Alarming News

January 30, 2006

One Way or Another (by guest blogger Dorian Davis)

…we WILL prove Republicans racist.

Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases

Via: Drudge Report

Posted by Dorian at 11:33 AM |
Technorati Tags:

I think that it is easy not to be a racist when you live in vermont, and every single person in the state is white. I would be interested to see how the study breaks down on Urban/rural lines. My anecdotal experience in New York is that progressive/liberal/socialist whites who pride themselves on not being racist often are.
If the study’s Republicans were Southern, and their Dems were from non-diverse New England areas, you might expect that result.

Posted by: Sam L. at January 30, 2006 at 12:45 pm

“Volunteers shown visual images of blacks in contexts that implied they were getting welfare benefits were far more receptive to Republican political ads decrying government waste than volunteers shown ads with the same message but without images of black people.”
This true for many people Democrats and Republicans especially if you are around the Welfare community all the time.

Posted by: PAUL at January 30, 2006 at 1:39 pm

My extended family all lives in rural Kentucky. They are all Republican, and chief among their political concerns are those that target mostly minorities – immigration, welfare and gay marriage (ironically, not one of these issues really even affects their daily lives in rural KY).
I am certain that racism exists in every demographic and political affiliation, but I would bet all I have that there is a stronger correlation between conservatives and racism than in liberals and racism.

Posted by: delbrians at January 30, 2006 at 1:47 pm

I disagree, Del. I don’t think there is anything more racist than implying that minorities can’t succeed on a level platform as white people, something that is inherent in affirmative action.
Also, I find that the south is much more integrated than the north. Like Sam said above, it’s easy to not be racist when you’ve never met someone of a different race.

Posted by: Karol at January 30, 2006 at 1:52 pm

This is a silly theory.
I’m gay.
I’m unapologetic about being gay (in fact, I would not have it any other way) and yet, mysteriously, I’m able to support the Iraq War, oppose the New Deal, and vote for President Bush.

Posted by: Dorian Davis at January 30, 2006 at 1:52 pm

Have you seen our major urban areas controlled by left-wing Democrats? Those Democrats give minorities no police protection, terrible schools and little city services. Tour those minority areas and you can only come to one conclusion-all left wing Democrats are racist pigs.

Posted by: Jake at January 30, 2006 at 2:09 pm

Karol – Please elaborate on “…the south is much more integrated than the north.” In Texas and KY, two states where I have lived, their were always distinct black/mexican and white neighborhoods.
Dorian – I didn’t make a theory, just posed a wager. Another thing, populations are different than individual observations. You can never expect perfect homogeneity in a population, so you being gay doesn’t disprove the correlation.
Jake – You are describing an urban effect and not a partisan effect. The same statement can be made on Republican run urban areas.

Posted by: delbrians at January 30, 2006 at 2:40 pm

Let’s go to a seafood restaurant in Tramway, North Carolina, and then to a high-class restaurant on the Upper East Side. In which location do you expect to find a larger mix of black and white people?

Posted by: Dorian Davis at January 30, 2006 at 3:13 pm

I’ve lived in three major metropolitan areas – St. Louis, Detroit, and Atlanta, and Atlanta is by far the most integrated. (St. Louis is a healthy second, if anyone cares. The only reason Detroit finishes third is because it is mathematically impossible for it to finish any lower.)
Down here – both in the city of ATL and surrounding communties – I see more integrated schools and neighborhoods, and going out in public, more integrated groups of friends than I’ve seen anywhere else I’ve lived. I’m sure it’s not true everywhere in the South – but in at least some areas – the fact that Southerers were forced (literally at gunpoint, in some circumstances) to confront issues of integration seems to have borne fruit.

Posted by: Gib at January 30, 2006 at 3:16 pm

Dorian – Your question is based on economic rather than physical boundries. Who is more integrated is virtually an unprovable argument when only anecdotal evidence is the proof. Furthermore, all of the arguments in these comments are based on such evidence and thus don’t bear much weight. The only solid support comes from the article.

Posted by: delbrians at January 30, 2006 at 3:30 pm

Anecdotal evidence is sufficient to disprove this ridiculous “study” because 1) it is in concert with common sense and 2) it stacks upon many anecdotal cases, resulting in a matrix of circumstantial evidence that dubunks this theory. I hesitate to give it any credibility whatsoever, because I consider it “junk science,” but part of the explanation for this result is probably the fact that white liberals in New England simply have no experience with black people and, therefore, have missed the opportunity to form either a positive or a negative bias toward them, as we feel toward all people in our lives. I never felt anything toward people without computers who sit at the tables next to the power outlets at Starbucks until I came into contact with these people on a daily basis; it doesn’t mean that I hate them or want to enslave them, or ban them from Starbucks; it only means that I’ve formed an impression of them based on my experience.

Posted by: Dorian Davis at January 30, 2006 at 3:43 pm

I bet if you asked 5 liberals they could come up with anecdotal evidence to support the study. W/o even knowing the facts, most people will decide the validity of this study based on their political leanings. I am certainly biased, and so are you in this debate. Neither of us can substantiate this study because we don’t know enough.

Posted by: delbrians at January 30, 2006 at 3:59 pm

If you’d like to admit that you “don’t know enough” to substantiate this survey, I will accept that. But you can’t really speak for me.

Posted by: Dorian Davis at January 30, 2006 at 4:02 pm

I know enough to form an opinion, just as you have, but as a statistician and scientist by training, I refuse to state anything objectively without emperical proof.
The article mentions “…the research ha[s] not yet been published.” How come you know so much about it. Also, where does New England come up in the article? How do you know this? How do you base your argument on evidence that isn’t there?

Posted by: delbrians at January 30, 2006 at 4:14 pm

There is enough information to form an opinion, as you have done, but as a statistician by training and profession, I won’t state anything objectively without empirical proof.
Further, the article states that the research hasn’t been published yet. How do you know so much about it then? Also, where in the article are New England whites mentioned? Are you basing your arguments on evidence that isn’t there?

Posted by: delbrians at January 30, 2006 at 4:17 pm

oops – posted twice.

Posted by: delbrians at January 30, 2006 at 4:29 pm

I’m basing my arguments on common sense, which is precisely what I stated above when we discussed whether this article could be disproven with anecdotal evidence. Also, though I respect your profession, and admire you for pursuing further education, the fact that you are a “statistician in training” really doesn’t factor into this discussion since credentials are not necessary for practicing common sense.

Posted by: Dorian Davis at January 30, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Post a comment