jwest might be interested to know that many people he wishes to communicate with here skip posts that are full of "good-natured goading" that comes across mostly as vitriol, disdain, and bomb throwing. I stopped reading Shaun Mullen's posts for that reason. I also skip several regular commenters on both the left and the right on this site for that reason as well. I would list those people, but it would only start a fight.
That said, I did read almost all the comments on this post and as a linguist I found it... amusing? ironic? that jwest attacks liberals for having disdain for one dialect of English, often called a Southern accent (I've got in several similar arguments myself over this issue, though the prejudice against southern accents is not exclusively a liberal one), and yet on the other hand attacks a different dialect of English, known as Ebonics (it's also called African-American Vernacular English or sometimes Black English). In fact, his disdain for this centuries old dialect, spoken by rural people and urban people, youths and parents, workers and farmers and store owners, is so great that he seems to think if an employer has a hint that someone speaks this dialect, then they should think twice about hiring them.
GreenDreams
· 5 months ago
jwest, you are evidence enough that not having an anglo name, even with an advanced degree and years of managerial experience at a fortune 100 company, could imply a poor mastery of English. Pitiful.
Dr J
· 5 months ago
GreenDreams, IMHO those studies don't show racism. Getting hired is a competitive sales process, and the most successful candidates are the ones who can come across to hiring managers as just like rock-stars they've hired in the past. Anyone who departs from their vision in the way they dress, the dialect they speak, or the subculture they come from will be at a disadvantage. Most hiring decisions--perhaps your own experience bears this out?--are ultimately based on fear for one's own success, not hatred of the candidate or the desire to keep anyone down.
Which is to say there's no such thing as a completely level playing field. Studies do indeed confirm that minorities, the ugly, and the bald all have to work harder to do as well. The short will be severely disadvantaged to play professional basketball, the fat to be fashion models, and the crippled to be track stars. Life is unfair, and not only that, it's unfair along quite arbitrary dimensions, not along the tidy racial lines of affirmative action laws.
So liberals want to extend blacks extra help, but I disagree with jwest's characterization that it's because of genetic disadvantage. It's because the inertia built into the system makes it hard to shake the legacy of the past. It's harder for Da'Wan to get hired because the last three superstars were Josh, Steve, and Alexei, not Shaquanda, Kshawn and Tyrone. And those last three never applied, because they got diverted earlier in their careers, maybe because of the same pattern, maybe for a hundred other reasons.
At least that's one theory. Another is that they just don't want the job, or they didn't study hard enough to qualify for it, or any of a host of reasons it's presumptuous to second-guess. Either way, it's not fair to whites to claim that their prejudice is responsible for the outcome.
Even assuming blacks are reliably victims of this cultural inertia, the left and right disagree over what to do about it. In my mind, the answer is clear: demolish the legal structures keeping minorities back. But then stop, and be clear that the onus is on them to go the rest of the way--and they're going to have to work extra hard to accomplish it. It's not fair, but anything more the government tries to do creates more unfairness and works against the minorities in the long run.
pacatrue
· 5 months ago
Re-reading the quote: "but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language," I see I might have to say a bit more to explain my comment.
Ebonics is English. It's a dialect of English spoken by millions of people that has historically been centered in the black community. It is not made-up, irregular, stupid, or uneducated. It has its own rules of grammar and phonology, just like every dialect of English does. Non-native speakers trying to speak Ebonics can speak it incorrectly just like people can speak other dialects incorrectly.
Most common dialects of English differ from one another in the sounds they use, typically in the vowels. That's the biggest difference. Some dialects also differ by grammar a bit as well. Southern English has patterns like "I might could do that" and "I'm fixing to do that". Those grammatical patterns don't exist in Standard English. Ebonics also has a few different grammatical patterns, such as the use of the double negative, and the use of the word "be" for certain types of habitual patterns.
But these are all just different grammatical and phonological (sound) choices and they are all simply dialects of English. Moreover, this isn't simply an opinion. People have been studying the dialects of English for several decades now, including Ebonics. The primary grammatical structures are documented and clear. It's not political correctness. It's information.
tidbits
· 5 months ago
Pacatrue - Thank you for the brief education on Ebonics. I now know something I didn't know before you posted.
GreenDreams
· 5 months ago
Jwest, I never try to convince you of anything. I believe your views are driven by ideology and not subject to intellectual consideration. The research you seem to think is tainted, is not a single study but has been proven from England to Chicago and Australia. The Chicago link describes the study design in detail. Feel free to find flaws in it. The authors are Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
tidbits
· 5 months ago
Polimom - Attempts to redefine, or expand the definition of terms raises red flags for me. Bigotry is generally associated with immutable personal characteristics, e.g. ethicity, skin color,sexual orientation. The one exception, traditionally, is religious bigotry. Yes, I understand that the dictionary definition of the term is somewhat broader than its common usage.
When you overflow into your example "all Republicans are homophobes" or jwests examples "all liberals are closet racists" or "all liberals are idiots", you are talking more about the ramifications of ideological inflexibility and intellectual rigidity than traditional bigotry based on immutable traits.
Ascribing a loaded term like bigotry to the discussiion, even if one accepts the broad definition of that term, detracts from the more salient issue. From my perspective, this would be a cleaner discussion if it were framed in terms of what causes partisan inflexibility and intellectual rigidity in a 21st century society that defines itself along ideological lines. The sub-question would be why certain ideologically driven individuals are prone to inflate their ideology by attempting to diminish the personal worth of those who, in good faith, disagree with them.
ThurmanHart
· 5 months ago
I would simply say there's a logical fallacy at work that the person believes the only reason to oppose marriage equality is homophobia.
jwest
· 5 months ago
“Racism is when someone acts upon bigoted ethnic categorizations..”
If this statement was true, every liberal would, by definition, be racist – and we know this isn’t the case.
Liberals choose to see people as members of groups. Barack Obama isn’t a President, he’s a Black President – with all the ethnic categorizations attached. Isn’t it amazing how clean and articulate he is? Although no prominent Democrat has mentioned it publicly, they are probably also impressed how he doesn’t seem lazy and shiftless.
People on the left rationalize their views in a number of ways, but they all seem to take at face value that blacks are at least 20 points less intelligent than whites on standardized tests. It’s hard to imagine the mindset at a Klan meeting being more insulting and debilitating. This is a prime example of people acting on bigoted ethnic categorizations, and yes, it is a form of racism, but not with the stigma attached to that word.
As with most actions by liberals, their intentions are good but because of their naivety and failure to think through the unintended consequences of what they do, the results end up hurting the ones they want to help.
Liberals aren’t racist – they’re just idiots.
Polimom
· 5 months ago
jwest -- forgive me for being possibly obtuse, but... hunh?
Amazing to read a statement like "People on the left ... all seem to take at face value that blacks are at least 20 points less intelligent than whites on standardized tests" in response to a post about self-examination of one's possible biases.
You have, I take it, never met anyone on the left who does not think that. (Otherwise, I'd have to wonder whether you yourself are bigoted, rather than simply prejudiced...?) You then go on to typify this as "a prime example of people acting on bigoted ethnic categorizations".
How is that acting on anything?
jwest
· 5 months ago
Polimom,
"a prime example of people acting on bigoted ethnic categorizations".
In this statement, I define “people” as Democrats as a group, liberals in particular, “acting on” breaks down to passing affirmative action legislation, “bigoted ethnic categorizations” translates to the idea that blacks cannot compete with whites on a level playing field because of some genetic inferiority.
Your article speaks to the way people interpret different words and statements based on their own worldview and ingrained biases and prejudices. I attempted to show how a subject such as racism is viewed in a different light from the other side of the ideological spectrum with an example that would hit home to group of people who view their “open mindedness” as a badge of honor, when in reality they are much more “racist” than the southern white conservatives they enjoy deriding;
There’s no secret “codes” involved. The statement is fairly straight forward.
As an exercise, try reading the linked article by a typical New York liberal and see if you can identify the prejudices of the author.
To some, this article will seem perfectly fine. Two New Yorkers embark on an adventure to the bowels of Red State America and to everyone’s surprise, they didn’t get beat up or shot or even sodomized by toothless hillbillies.
Others will note the nuanced feelings of superiority present in the author’s words.
Polimom
· 5 months ago
jwest -- I will go read your article, but I'd like to respond separately to your comment about Affirmative Action.
I find it interesting -- nay, fascinating -- that you ascribe the underlying motives to perceived genetic inferiority in the minds of Democrats or liberals. I've never thought that was their rationale at all, even subconsciously.
I have always understood Affirmative Action to be a response to decades of systemic racism (with its obvious effects on economic or social mobility in a free society), and an attempt to level the playing field following Civil Rights legislation.
Where did you get the idea that it stems from liberal perceptions of genetic inferiority?
Polimom
· 5 months ago
jwest -- sorry it took so long. Life intervened for a few hours.
I did read your article, though, and I liked it a lot -- both in context of this discussion, and generally. Furthermore, I see where you've found nuance that doubtless set your teeth on edge.
Rather than go into great length here, though, I'm probably going to put up a separate post about that article. Something titled along the lines of, "It's a Southern Thing".
jwest
· 5 months ago
Polimom,
“Where did you get the idea that it stems from liberal perceptions of genetic inferiority?”
As I mentioned, liberals have tried to rationalize their belief of genetic inferiority many ways, one of which is the “decades of systematic racism” meme.
Perhaps the “genetic inferiority” phrase is inaccurate. It’s hard to discern if the leftist mindset is more geared to thinking others (blacks, Hispanics, non-mathematically endowed Asians, anyone with a southern accent) are inferior or if they believe everyone is basically the same and they, by virtue of their empathy, are genetically superior.
The proof is everywhere for this thesis, it simply takes someone listening for it in the way people communicate. Much like a determined leftist can detect racism and homophobia in practically every statement made by a conservative, if you stop and listen, you’ll hear the condescension dripping from the left.
casualobserver
· 5 months ago
@@I have always understood Affirmative Action to be a response to decades of systemic racism (with its obvious effects on economic or social mobility in a free society), and an attempt to level the playing field following Civil Rights legislation.@@
You must not have been around in the 60's, Polimom, when we lived through all of this as often as we are living through TV specials on Michael Jackson today.
To paraphrase the principal architect of the AA stuff.......freedom to compete is not enough, we must have equality as a result.
I don't think it is too much of a stretch to interpret this Democrat speaker's meaning to be that equal opportunity is not the goal of AA, but rather equal outcomes.
To jwest's point, if the speaker believes that outcomes must be mandated by laws, as opposed to simply having the opportunity to apply one's abilities to determine outcomes, then would not it appear the speaker believes the beneficiaries of the law do not necessarily have sufficient ability?
Polimom
· 5 months ago
CO, you're right that I wasn't around in the 60s. I came of age in the late 70s / early 80s.
As you've written it, yes, I see why you and jwest would say that. Considering how loaded this entire subject is, though, I need a link to the original statement you've paraphrased from the architect of Affirmative Action. (I don't even know who you're talking about, much less how to search it.)
Having intellectually entered the world after the fact, though, I'm less encumbered by the extreme passions that drove the Civil Rights Era. And as an adult, I reiterate: I've never heard a liberal make the case that AA is supposed to compensate for a genetic difference. And every argument I've read (there've been many) suggesting this, in fact, has come from a different direction entirely.
Also -- liberals or Democrats on this site are free to defend themselves at any time. I'm a tad uncomfortable ascribing my own interpretation to you.
jwest
· 5 months ago
CO,
Highlighting the “outcome versus opportunity” differences is exactly to the point. Leftists can’t seem to process this simple distinction in their minds.
As with the Ricci case, everyone is for equal opportunity. For someone like Sotomayor to twist the law to insure a racially balanced outcome is not only offensive to conservatives, but it should be offensive to the blacks on the fire department who failed the test. Sotomayor’s internal assumption that the poor blacks are just not capable of competing with whites and Hispanics is insulting.
tidbits
· 5 months ago
Jwest - Other than the gratuitous insult "Leftists can't seem to process this simple distinction in their minds", you make an excellent point. You have a strong intellect and are quite knowledgeable on any number of issues. Why do you find it necessary, as part of your posts, to consistently insult those who you believe might disagree with you? Your arguments would be much more compelling without the cheap shots.
casualobserver
· 5 months ago
@@I need a link to the original statement you've paraphrased from the architect of Affirmative Action. (I don't even know who you're talking about, much less how to search it.) @@
Lyndon Baines Johnson, June 4, 1965, speech to Howard University graduating class.........
"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
OK, I think jwest sprinkles some hyperbole into his posts as a goading device, but I've also noticed you tend to be too 'literal" in your absorption.
So, no, I don't think any Democrat "literally" ever spoke "genetic deficiency", but I think the implication of it is apparent enough.
Polimom
· 5 months ago
CO -- thanks for hunting that down. I see that it's the last sentence upon which this entire argument rests:
"We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
Indeed, taking that sentence and hanging it out there on its own calls into question the desired end result of the entire exercise. In context, though (and I'm sure you knew I'd say this) -- the complete quote does not support the "AA was set up to make up for a genetic deficiency" argument in any way whatsoever. I don't see, in fact, even an implication -- unless one severs the final statement from its setting, both temporally and contextually.
As for me tending to be too "literal".... yes, I absolutely do approach some discussions frontally. I've found that nuance can be too easily misread, and so I try to clarify before engaging when possible.
:>
jwest
· 5 months ago
Tidbits,
“Why do you find it necessary, as part of your posts, to consistently insult those who you believe might disagree with you?”
I think it’s a combination of a few factors.
First, what you perceive as insults are mostly good natured jabs, preserving the competitive left/right, back and forth of the website.
Sometimes, the insults are deliberate, pointed and designed to drive home a point. I would like to think I don’t engage in individually targeted attacks without provocation, but for certain authors (and rarely a commenter) I relish releasing a tirade of right-wing inspired invective.
Shaun Mullen was famous for bringing out the best of the insults. Michael Stickings and Kathy Kattenburg have filled in the gap, along with the occasional leftist dribble from guest author Walter Brasch. I’m fascinated with views from the left and try hard to understand the liberal mind, but there are limits to how long I’ll suffer these fools.
One distinction should be made though, in my favor.
When I insult someone as an individual or as a group, I realize it at the time and for the most part it is a conscious decision. The most infuriating insults (that remarkably fits in with the conversation we’ve been having) are the ones that people make through assuming something as fact – such as when liberals simply assume conservatives are racist, homophobic, bible-thumping, knuckle dragging Neanderthals.
Of course, it is hard sometimes to differentiate between the friendly pokes and the dagger tipped insults, but that comes from following the conversation in our relatively small community. If I were to eliminate the barbs completely, stylistically the world would suffer. However, I will pledge to reserve the most severe literary sodomizing to those who deserve being forcibly bent over and filled with facts, logic and reason.
tidbits
· 5 months ago
Jwest - Thanks for the explanation. I'll try in the future to subdue my "too literal absorption" and gloss over the insults as stylistically inspired.
Your response actually does play well into the discussion. Given that your "insults" tend to be stylistic, it seems to me that, unlike you, many others on both sides tend to spew hate, and more importantly make assumptions about "the other side". The initial example posed by Polimom being a good example: assuming that anyone who opposes gay marriage is homophobic. Do you see a way to break through the partisan divide in a manner that relies on mutual respect and fact gathering, leading to civil discourse rather than unwarranted assumption and contempt for those who disagree? Or do you see the tribal warfare of partisanship as a natural character trait of the human species?
jwest
· 5 months ago
Tidbits,
I would like to believe that there is some way to improve communications and understanding, but I hold little hope. This is contrary to my normally optimistic outlook and the general conservative trait of being able to overcome any obstacle.
The reason for my pessimism is best demonstrated through a visual exercise. Think of meeting a person in a KKK hood and gown. Whatever the subject of conversation, your opinion and acceptance of whatever the person is saying will be tainted or dismissed due to your negative feelings toward the symbolism of the outfit.
This is how liberals approach conversations with conservatives. Granted, conservatives come to the table thinking leftists are incredibly naive, ignorant and cowardly, so the initial biases are not one sided. But the main problem remains that regardless what the other side says, the first reaction is to dismiss their arguments as having no merit.
It’s basic Dale Carnegie material. No matter what, you never win an argument. You can prove what you’re saying fifteen different ways from Sunday and your opponent may even fold in the end and admit defeat, but as they walk away, they’ll be saying to themselves “I know I’m right and they’re wrong”.
This is why I listen and try to learn the language of the left. Hoping that someday, I’ll be able to put a sentence together that is read the same way it was written.
GreenDreams
· 5 months ago
Just a comment on the "right to compete" meme. The problem, unfortunately, is that racial prejudice is still widespread and there is not a "level playing field" right to compete. This was proven by a study done a few years ago about employment opportunities. The study submitted matched pairs of employment applications to employers. Thousands were sent out. In each pair, the applicants had identical education and work experience. The only difference was that in each pair, one had an African-American sounding name. Those applications received fewer responses, and far fewer invitations to interview than those of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant applicants, John, Mary or Bill. Prejudice is very much still with us, and we still have a long way to go to provide the opportunities for minorities that are already represented for Caucasians. The ideal that anyone can prosper with only the "right to compete" is unfortunately, not yet a reality.
jwest
· 5 months ago
GD,
Studies that use suspect methodology such as the one you mentioned lead to erroneous and unfair conclusions.
Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language. Personally, I believe that a black candidate has the edge over a white applicant if their speaking skills are equal.
Barack Obama found the need to go by “Barry” prior to his national introduction. People also know that an easily spelled and remembered name helps in business situations.
As I mentioned before, some determined people can find racism in the vacuum of space. This study was probably commissioned and carried out under this mindset.
kathykattenburg
· 5 months ago
Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language.
How?
casualobserver
· 5 months ago
And your own comment again highlights our different ways of perceiving things.
You weight all the words equally, where as I weight the punchline heavier.
No matter.........as is typical, the government has since (since the 60's) issued a bunch of bureaucratic and formulaic red tape regarding affirmative action and, is also typical, we have learned how to competently comply with the letter and totally ignore the spirit. Life goes on.
jwest
· 5 months ago
GD,
From your Chicago study:
“Bertrand cautions that employers may infer not just the race of the applicant, but also social class, assuming that certain African-American sounding names are associated with having more underprivileged backgrounds.”
Social class equals speaking ability. Just ask Eliza Doolittle.
Kathy,
“Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language.”
”How?”
How? How? Let me pause for a moment because the oxygen was temporarily sucked from my body by the shear mass of the stupidity of that question.
(sigh)
There. I seem to have recovered. Let’s pass on the particulars of this item so that I’m not accused of saying something unkind.
casualobserver
· 5 months ago
@@Kathy,
“Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language.”
”How?”@@
And you call yourself a liberal? You ought to be ashamed.
3 syllable girl's name with accent on the second.
Out of vogue white boy's name, beginning with a hard consonant, contracted and with an accented second syllable.
DLS
· 5 months ago
"Liberals choose to see people as members of groups."
[grin] Careful about that remark, J. West. It's similar to what boorish Boortz once said, pretty much the same thing. As it implies non-liberals do not, do you see the inherent problem with "Liberals..."?
What matters here is that while people make innumerable destinctions between themselves and Others of all kinds, and even react defensively to the unfamiliar, that is perfectly normal, and is not the same as "racism," "sexism," and all the rest. And, yes, charges of "racism" and "sexism" continue to be taken to the most ludicrous extremes by extremists (name befitting) on the Left, who explain every event that happens in the universe as "racist," "sexist," "classist," "occurring due to the domination of the evil heads of the established privileged-group hierarchy-patriarchy," and other related ridiculous lies and nonsense.
DLS
· 5 months ago
"Michael Stickings and Kathy Kattenburg"
Both of them rant (ironically, Kathy recently referred to the "ranting" of someone else, who did nothing of the kind), but at least Kathy isn't vicious or pathological, just a lefty activist who believes in that stuff.
I'm still surprised Shaun didn't come back to post something about McNamara, glorify wrongly the often-degenerate as well as subversive and even treasonous opposition to the Vietnam war, and somehow cast Code Pink and Move On (along with, say, the Militant as a media "beacon") as modern-day anti-Iraq-Bush-and-Cheney heroes.
All Comments
That said, I did read almost all the comments on this post and as a linguist I found it... amusing? ironic? that jwest attacks liberals for having disdain for one dialect of English, often called a Southern accent (I've got in several similar arguments myself over this issue, though the prejudice against southern accents is not exclusively a liberal one), and yet on the other hand attacks a different dialect of English, known as Ebonics (it's also called African-American Vernacular English or sometimes Black English). In fact, his disdain for this centuries old dialect, spoken by rural people and urban people, youths and parents, workers and farmers and store owners, is so great that he seems to think if an employer has a hint that someone speaks this dialect, then they should think twice about hiring them.
Which is to say there's no such thing as a completely level playing field. Studies do indeed confirm that minorities, the ugly, and the bald all have to work harder to do as well. The short will be severely disadvantaged to play professional basketball, the fat to be fashion models, and the crippled to be track stars. Life is unfair, and not only that, it's unfair along quite arbitrary dimensions, not along the tidy racial lines of affirmative action laws.
So liberals want to extend blacks extra help, but I disagree with jwest's characterization that it's because of genetic disadvantage. It's because the inertia built into the system makes it hard to shake the legacy of the past. It's harder for Da'Wan to get hired because the last three superstars were Josh, Steve, and Alexei, not Shaquanda, Kshawn and Tyrone. And those last three never applied, because they got diverted earlier in their careers, maybe because of the same pattern, maybe for a hundred other reasons.
At least that's one theory. Another is that they just don't want the job, or they didn't study hard enough to qualify for it, or any of a host of reasons it's presumptuous to second-guess. Either way, it's not fair to whites to claim that their prejudice is responsible for the outcome.
Even assuming blacks are reliably victims of this cultural inertia, the left and right disagree over what to do about it. In my mind, the answer is clear: demolish the legal structures keeping minorities back. But then stop, and be clear that the onus is on them to go the rest of the way--and they're going to have to work extra hard to accomplish it. It's not fair, but anything more the government tries to do creates more unfairness and works against the minorities in the long run.
Ebonics is English. It's a dialect of English spoken by millions of people that has historically been centered in the black community. It is not made-up, irregular, stupid, or uneducated. It has its own rules of grammar and phonology, just like every dialect of English does. Non-native speakers trying to speak Ebonics can speak it incorrectly just like people can speak other dialects incorrectly.
Most common dialects of English differ from one another in the sounds they use, typically in the vowels. That's the biggest difference. Some dialects also differ by grammar a bit as well. Southern English has patterns like "I might could do that" and "I'm fixing to do that". Those grammatical patterns don't exist in Standard English. Ebonics also has a few different grammatical patterns, such as the use of the double negative, and the use of the word "be" for certain types of habitual patterns.
But these are all just different grammatical and phonological (sound) choices and they are all simply dialects of English. Moreover, this isn't simply an opinion. People have been studying the dialects of English for several decades now, including Ebonics. The primary grammatical structures are documented and clear. It's not political correctness. It's information.
When you overflow into your example "all Republicans are homophobes" or jwests examples "all liberals are closet racists" or "all liberals are idiots", you are talking more about the ramifications of ideological inflexibility and intellectual rigidity than traditional bigotry based on immutable traits.
Ascribing a loaded term like bigotry to the discussiion, even if one accepts the broad definition of that term, detracts from the more salient issue. From my perspective, this would be a cleaner discussion if it were framed in terms of what causes partisan inflexibility and intellectual rigidity in a 21st century society that defines itself along ideological lines. The sub-question would be why certain ideologically driven individuals are prone to inflate their ideology by attempting to diminish the personal worth of those who, in good faith, disagree with them.
If this statement was true, every liberal would, by definition, be racist – and we know this isn’t the case.
Liberals choose to see people as members of groups. Barack Obama isn’t a President, he’s a Black President – with all the ethnic categorizations attached. Isn’t it amazing how clean and articulate he is? Although no prominent Democrat has mentioned it publicly, they are probably also impressed how he doesn’t seem lazy and shiftless.
People on the left rationalize their views in a number of ways, but they all seem to take at face value that blacks are at least 20 points less intelligent than whites on standardized tests. It’s hard to imagine the mindset at a Klan meeting being more insulting and debilitating. This is a prime example of people acting on bigoted ethnic categorizations, and yes, it is a form of racism, but not with the stigma attached to that word.
As with most actions by liberals, their intentions are good but because of their naivety and failure to think through the unintended consequences of what they do, the results end up hurting the ones they want to help.
Liberals aren’t racist – they’re just idiots.
Amazing to read a statement like "People on the left ... all seem to take at face value that blacks are at least 20 points less intelligent than whites on standardized tests" in response to a post about self-examination of one's possible biases.
You have, I take it, never met anyone on the left who does not think that. (Otherwise, I'd have to wonder whether you yourself are bigoted, rather than simply prejudiced...?) You then go on to typify this as "a prime example of people acting on bigoted ethnic categorizations".
How is that acting on anything?
"a prime example of people acting on bigoted ethnic categorizations".
In this statement, I define “people” as Democrats as a group, liberals in particular, “acting on” breaks down to passing affirmative action legislation, “bigoted ethnic categorizations” translates to the idea that blacks cannot compete with whites on a level playing field because of some genetic inferiority.
Your article speaks to the way people interpret different words and statements based on their own worldview and ingrained biases and prejudices. I attempted to show how a subject such as racism is viewed in a different light from the other side of the ideological spectrum with an example that would hit home to group of people who view their “open mindedness” as a badge of honor, when in reality they are much more “racist” than the southern white conservatives they enjoy deriding;
There’s no secret “codes” involved. The statement is fairly straight forward.
As an exercise, try reading the linked article by a typical New York liberal and see if you can identify the prejudices of the author.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samantha-marshall...
To some, this article will seem perfectly fine. Two New Yorkers embark on an adventure to the bowels of Red State America and to everyone’s surprise, they didn’t get beat up or shot or even sodomized by toothless hillbillies.
Others will note the nuanced feelings of superiority present in the author’s words.
I find it interesting -- nay, fascinating -- that you ascribe the underlying motives to perceived genetic inferiority in the minds of Democrats or liberals. I've never thought that was their rationale at all, even subconsciously.
I have always understood Affirmative Action to be a response to decades of systemic racism (with its obvious effects on economic or social mobility in a free society), and an attempt to level the playing field following Civil Rights legislation.
Where did you get the idea that it stems from liberal perceptions of genetic inferiority?
I did read your article, though, and I liked it a lot -- both in context of this discussion, and generally. Furthermore, I see where you've found nuance that doubtless set your teeth on edge.
Rather than go into great length here, though, I'm probably going to put up a separate post about that article. Something titled along the lines of, "It's a Southern Thing".
“Where did you get the idea that it stems from liberal perceptions of genetic inferiority?”
As I mentioned, liberals have tried to rationalize their belief of genetic inferiority many ways, one of which is the “decades of systematic racism” meme.
Perhaps the “genetic inferiority” phrase is inaccurate. It’s hard to discern if the leftist mindset is more geared to thinking others (blacks, Hispanics, non-mathematically endowed Asians, anyone with a southern accent) are inferior or if they believe everyone is basically the same and they, by virtue of their empathy, are genetically superior.
The proof is everywhere for this thesis, it simply takes someone listening for it in the way people communicate. Much like a determined leftist can detect racism and homophobia in practically every statement made by a conservative, if you stop and listen, you’ll hear the condescension dripping from the left.
You must not have been around in the 60's, Polimom, when we lived through all of this as often as we are living through TV specials on Michael Jackson today.
To paraphrase the principal architect of the AA stuff.......freedom to compete is not enough, we must have equality as a result.
I don't think it is too much of a stretch to interpret this Democrat speaker's meaning to be that equal opportunity is not the goal of AA, but rather equal outcomes.
To jwest's point, if the speaker believes that outcomes must be mandated by laws, as opposed to simply having the opportunity to apply one's abilities to determine outcomes, then would not it appear the speaker believes the beneficiaries of the law do not necessarily have sufficient ability?
As you've written it, yes, I see why you and jwest would say that. Considering how loaded this entire subject is, though, I need a link to the original statement you've paraphrased from the architect of Affirmative Action. (I don't even know who you're talking about, much less how to search it.)
Having intellectually entered the world after the fact, though, I'm less encumbered by the extreme passions that drove the Civil Rights Era. And as an adult, I reiterate: I've never heard a liberal make the case that AA is supposed to compensate for a genetic difference. And every argument I've read (there've been many) suggesting this, in fact, has come from a different direction entirely.
Also -- liberals or Democrats on this site are free to defend themselves at any time. I'm a tad uncomfortable ascribing my own interpretation to you.
Highlighting the “outcome versus opportunity” differences is exactly to the point. Leftists can’t seem to process this simple distinction in their minds.
As with the Ricci case, everyone is for equal opportunity. For someone like Sotomayor to twist the law to insure a racially balanced outcome is not only offensive to conservatives, but it should be offensive to the blacks on the fire department who failed the test. Sotomayor’s internal assumption that the poor blacks are just not capable of competing with whites and Hispanics is insulting.
Lyndon Baines Johnson, June 4, 1965, speech to Howard University graduating class.........
"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
OK, I think jwest sprinkles some hyperbole into his posts as a goading device, but I've also noticed you tend to be too 'literal" in your absorption.
So, no, I don't think any Democrat "literally" ever spoke "genetic deficiency", but I think the implication of it is apparent enough.
Indeed, taking that sentence and hanging it out there on its own calls into question the desired end result of the entire exercise. In context, though (and I'm sure you knew I'd say this) -- the complete quote does not support the "AA was set up to make up for a genetic deficiency" argument in any way whatsoever. I don't see, in fact, even an implication -- unless one severs the final statement from its setting, both temporally and contextually.
As for me tending to be too "literal".... yes, I absolutely do approach some discussions frontally. I've found that nuance can be too easily misread, and so I try to clarify before engaging when possible.
:>
“Why do you find it necessary, as part of your posts, to consistently insult those who you believe might disagree with you?”
I think it’s a combination of a few factors.
First, what you perceive as insults are mostly good natured jabs, preserving the competitive left/right, back and forth of the website.
Sometimes, the insults are deliberate, pointed and designed to drive home a point. I would like to think I don’t engage in individually targeted attacks without provocation, but for certain authors (and rarely a commenter) I relish releasing a tirade of right-wing inspired invective.
Shaun Mullen was famous for bringing out the best of the insults. Michael Stickings and Kathy Kattenburg have filled in the gap, along with the occasional leftist dribble from guest author Walter Brasch. I’m fascinated with views from the left and try hard to understand the liberal mind, but there are limits to how long I’ll suffer these fools.
One distinction should be made though, in my favor.
When I insult someone as an individual or as a group, I realize it at the time and for the most part it is a conscious decision. The most infuriating insults (that remarkably fits in with the conversation we’ve been having) are the ones that people make through assuming something as fact – such as when liberals simply assume conservatives are racist, homophobic, bible-thumping, knuckle dragging Neanderthals.
Of course, it is hard sometimes to differentiate between the friendly pokes and the dagger tipped insults, but that comes from following the conversation in our relatively small community. If I were to eliminate the barbs completely, stylistically the world would suffer. However, I will pledge to reserve the most severe literary sodomizing to those who deserve being forcibly bent over and filled with facts, logic and reason.
Your response actually does play well into the discussion. Given that your "insults" tend to be stylistic, it seems to me that, unlike you, many others on both sides tend to spew hate, and more importantly make assumptions about "the other side". The initial example posed by Polimom being a good example: assuming that anyone who opposes gay marriage is homophobic. Do you see a way to break through the partisan divide in a manner that relies on mutual respect and fact gathering, leading to civil discourse rather than unwarranted assumption and contempt for those who disagree? Or do you see the tribal warfare of partisanship as a natural character trait of the human species?
I would like to believe that there is some way to improve communications and understanding, but I hold little hope. This is contrary to my normally optimistic outlook and the general conservative trait of being able to overcome any obstacle.
The reason for my pessimism is best demonstrated through a visual exercise. Think of meeting a person in a KKK hood and gown. Whatever the subject of conversation, your opinion and acceptance of whatever the person is saying will be tainted or dismissed due to your negative feelings toward the symbolism of the outfit.
This is how liberals approach conversations with conservatives. Granted, conservatives come to the table thinking leftists are incredibly naive, ignorant and cowardly, so the initial biases are not one sided. But the main problem remains that regardless what the other side says, the first reaction is to dismiss their arguments as having no merit.
It’s basic Dale Carnegie material. No matter what, you never win an argument. You can prove what you’re saying fifteen different ways from Sunday and your opponent may even fold in the end and admit defeat, but as they walk away, they’ll be saying to themselves “I know I’m right and they’re wrong”.
This is why I listen and try to learn the language of the left. Hoping that someday, I’ll be able to put a sentence together that is read the same way it was written.
Studies that use suspect methodology such as the one you mentioned lead to erroneous and unfair conclusions.
Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language. Personally, I believe that a black candidate has the edge over a white applicant if their speaking skills are equal.
Barack Obama found the need to go by “Barry” prior to his national introduction. People also know that an easily spelled and remembered name helps in business situations.
As I mentioned before, some determined people can find racism in the vacuum of space. This study was probably commissioned and carried out under this mindset.
How?
You weight all the words equally, where as I weight the punchline heavier.
No matter.........as is typical, the government has since (since the 60's) issued a bunch of bureaucratic and formulaic red tape regarding affirmative action and, is also typical, we have learned how to competently comply with the letter and totally ignore the spirit. Life goes on.
From your Chicago study:
“Bertrand cautions that employers may infer not just the race of the applicant, but also social class, assuming that certain African-American sounding names are associated with having more underprivileged backgrounds.”
Social class equals speaking ability. Just ask Eliza Doolittle.
Kathy,
“Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language.”
”How?”
How? How? Let me pause for a moment because the oxygen was temporarily sucked from my body by the shear mass of the stupidity of that question.
(sigh)
There. I seem to have recovered. Let’s pass on the particulars of this item so that I’m not accused of saying something unkind.
“Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language.”
”How?”@@
And you call yourself a liberal? You ought to be ashamed.
3 syllable girl's name with accent on the second.
Out of vogue white boy's name, beginning with a hard consonant, contracted and with an accented second syllable.
[grin] Careful about that remark, J. West. It's similar to what boorish Boortz once said, pretty much the same thing. As it implies non-liberals do not, do you see the inherent problem with "Liberals..."?
What matters here is that while people make innumerable destinctions between themselves and Others of all kinds, and even react defensively to the unfamiliar, that is perfectly normal, and is not the same as "racism," "sexism," and all the rest. And, yes, charges of "racism" and "sexism" continue to be taken to the most ludicrous extremes by extremists (name befitting) on the Left, who explain every event that happens in the universe as "racist," "sexist," "classist," "occurring due to the domination of the evil heads of the established privileged-group hierarchy-patriarchy," and other related ridiculous lies and nonsense.
Both of them rant (ironically, Kathy recently referred to the "ranting" of someone else, who did nothing of the kind), but at least Kathy isn't vicious or pathological, just a lefty activist who believes in that stuff.
I'm still surprised Shaun didn't come back to post something about McNamara, glorify wrongly the often-degenerate as well as subversive and even treasonous opposition to the Vietnam war, and somehow cast Code Pink and Move On (along with, say, the Militant as a media "beacon") as modern-day anti-Iraq-Bush-and-Cheney heroes.