This one?
Any problem that doesn’t involve sexuality, drugs, international borders. That is, the three main problems they believe in larger government for are sexuality, drugs, international borders, and non-Christian faiths. I’ll come in again…
Well, that should put an end to one whine. But, somehow, I’m not optimistic.
You “hear”? Not had any, then, I take it? *Soylent Green *is just a story, but I know what it would taste like.
Don’t you think you’re acting like a pedanticer?
I don’t think this cite has been discussed:
If you look at the results, for example, 55% of white Americans who strongly disapprove of the Tea Party agree that black people are “hardworking.” Only 35% of white Americans who strongly disapprove of the Tea Party agree.
This article explains how the questions were derived, and their relationship to other polling instruments.
I take this article as fairly substantive evidence that Tea Partiers are disproportionately racist. I’d still let my daughter date one, though.
In order to disprove this theory, I’d look for similar data showing that the number of Tea Partiers who think positively of black people is similar to the number of Americans in general who think positively of black people.
I rise to quibble, sir. A puny matter, but that’s the trouble with quibbles…
The word “hardworking”. To me, and therefore to most Americans, since aging hippies are such a dominant demographic, the term “hardworking” is a positive, the kind of word a politician uses when flattering the people who hopes to rob. I daresay most conservatives have an even stronger inherent bias for that word, and probably would not characterize most people, of any stripe, as being “hardworking”.
To oversimplify, people who think well of black people are inclined to view them as “hardworking”. People who are not inclined to think well of people in general might easily be confused with people who don’t think well of black people specifically. When actually, they just don’t much like people.
Did you stay seated until you’d read both links? Because the second one explains the methodology and mentions that these questions are part of a well-respected polling instrument designed to measure attitudes toward race. If you have problems with that instrument, lay 'em out, but I think you’ll need to do a bit more reading first.
Easy, there, big horse. No one is attacking your cite or your premise. You tell me that the underlying facts support your contention despite my quibble, I am content that it is so. Because you say so. That is not a trust I toss about lightly.
No, because that’s not a word. Nor was I a pendant; I was rebutting kaylasdad99’s confident put-down of ** Qin Shi Huangdi**.
That it isn’t a word is the point of my comment.
I suppose since some hoople decided to use *illegals *as a dehumanizing noun in the late '30s gives it a pedigree.
It’s still a shitty world, and it’s meant to dehumanize its target.
I don’t think the statements are racist.
But before anything else, thank you very much for actually identifying a source with questions and a rigorous analytical methodology. I believe the issue is much clearer now, and I understand exactly why someone would say the Tea Party is fairly tagged with racism. It’s a very defensible view, and I withdraw as defeated any suggestions to the contrary.
So here’s where I don’t agree:
Simply put: I don’t agree that any of those statements are racist. “Irish, Italians, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors”; “Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class”; “Over the past few years blacks have gotten less than they deserve”; and “It’s really a matter of not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites;” are not, in my opinion, racist statements.
But I do accept that there are many ways of interpreting such statements, and that racists would likely agree with those statements in much greater percentage than the more egalitarian run of mankind. So showing the Tea Party’s disproportionate acceptance/rejection of those sentiments is both fair evidence, and stronger evidence than support for Cain.
So – point made. I’m out, with a loss.
Well, I guess if kaylasdad99 had said, “You’re only in high school, so you probably don’t know that’s a shitty word when used as a noun, and it’s meant to dehumanize people,” I probably wouldn’t have quibbled.
Since the actual statement was that it’s not a noun, though, I felt a correction was in order. You know: for the fighting, and the ignorance, and all.
What are you, then? Don’t leave us hanging!
As for your response to me, while I see what you’re saying with those statements not being explicitly racist, I do agree (if I understood what you said–otherwise I disagree) in my belief that racism would lead to a higher percentage of agreement with those statements. Furthermore, the stereotype items themselves seem to show a pretty significant trend of racism among the tea-party crowd.
The statistician himself says to take the results cautiously, and I’m willing to do so; I don’t have any strong belief that Tea-Partiers as a whole are a bunch of racists. I do, however, think that that poll provides some preliminary evidence of disproportionate racism among them, and I don’t see, for reasons that others have already mentioned, that liking Cain indicates a lack of racism.
On the contrary, I’m quite willing to believe that at least some liberals voted for Obama in the primary out of a desire to show themselves anti-racist, and I see no reasons why at least some conservatives wouldn’t feel the same motivation. Whatever else Buchanan may be wrong about, he’s (she’s?) at least correct that racists aren’t well-regarded by anyone except complete fringers in our society; conservatives don’t want to consider themselves racist any more than liberals.
Thanks, but honestly, I’d rather have the cite stand or fall on its own, not because of any trust issue or lack thereof.
Agreed, except that I regard the support for Cain as evidence, albeit weak, in the other direction. But it’s more than countered by the study and the analysis you mentioned.
That’s all conservatism is all about.
They can’t. They know the racism claims are bullshit and yet they throw them around because they have nothing better.
And they don’t care.
It’s my sense that the usage developed as a handy way of permitting people to regard other people as things.
I’m disallowing it.
Geez man, recheck your prefixes and submit again, willya?