There was a study conducted which found that white liberals “downshift” their presented competency when interacting with people they perceive as black. Conservatives did no such thing, and interacted with perceived blacks the same as they acted with perceived whites.
There was also an evaluation of the speeches of liberal and conservative politicians. They found that liberals dropped references to “agency” and “power” when speaking to audiences perceived as black. Conservatives did no such thing. The authors say this is because conservatives don’t want to interact with outgroups. This could be true. Conservatives could also feel that black people don’t want to hear what conservatives have to say because conservatives make assumptions about the political preferences of black people.
I’m more interested in the perceptions liberals have of black people. I believe the study has demonstrated that liberals treat people differently solely because of their race, and that this informs their preferred political policies. They believe they must be the “white knight” for black people because they are viewed as less competent. They also believe that “agency” is not worth discussing in front of black people. For me this strengthens personal anecdotal evidence of the complexities of race relations.
Perhaps liberals will view the results of the study differently.
Sounds like an example of benevolent racism. Believing that Group X is disadvantaged doesn’t necessarily mean a diminished view of them, but the two could easily go hand in hand - if you think Group X needs extra help and a boost, you may see them as needing help because of being inferior.
I believe it demonstrates that liberals view blacks as less competent. Whether they want to help them or not, that’s how they feel in the current situation. I believe this is why liberals think they need special policies to boost black people. Agency is disregarded to potentially disastrous consequences.
This isn’t really anything new. You’ll find it referred to as “code shifting”. I haven’t given it a whole lot of thought but I’m not sure it’s necessarily wrong to speak to different groups of people differently.
Also, who judged this? That is, who decided that they were speaking ‘dumb’ some people and not others? Could it be looked at as them speaking in a way that’s more likely to engage their audience? This, IIRC, is where I first heard the term.
I thought code switching was when black people talk to black people differently than they talk to whites. They change their speech to whites because they believe it will benefit them.
I don’t view changing speech patterns with different audiences as “wrong” either. I believe it does inform poor political policies to believe black people are less capable.
What difference would it make? Black people talking to black people differently than white people could be called the same thing as white people talking to white people differently than black people. Substitute any groups in there that you want.
Also, code shifting is talking to two different groups of people differently. Whether both groups speak the same language but use different vernacular or the two groups speak two totally different languages.
So, in any case, it’s still code shifting.
Fair enough, I’ve just never heard it used in that context.
Though I must say that code switching to get a job is different from doing it because you believe the audience is at a lower competency. This ignores the political consequences as well.
Yeah, so? Black people talk to white people differently than they do to black people, probably to a much greater degree. I would consider this a mild form of code-switching.
I assume the point here is supposed to be that liberals are evil bigots. But I wonder about the conclusion, since I wouldn’t “downshift” if conversing, say, with Barack or Michelle Obama, or Neil Degrasse Tyson. But let me offer an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps the real issue is that many people labeled as “liberals” are educated academics and professionals with a wide gamut of competency who are accustomed to adapting their vocabulary to different audiences. Whereas perhaps a significant number of conservatives are already cognitively in first gear, being accustomed to the vocabulary of Fox News.
I think he is a conservative, no? Must just be how he talks.
For the black example, the code being switched is from informal to formal because you think the audience expects formal.
For the white liberal example, the code switch is from full competency to lower competency because you think the audience… what? Can’t understand fully competent address? Expects simpler words? Fill in the blank please.
The poor dears can’t even tell when they are being talked down to.
And of course -
Treating someone as equal means you don’t want to affiliate with them.
Dealing with Those People is fraught with difficulty. Treat them as inferior and you are being racist. Treat them as equals and it means you don’t like them. What to do, what to do…
Regarding the Yale link, I see what they did was [objectively] count how many times certain words were used and then [subjectively] decided that it happens because white liberals think black audiences are dumb.
Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not. I’m sure [well, I’d hope] the paper goes into much more detail. On the face of it, to me, it seems more like tailoring what you’re saying to the audience in front of you.
I’d be curious about black politicians (from both sides) speaking to those same groups.
I’d also be curious if you took the same speech, spoken the same way as delivered to white liberals and presented it to black liberals, how’d they react. That is, would they feel energized to get up and vote or would it sound cold and heartless (or over their heads since that’s what the study was about)?
I see no evidence of “dumbing down” or “presuming less competence” in the linked article, despite the writers’ and researchers’ apparent assumptions. And I’ll object to the completely unsurprising well poisoning by the OP in (once again) casting liberals as malevolent racists.
I would still say there is a bigger problem if the academic believes black people should engage in a lower level conversation. It informs his poor political policies because he may have some leverage in his capacity as an expert of whatever field.
I have always felt that many well-off white liberals behave like benevolent racists towards black folks, often speaking for them and talking about them rather than to them.
I’m trying to understand why liberals would use lower level vocabulary when addressing black people. Do you have another reason they could be doing this.
I will not that have not poisoned any well. The topic is controversial, so the thinned-skin may think that. I have also not assigned malevolence to liberals. On the contrary I characterized them as “white knights”.
