Yet, that 80% of black voters aren't stupid for voting Democrat. Sure.
However, I have to say that I think Dems talk down to everyone. But given their lack of achievements on behalf of black people which actually have improved the lives of those people, the entire race is regrettably no better than a bunch of suckers being conned every election cycle. Ironic given how some regard Trump as the conman.
Of course "IF" is the key word with every bit of data you present (no matter how rare that is), yet you somehow think that opinion polls represent reality, and data is sacrosanct.
I'm not saying the study is wrong insofar as progressive-minded people may use different terms in different contexts (although, this does seem like a rather loose study, nothing definitive). I'm saying that is not an indication of racism or even being patronizing (although, it could be). As the authors say, "“Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
It COULD BE seen as patronizing, but it isn't necessarily going to be seen as patronizing.
My pastor, for instance, preaches at our church full of educated folk (black and white) and less-educated people, black and white. When she uses a more scholarly word, she'll often seamlessly weave in a definition. "The author was speaking of eschatology, or end times, when they said that, but what if..." This is not speaking down to anyone. It's recognizing that not everyone would know that term.
Do liberals sometimes talk down to people? Of course, we do. I know for a fact that it happens because I've seen it and I'm sure I've been guilty of it. I just don't know that it's any worse than with more conservative folks and I don't know that this study in any way proves that point. And it certainly doesn't prove any racism being more common amongst liberals than conservatives.
I'm not denying what the study finds. I'm saying it may not mean what you THINK it means.
"“Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
COULD BE. IF, it finds that. And that is the question.
In the mean time, you have people like Marshal and Glenn stating overtly patronizing and racist things like Marshal just said, suggesting that 80% of black people are stupid.
THAT is an example of overt patronizing, at the very least.
I see no particular reason to presume the study results are false without some analysis of the methodology used or duplicate testing with the opposite results. But given recorded speeches by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama we've seen multiple times, such a study is not required to know lefties speak to black audiences differently.
You misunderstand. Every "study" or opinion poll that Dan offers represents that absolute Truth on whatever topic is at hand. Any study (no matter how rigorous,well documented, or peer reviewed) that calls any of Dan's narratives into question must be explained away, ignored, or the behavior justified in some way. It's how things work when your norm is a double standard.
8 comments:
Yet, that 80% of black voters aren't stupid for voting Democrat. Sure.
However, I have to say that I think Dems talk down to everyone. But given their lack of achievements on behalf of black people which actually have improved the lives of those people, the entire race is regrettably no better than a bunch of suckers being conned every election cycle. Ironic given how some regard Trump as the conman.
"IF," being the key word.
Of course "IF" is the key word with every bit of data you present (no matter how rare that is), yet you somehow think that opinion polls represent reality, and data is sacrosanct.
I guess that actually demonstrating that the study is wrong would just be too much to hope for.
re: "Demonstrating the study was wrong..."
I'm not saying the study is wrong insofar as progressive-minded people may use different terms in different contexts (although, this does seem like a rather loose study, nothing definitive). I'm saying that is not an indication of racism or even being patronizing (although, it could be). As the authors say, "“Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
It COULD BE seen as patronizing, but it isn't necessarily going to be seen as patronizing.
My pastor, for instance, preaches at our church full of educated folk (black and white) and less-educated people, black and white. When she uses a more scholarly word, she'll often seamlessly weave in a definition. "The author was speaking of eschatology, or end times, when they said that, but what if..." This is not speaking down to anyone. It's recognizing that not everyone would know that term.
Do liberals sometimes talk down to people? Of course, we do. I know for a fact that it happens because I've seen it and I'm sure I've been guilty of it. I just don't know that it's any worse than with more conservative folks and I don't know that this study in any way proves that point. And it certainly doesn't prove any racism being more common amongst liberals than conservatives.
I'm not denying what the study finds. I'm saying it may not mean what you THINK it means.
"“Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
COULD BE. IF, it finds that. And that is the question.
In the mean time, you have people like Marshal and Glenn stating overtly patronizing and racist things like Marshal just said, suggesting that 80% of black people are stupid.
THAT is an example of overt patronizing, at the very least.
You understand that, right?
I see no particular reason to presume the study results are false without some analysis of the methodology used or duplicate testing with the opposite results. But given recorded speeches by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama we've seen multiple times, such a study is not required to know lefties speak to black audiences differently.
Blah, Blah, Blah, just more excuses for why liberals should be judged on their intentions, not on their actions.
Art,
You misunderstand. Every "study" or opinion poll that Dan offers represents that absolute Truth on whatever topic is at hand. Any study (no matter how rigorous,well documented, or peer reviewed) that calls any of Dan's narratives into question must be explained away, ignored, or the behavior justified in some way. It's how things work when your norm is a double standard.
Post a Comment