That was a comment on your relationship to science, not a comment on an unrelated issue.
Why would the race of the crowd not enter their minds? If they share the same view of black people as you do, knowing they are black means they should adjust their speech for a less-educated audience.
Aside from the replacement of “melancholy” with “sad”, which could be explained by whites not wanting to compete with blacks (still think that’s suspect but I will move on), we have white liberals replacing words like “agency” and “power” with “community”. This is not a difference of levels. This is a change in messaging meant to downplay the role of the individual in society.
This reinforces criticisms libertarians and conservatives have of the liberal political program. Why should black people not be concerned about agency? Because white liberals want to be the white knight who lifts black people up against evil whites. The black person is an atom ping-ponging around in the white man’s universe. Black people rise and fall because of what the white man does and they are helpless to overcome this fate. They must bond together in communion with good whites against the bad whites.
Does Trump change his speech to reach low-education people? I just thought he spoke like that all the time. I believe the consultants train all presidential candidates to do this to one degree or another. To answer your question though, no I believe it is condescending if anyone does it.
You say that as if it helps Trump’s conservatives. It does not. It makes them look even worse.
The opposite of “condescending” is “aggrandizing”. Again, what trump is doing is corrosive in the extreme.
I do see an implied, and rushed conclusion here from some conservatives: that liberals are condescending, as just a double bluff. This is to me an attempt to make liberals weary of doing what in reality is a good thing: to communicate better with diverse groups. That was something that many conservatives and centrists in this very message boards told us it was needed to reverse the political misfortunes of the liberals, progressives and Democratic party members.
Nonsense gibberish that you can interpret to fit your preconceived notions about the evil racist “white knight” liberals? What a surprise. But feel free to completely ignore language and dialect, when talking about language usage, just like the author in the article and the researchers he described.
Or maybe you could recognize that it’s completely reasonable and appropriate for speakers to consider the dialect of their audience when crafting messaging?
My Black friends and most of my Black co-workers are very educated, intelligent people. In fact, many have “Dr.” in front of their names. I speak to them the same way I speak to any other intelligent people.
When I do dumb down my speech, it isn’t race dependent. It is dependent upon my perception of an individual’s education and intelligence. So, if I was trying to talk to a Black “gang banger” or a White Trump supporter, I would speak and act differently than I do when I talk to civilized, intelligent, educated people of any race.
Ok, got it, nothing on the study.
Would you like to offer a reason liberals would stop talking about agency and power when addressing black folks and instead talk about community? Is this a matter of dialect as well?
Ok. Would you address someone differently based solely on a name, for example “Lakisha” vs “Emily”?
If you are a white liberal, the study says probably.
I have no interest in rehabilitating Trump “conservatives”. You asked about Trump, so I told you what I thought about his speech.
Being condescending is probably the least objectionable thing liberals do to sell their snake oil. If you have a problem, talk to the authors of the study and tell them their fiindings are counterproductive. I just recognize that the findings of the study tell us about why the liberals favor certain policies.
Considering the incredible incompetence the study appears to have demonstrated so far, I’m skeptical that this is significant at all. At most, it suggests that maybe a competent team that includes linguists with expertise in the dialects of the groups in question, as well as (perhaps) sociologists and other social scientists with applicable expertise, should craft a new study that takes relevant factors like dialects and culture into account.
Your posts in this thread make it appear to me that you’re just interested in yet another line of attack in which to (without basis, IMO) denigrate liberals.
Even more questions that cannot be answered, and even more reason to realize that end the end this study is pointless, meaningless, and not worth the pixels it’s contributing to slowly burning out on my monitor.
Seriously. Can anyone relate anything in the study to someone they know? Can anyone use anything in it to draw conclusions about specific people? Of course not. One self identified extreme liberal may be someone else’s left of center moderate. It is pointless through and through.
According to the study, that’s 74 speeches by a total of seven people, by my count:
So the study is examining speeches by Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain and Mitt Romney. I am highly skeptical that a meaningful inference about liberal/conservative differences in general can be drawn from such a small sample size.
It’s called tailoring your speeches to reflect values important to your audience. Good leaders have been doing this for milleniums.
Which would indicate white liberals are more likely to respect people and try to address the people the speak with in the manner that would be most comfortable to the listener.
Ok thanks for your input.
Why would white liberals think agency is not valuable to black folks? It seems like an empowering concept. The black folks I’m familiar with value empowerment and agency just as much if not moreso than white folks. Maybe white liberals do not share this experience and do not have data to support such a claim. Unfortunate. Maybe they would adopt better policies if they did.
Why do they think white people would be more comfortable with “melancholy” while black people would be more comfortable with “sad”?
So. yeah, this is a case where some conservatives do not mind about how deep they keep digging…