switching. You adopt the language register of the person you're talking to.
I ain't no ways tired...
The “soft bigotry of low expectations.”
So...observations show that the Left condescends to minorities in the belief that they are less competent than Whites, while the Right treats minorities as equals and somehow this proves that the Right are racist bad guys and the Left are good guys?
Sounds legit.
The stereotype is accurate as far as averages go. If you don't know the person, that supplies your best information until better information becomes available.
Emily average IQ 100
Lakisha average IQ 86 (US)
“We know empirically that white conservatives are less likely to be interested in getting along with racial minorities.”
Wowee, I'd like to see the definitions and assumptions that went into that "empirical" result. I suspect the only objective term in that statement is "white."
A corollary is when white liberals get outraged at things black people shrug off.
Clearly black people don't know enough to be outraged, so white liberals must show them how.
See: Franklin at Thanksgiving.
When you stand back, it might not be because you don't care. It could be that you think other people are able to handle their own life.
Althouse is now undermining the entire foundation of the Democrat Party.
Say you're quoting someone else who has used the word "niggardly." If you're 'liberal', you change it to a simple term like "cheap." If you're conservative you keep the original word and have your career ruined.
Treating people as equals doesn't mean assuming they're smart.
In their role as “impression managers"...
This is such an interesting phrase. My first take was to wonder who appointed liberals to that role? It sounds like some kind of human relations job. But that's a misreading. The "role" is the role that all people take on in their attempt to influence the perceptions of other people. In that context, the phrase "interested in getting along" is intentionally shallow.
There are layers upon layers of impression management going on in this article.
White liberals have always been hypocrites and racists at the core. They are of the view that blacks are so functionally helpless they can't even obtain ID cards. White liberals 'had to' show southern blacks how to gain their civil rights. The 'white man's burden' attitude.
The niggardly problem is an example of white cowardice. The problem could have been fixed tactfully without embarrassing anybody. Instead it got blown up and is now a standing example of how stupid black people are.
Dealing with niggardly tactfully would have been done by code shifting; what is being disparaged was in fact the solution.
Time to re-read Tom Wolfe's "Radical Chic." It's all in there.
One of the most amusing parts is how Lenny and Felicia solve the servant problem: when mixing Upper East-Siders with Black Muslims for canapes and drinks, hire Central Americans as servers.
This goes to my contention that a lot of white liberal responses are really a matter of guilt. They are racist, but feel guilty about it, so are trying to work out this guilt.
This is an issue because responding to a situation out of guilt can be very ego-oriented, the goal is to assuage the guilt. Responding because of concern for the other is more results driven, ie what actually solves the crisis. But guilt is a huge motivator for action, while concern can become lost in the shuffle. Leading progressives to seem more engaged with the problem, while not actually as engaged in solving the crises themselves.
It's also why there's such vehemence against conservatives, because in pushing back against perceived responses by progressives, it evokes an ego-response that is trying to overcome guilt. That guilt responds with more passion and anger in order to even better atone.
This also feeds into the assumption that "everyone" is racist, because that flattens the moral field and expresses the tendency to generalize one's own perceptions.
The trouble with conservatives is that there are actual racists, who don't feel guilty, and non-racists, who don't need to feel guilty, in the same movement, but they can sound the same to someone who is racist and feeling guilty. Those who feel guilty need a scapegoat to attach their sins, and conservatives are an accessible, socially allowed, option. And there's just enough actual racists to give broad justification for generalizing everyone.
“We know empirically that white conservatives are less likely to be interested in getting along with racial minorities.”
Ridiculous. The only interest most white liberals have in racial minorities is their votes. And maybe the occasional drug purchase [see Kennedys].
This also feeds into black activists assumptions about white racism, as they actually are encountering forms of racism among those who seem to be on their side in a cause. And if people on your own political side are expressing a dysfunction, it must be even worse among those who aren't within a movement.
If you’re in a book club, wouldn’t you be in the same room as Lakisha and know her? Isn’t that worse?
I would LOVE to see the questions on the survey that precipitated this "We know empirically that white conservatives are less likely to be interested in getting along with racial minorities"
So liberals are guilty of white-splaining.
"We know empirically that white conservatives are less likely to be interested in getting along with racial minorities."
Cydney Dupree shouldn't worry her nappy little head about it.
When I write documentation for software, I deliberately use simple words because English is not everyone's first language. So may I conclude that liberals think Blacks aren't native speakers?
The "empirical" knowledge that "white conservatives are less likely to be interested in getting along with racial minorities" - and this study itself! - might be worth discussing if only we didn't know that nearly all "science" in "psychology" is unreplicatable junk reaching conclusions unsupported by anything with "results" filtered through the lens of the "scientists"' prebaked ideas?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psychology
But it is all junk - or mostly junk and there's no way to pull the wheat from the chaff - so why bother getting worked up about it?
"We know empirically that white conservatives are less likely to be interested in getting along with racial minorities."
Or white liberals.
Or anyone, for that matter.
if conservatives weren't so awful they'd be just as racist.
If you were being fair racial relations have traditionally been a conservative blind spot.
The Jim Crow South was filled with conservative Christians, but very few managed to demonstrate moral leadership on the evils of segregation. When the Civil Rights movement arrived, most Southern conservatives deferred to their fear of change instead of subjecting their instincts to harsh review. They couldn’t answer what we now know to have been an easy question.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/nicholas-phillips/what-my-fellow-conservatives-can-learn-from-the-left
"white conservatives are less likely to be interested in getting along"
Emphasis added. Given the results of the broader survey, it seems white conservatives don't have a proactive interest in that as a goal, but are actually better about getting along in actual interaction.
"Liberals" . . . the funniest, stupidest people on the planet.
I read an article at least 5 years ago Aff Action was affecting college kids. They interviewed kids from Northwestern.
You have a generation who doesn’t think they earned the right to be there when they did.
That’s not healthy. No dignity.
If you were being fair racial relations have traditionally been a conservative blind spot.
IF you’re being fair, they voted Democrat.
"dumb themselves down" = Affirmative Diction.
As Hombre already noted, it's the soft bigotry of low expectations, which conservatives have been pointing out for years. Nice to see that psychologists have finally "discovered" this.
Very interesting. John McWhorter has mentioned observing this issue a lot.
I’d be really interested to see a similar experiment done with perceived sex as the test. I’d bet that a lot of liberals who as constantly patting themselves on the back about claiming that they think women are so superior don’t live it in the least.
It would be nice if people were judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, but that will never happen. I shouldn't have brought it up. It sounds so racist.
There’s absolutely no reason CPS should be terrible. It’s a mindset.
Being held to expectations is not white privilege.
Long ago someone (Voltaire?) commented that your enemy may take pity on you in your misery and let you go; your well-wishers and ostensible protectors, never.
White Democrats believe, strongly, in Affirmative Action.
Because they are racists, both believing blacks are inferior, as a group, and not wanting the same "rule of law" to apply equally.
Under Jim Crow Democrats of 70 years, white Dems thought it was OK to treat blacks worse, because they were inferior. Now white Dems think that blacks must be treated better, that Harvard needs to allow more blacks in with lower test scores, that companies need to give special treatment to blacks and hire more blacks as VPs, because they believe blacks are inferior.
White Dems, empirically, feel guilty about their own beliefs that blacks are inferior.
White Reps officially don't care about the differences in group averages, but want all people, whites, blacks, Asians, to be treated with the same laws & rule & standards, including blacks and Asians getting into Harvard, and even women passing the same tough strength tests as men to be accepted as marines.
Instead it got blown up and is now a standing example of how stupid black people are.
My take is different. It's an example of how shallow leftist are. I always put myself in the story and ask how I would react. I had never heard, or read the work niggardly. I would have kept my mouth shut. Not made any assumptions. Its a risk benefit analysis. Whats the benefit of verbalizing anything? Whats the risk? Repeatedly, my experience tells me keeping my mouth shut is usually the bigger payoff.
Now that I know the word, I do tend to drop it in the middle of a conversation to read reactions.
The niggardly, story shows the same shallowness as the story from >30 years ago about the congressional debate in the transportation committee, about removing the cattle guards from interstate on ramp, off ramp construction and maintenance. I think? A congress women from Colorado was against the idea until she had assurances about retraining those cattle guards who would lose their jobs.
A shallow knee jerk response that is based on leftist conditioning
I have long thought the dirty secret of modern liberalism, and the heart of affirmative action, is progressives' deep-seated, yet unacknowledged, almost metaphysical, assumption that blacks and (to a slightly lesser degree) hispanics really are inferior: that is, incapable of intellectual work at the highest levels (except in very rare cases), incapable of functioning as independent adults without the supervision of their progressive betters in the bureaucracy, and unable to get past a low level of culture.
In liberals' view, it's critical to control blacks because they are the most easily controlled and likely to be most loyal to their liberal masters.
"Was there a scientific study done that determined that liberals are more "well-intentioned" than conservatives?"
Bravo, Ms. Althouse! You make me proud to be one of your readers when you cut right to the heart of the matter in this way.
White liberals may "unwittingly" draw on negative stereotypes, dumbing themselves down in a likely well-meaning...
by White liberals they mean Democrats, and by Democrats they mean Slave holding Plantation owners. . .
It's the way they've Always Been, it's the way they'll Always Be
IF you’re being fair, they voted Democrat.
You are correct. What about it?
John said...
If you were being fair racial relations have traditionally been a conservative blind spot.
"The Jim Crow South was filled with conservative Christians, but very few managed to demonstrate moral leadership on the evils of segregation. When the Civil Rights movement arrived, most Southern conservatives deferred to their fear of change instead of subjecting their instincts to harsh review. They couldn’t answer what we now know to have been an easy question."
Maybe, but this was back when they were Democrats, party affiliation being more indicative of their position for-or-against segregation in their community. The racists who misused and gave "states rights" a bad name were Democrats.
Are people really not aware that there used to be liberal republicans and conservative democrats? I mean it was all that long ago.
hawkeyedjb said...
"Wowee, I'd like to see the definitions and assumptions that went into that "empirical" result. I suspect the only objective term in that statement is "white."
Not sure about that. You can be genetically 1,024/1,025 white and still claim to be Native American. You can have Peruvian and African-American ancestry yet be labeled by the media as white (Hispanic).
Well, that would help explain why the great majority of visible racists are liberals, and why they talk and act like if not for them, all minorities would be helpless.
Now we need that next bit--does it work in ingratiating them to minorities, or are teh minority people put off by the condescension... or even aware of it?
The racists who misused and gave "states rights" a bad name were Democrats.
But we aren't talking about Democrats or Republicans. We're talking about liberals and conservatives. There used to be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, as you know.
i just saw this in a comment on the WSJ:
The Democrats in Congress worry about the welfare of Americans the same way Colonel Sanders worries about the welfare of his chickens.
take out the words 'in Congress' and it explains everything
John, WE'RE talking Democrats and Republicans, you're the one pretending that when Cydney and Susan say 'liberals' that they don't mean slave holding plantation owners
Gee, color me surprised.
By their very infatuation with race/gender/etc./etc., liberals are showing their inherent biases. Didn't take a study from Yale to establish that. Just look around.
Blogger mockturtle said..."White liberals have always been hypocrites and racists at the core. They are of the view that blacks are so functionally helpless they can't even obtain ID cards."
In this case, it's hard to know how much of the motivation is the facilitation of fraud. Embrace the power of "And", I guess.
If you want to hear liberals go apeshit racist, just say nice things about Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas. It took the Smithsonian a year to remember that there is a black man on the Supreme Court.
If any black person is in the mood to desegregate some minds, just walk around wearing a MAGA hat. I imagine you will hear all sorts of unbelievable shit. Not to mention the stares. Complete strangers will say shit to you.
Liberals don't see human beings, they see categories. They see boxes to check. It's how their minds are organized.
Ann gets snarky about "are (liberals)more "well-intentioned" than conservatives?"But indeed that is the standard in our culture (last 50 years)as well as liberals have the high moral ground. The con game started in the 60s with a convergence of the Civil rights movement,the Vietnam War and the 50s Frankfurt School's attacked on American traditions , abetted by media and the Alinsky rule . From that point forward all those groups that have been victimized, blacks, jews and women have been given the the high moral ground and conservatives have been classified as hypocrite, religious fanatics ,narrow-minded and authoritative. These groups played this victimization meme ad naeusem. Sadly reality has a way of showing up and we find that these groups are no more moral than conservatives.
So to answer Ann's question , yes it has been tacitly assumed for the last 50 years.
Also we find out that when their well-intentioned programs failed they didn't seriously attack the problem but became irrational(PM) and doubled down.It thus became apparent that the "well-intentioned " plans were more a power grab than social justice.
Listen how Obama speaks to everybody.
John said...
But we aren't talking about Democrats or Republicans. We're talking about liberals and conservatives.
Why exactly am I prohibited from presenting the counter argument that racial segregation was more correlated with party affiliation than ideology?
Hagar: Long ago someone (Voltaire?) commented that your enemy may take pity on you in your misery and let you go; your well-wishers and ostensible protectors, never.
C.S. Lewis: “Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under the omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Honestly upper class white liberals seem to believe in their innate superiority in all things. They seem to believe they're morally and intellectually superior to every other race and class, and it's their duty to rule and guide the lessor beings. In their view, the poor helpless black and brown folks need to be protected from the foolish, gun loving poor rural whites who are clearly all racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, and just deeply ignorant.
In their minds, they themselves can't be racist since they're so far above all that.
I think this sort of thinking is at the root of most of our current political acrimony in this country.
“White liberals may unwittingly draw on negative stereotypes, dumbing themselves down in a likely well-meaning, ‘folksy,’ but ultimately patronizing, attempt to connect with the outgroup,” argues the paper, titled “Self-Presentation in Interracial Settings: The Competence Downshift by White Liberals.”...
An evergreen theme of conservative blog commenters. Even George W Bush called it the "soft bigotry of low expectations” and yes, it’s true of liberals who are the real racists if by racist you mean believing that people of color are inherently less intelligent.
Ann gets snarky about "are (liberals)more "well-intentioned" than conservatives?"
Yes, obviously liberals understand that it’s simply insupportable to treat blacks as equals. This may explain my personal observation that blacks may vote for liberals, but as individuals, they seem to get along best with whit conservatives, who, BTW, in my experience, have values that most closely align with most blacks.
I have said in the past that if you took a random black lady on the street and appointed her to the SCOTUS, conservatives could do far worse. As long has she hasn’t been to college.
White left sound the klaxons!
EDH: "Why exactly am I prohibited from presenting the counter argument that racial segregation was more correlated with party affiliation than ideology?"
Because democrats need to transfer their historical guilt to republicans in order to complete their rewriting and scrubbing of history for current day political purposes.
Its a very Soviet thing to do.
it’s true of liberals who are the real racists if by racist you mean believing that people of color are inherently less intelligent.
OK, let's suppose it were true on average. Maybe--on average--women are less intelligent than men. But do I, as a woman, want to be prejudged by the average intelligence of my gender? Hell no! And if I were black, it would anger me to be similarly judged.
Honestly upper class white liberals seem to believe in their innate superiority in all things.
I always thought it’s a fight for eternal Prom King and Queen status.
John, WE'RE talking Democrats and Republicans,
And the poster I was referring to was talking about Democrats and Republicans c. 1960. At that time there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. It makes for more precise language to not conflate the meaning of different words.
1,024/1,025
That should be 1023/1024.
The Road to Hell is psved with “good intentions.”
It happens, but it's not about race. Well-schooled people of every color speak more plainly to 'blue collar' workers - mechanics, plumbers, roofers, 7-11 cashiers, etc - because they don't want to seem like hoity-toity assholes. Is it condescending, I suppose. But the intention is to avoid coming off as 'better than you.' Unfortunately, a lot of blue-collar workers - or perceived ones - are well-educated and can handle "integral" as well as "super-important."
are well-educated and can handle "integral" as well as "super-important."
Super-important reminds me of overly perky corporate speak. "Here at Acme Software Widgets we think customer engagement is super-important."
So, who are the racists?
Said white liberal will also speak to Emily in that way if she is not in a peer or superior class. It's what they do.
Is it condescending, I suppose. But the intention is to avoid coming off as 'better than you.'
It was in Iowa, IIRC, that most of the Presidential candidates were campaigning in their mandatory checked shirts and jeans. Trump flew in wearing dark suit and red tie and the Iowans loved him. Candidates often believe, as do the media, that the 'masses' don't know condescension when they see it.
And the poster I was referring to was talking about Democrats and Republicans c. 1960. At that time there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. It makes for more precise language to not conflate the meaning of different words.
It’s nonsense.
Chicago is a known Democrat stronghold and has been for decades. And still segregated, but it seems it lost that title to Madison.
that ought to wrap it up for Ann today.
Some people write "basura" on the trash they leave outside their corporate office door at night. They obviously believe that the cleaning crew, Jorge and Maria Jose, don't know the English word equivalent.
Chicago is also known for being Catholic if you want to being the religious Christian element in.
talk "Democrat" to me, cuz I'ze dumm.
and lady, you gots any hot sauce in yo' purse, by chance? If so-- you gots my votes!!
I was hoping the study authors would rethink their priors with their results. A shame they cannot.
Initially, when I saw the Althouse headline, I thought, "oh! A dumb study that fits my biases," but as I read the set up, I thought it was better than I expected.
The difference is quite simple. Most Conservatives are naive fellows who actually believe in being color blind and treating everyone equally.
Liberals believe in tribes and identity politics. White Men Bad. Black Women good. Jews this. Muslims that. And so on.
So, of course they behave differently when speaking to a member of the Black Tribe.
You tried to make an argument about a certain group. I merely pointed out other options.
Fernandistein said...
"That should be 1023/1024."
Dang! I knew I should have looked that up first!
But do I, as a woman, want to be prejudged by the average intelligence of my gender?
Do I, as a human, want to be prejudged by the average intelligence of my species?
Hell no! And if I were black, it would anger me to be similarly judged.
That is unfortunate.
As for the subject of this thread, rhhardin @9:03 summed it up properly. If all you knew about the person was their age, you'd speak differently to 6 year-olds, 20 year-olds and 90 year-olds despite the fact that the 6 year-old just might be the smartest.
Affirmative action makes both the racial and sexual effects worse because it distorts what should be the non-racial/sexual information you'd use to "judge" somebody; you can't assume that a black female with some official qualifications or position - e.g. an MD - is actually as qualified as a white male with the same qualifications or position.
John, 9:22:
"If you were being fair racial relations have traditionally been a conservative blind spot."
Now, if you want to be fair, you might consider two factors here. You're not wrong, but there are two huge amplifying factors at work here.
First, liberals, who represent huge majorities in the media and academia, and therefore have an outsized voice in framing the problem publicly, view racism as by definition a conservative trait, and anti-racism as by definition liberal. Charlton Heston marched with the Reverend King, and was deeply proud of that to the end of his days? Firebrand and borderline loon "B-1 Bob" Dornan used to go down to Mississippi in dress uniform and register black voters? Well, OK, they were conservatives but on race they were liberals. Woodrow Wilson thought blacks should be grateful for segregation, and personally re-intensified segregation in DC and the military? Well, OK, he may have been a huge progressive but on race he was conservative. See what I'm doing here?
Second, "conservative" runs together people who oppose or at least distrust change as a matter of principle and temperament, with people specifically seeking to conserve the classically liberal tradition of the Founders. There's overlap there, to be sure. But to the former, segregation would have been an institution, one assumed to have come about for good reason. To the latter, it was a betrayal of founding principles, and one that needed to be remedied even if that meant sweeping change.
See also the famous old NYT opener, "Conservatives in the Kremlin have cracked down on the importation of a number of books to the Soviet Union, including..."The Conscience of a Conservative," by Barry Goldwater. Conservatism can mean very different things. It's to liberals' political and cultural advantage to run them all together.
As noted above, its also a class thing.
Its always some rich liberal twit like John Kerry who panders outrageously to what he thinks are the boobs in Fly-over land.
Most conservatives like Bush II or Trump either don't pander, or they naturally have a feel for average people. Bill Clinton has it too, while Hillary doesn't.
It used to be most of our Presidental candidates were from average middle (or lower) circumstances. Ike, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Carter, etc. I think being in the Military helped too. The only exception was JFK and Bush I.
Wasn't there a video of Hillary Clinton from a couple of years ago showing Queen Cacklepants addressing a mostly Black gathering? It shows her talking like she's some ghetto
preacher.
I'm always embarrassed when educated Caucasians start talking Ebonics.
The author , who I assume is also a white liberal, displays obvious bias and stereotyping in a paper describing the same thing by other white liberals. They do this even when they should be most aware of it, but they have no self-awareness. Being self-described as the good people makes that unavoidable.
Associating with which group would a black person accomplish the most, people who consider you incompetent or those who expect more from you and who actually treat as an equal? Which group should Blacks trust more?
JPS reminded me of a joke in National Review in response to that NYT article about "conservatives" in the Kremlin banning a book by Barry Goldwater. "Hey," NR said, "we're conservative, but not THAT conservative!"
"Is it condescending, I suppose. But the intention is to avoid coming off as 'better than you."
Which you would only do if you thought you were. Why would someone assume such a thing based on race? I think there is a word for that.
White liberals have parent-child relationship with black people.
Liberals dumb themselves down in front of blacks - because they are racist.
Goes back to 2007 at least.
sorry - this will make your ears bleed
let me FIFY
When you stand back, it might not be because you don't care. It could be that you think other women are able to handle their own life.
Althouse is now undermining the entire foundation of Feminism.
Ah..the rock solid realm of Social Science.
"“We know empirically that white conservatives are less likely to be interested in getting along with racial minorities.”
I think this notion is correct, but perhaps the wording is incorrect. I'm a libertarian, but I was a conservative, and it wasn't that I was less likely to be interested in getting along with racial minorities, it was that I did not care that they were minorities I was getting along with. It didn't matter.
"sorry - this will make your ears bleed"
But the crowd ate that shit up.
It's a new version of the old trope that white Southerners liked individual black people but not as a group, and white Yankees liked black people as a group but not as individuals.
"If any black person is in the mood to desegregate some minds, just walk around wearing a MAGA hat. I imagine you will hear all sorts of unbelievable shit."
I just went out to lunch. There was a pop-up Trump stand selling Trump 2020 goods (side note -- has this ever happened before for any other candidate?) It was helmed by an African-American man. Where I live, though, he's probably not hearing that unbelievable shit. He's probably getting a decent amount of support.
Ralph L,
See also: "In the South they don't care how close you get, as long as you don't get too high. In the North, they don't care how high you get, as long as you don't get too close."
I’m actually to the point with the Feminism junk that they all secretly want to be moms and nag nag nag. They just didn’t want to physically become moms. I’m looking at the boomers. I’ve had boomer females come up to my daughter and correct her. Nag nag nag they’re not her mom. Go raise your own.
It’s like it’s hardwired or something.
I don’t want to form relationships with minorities. I want to form them with people.
"If any black person is in the mood to desegregate some minds, just walk around wearing a MAGA hat. I imagine you will hear all sorts of unbelievable shit."
My biracial daughter does often wear her MAGA hat. She also has a Proud Deplorable tee shirt.
John said...
Are people really not aware that there used to be liberal republicans and conservative democrats? I mean it was all that long ago.
It's revealing someone who recognizes the time distinction cites views from 75 years ago as representative of conservatives today. I'm starting to think left wingers understand the concepts but only apply them when it suits their argument and ignore them when it blunts their attacks on their enemies.
That would be so disappointing.
Known Unknown said...There was a pop-up Trump stand selling Trump 2020 goods (side note -- has this ever happened before for any other candidate?) It was helmed by an African-American man.
--
Quick, well intentioned Liberals! Get over there and inform him he's voting against his own interests!
Or form a mob and drum him outta there.
Maybe it would be easier if we could list the instances when leftists aren't condescending.
Maybe it would be easier if we could list the instances when leftists aren't condescending.
Yup. I'm currently reading about Mao's Red Guard. Teenagers and college students being condescending to virtually everyone else. And condescension led to bullying and later re-education camps and much worse. It sounds all too familiar. We are constantly being 're-educated' by the Left.
Diversity or color judgments are applied to color, sex, gender, height, girth, motherhood, etc.
"We know empirically that white conservatives are less likely to be interested in getting along with racial minorities."
Conservatives may be less interested in tokenism, sure. It is my experience -- and therefore empirical evidence -- that white liberals love to tick off boxes when accumulating their circle of social friends. And it's not unusual to hear liberals praise the concept of "color consciousness" as opposed to "color blindness," which they regard as some sort of plot by conservative to deny racial injustices.
On the average, liberals are far more aware of and concerned about race, and so they think more in terms of race than conservatives do.
You gotta know your audience.
Actually, people do that kind of thing all the time, not just for racial reasons, and not just for the sake of literal comprehensibility. I'm old enough to remember when John Kerry went to Ohio and asked “Can I get me a huntin' license here?”.
This story reminds me of the teacher in Everybody Hates Chris. She means well, but she's convinced that Chris's daddy is in jail and his mamma is a crack whore.
"We know empirically that white conservatives are less likely to be interested in getting along with racial minorities."
Or maybe it's that I try to treat people equally and deserving of some baseline of respect regardless of their color.
Or maybe I don't go seeking out racial minorities to be my token minority friend, but nor would I shun them.
To do otherwise would strike me as rather condescending and racist.
tcrosse: "Listen how Obama speaks to everybody."
Obama is house but he knows when to sound field.
Usually it's word word word word folks word word word...
Would that SNL skit that Anne posted be appropriate?
Char Char Binks said...
Actually, people do that kind of thing all the time, not just for racial reasons, and not just for the sake of literal comprehensibility. I'm old enough to remember when John Kerry went to Ohio and asked “Can I get me a huntin' license here?”.
Actually, it was here in Iowa (okay, technically not Here, but northwest Iowa), which made it hysterical; on account of because WE Iowan's don't talk that way.
Of course, you're talking about the guy that went to Philly, to get a cheesesteak, on camera; and then asked if they could make it with swiss cheese (which, NO was NOT on the menu*). HOW do you go to a stereotypical place for a campaign stop and not have your handlers pre-learn what's important**
menu* cheese wiz or provolone [geno's across the street gives the extra option of american]
what's important** just going to Pat's was going to alienate half of Philly. What he should have done was
a) called me, and i would have told him to
b) go to BOTH places
c) at each one, ASK THEM what you should get
d) eat it
e) when the press asked you which was your favorite, say
f) after only eating one of each, i could tell they both were Delicious!
Holy SHIT! it WAS in Ohio!
Char Char i plead Des Moines Register syndrome
All Iowans ALWAYS assume that the story is about them
I swear it was reported here that he was hunting Here!
sorry!
he did hunt in iowa, on oct 30 2004, in Colo which is as close to the middle of the state as you can get.
so week after ohio, he was hunting in iowa... Probably when the ohio reports came out
rhhardin is wrong.
The membership in the book club, in itself, will tell you more about IQ than the black-sounding name.
Categorizing a random individual's IQ by membership in a group is an example of the ecological fallacy.
A book club group is self-selecting, rather than random, so the ecological fallacy doesn't apply.
For the same reason you can't infer a black person is more athletic than average, but you could infer a member of a sports team is more athletic than average.
This stuff is easy to see when you aren't talking about IQ.
Short version: someone with an 86 IQ isn't joining a book club.
"The membership in the book club, in itself, will tell you more about IQ than the black-sounding name."
Do book clubs have IQ requirements? It's not math club.
First rule of book club -- you do not talk about IQ at book club!
So, am I insensitive because I’m a conservative or am I a conservative because I’m insensitive?
I’ll bet it’s the latter.
INTJ.
Except that M-B is not rigorous....
White liberals speak to black people? I thought they just listened in worshipful silence atoning for their privilege...
In exchange for whites dropping 15 verbal IQ points
blacks should pretend they have no rhythm when dancing with whites
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा