NationStates Jolt Archive

If Obama is smart he will discourage articles like this from being published by ignorant people trying to 'help' his cause;

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race;_ylt=AsDYj1bKe1lfmBMYBcqxBays0NUE

Let me spare you some reading;

If you don't vote for a candidate because of his race you are racist, but if you vote for a candidate because of his race you are not racist;
On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks,

If you think the majority of people are responsible for their lot in life, you are racist - but if you think black people are helpless you are not;
AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks ... ...many calling them responsible for their own troubles.

It is racist to say "bad things" about black people;
Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things,

It is only important what white people think about black people. What black people think about black people is irrelevant;
Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

It is racist to think that black people are capable of being as well-off as white people by their own effort.
More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

If you are not capable of seeing how this article is un-helpful let me point out a few things;

1) Making blanket statements calling people you want (and need) to influence 'racists' is not likely to win you favor with them - but it does increase the probability of a contrary effect.
2) Insulting black people with ignorant observations of 'racist behavior' is still an insult.
3) Not all blacks are good people with unfortunate circumstances. Not all whites are ignorant racists. As a group each ethnicity has unique difficulties to overcome. It should be OK to talk about that. It is not constructive to label observations and/or opinions about a race which are not "good things" as racism.
4) Racial harmony cannot be achieved by ignoring blacks views on whites (or blacks views on blacks) - Blacks only say "good things", right?
5) Either the study is incomplete or the article is. How do Asians respond to the same questions/stimuli? Hispanics? Blacks? Blind people? Mulatto? How do whites apply these same traits to themselves? What effect does proximity to mixed race people in the same socio-economic class have? Different economic class? No or limited exposure to any? Education? Age? Gender? I could go on...

This whole article makes me angry. It sets back race relations by decades. It is insulting to both races. I surely hope that I am not the only person offended by this nonsense.

Oh, and BTW;
My personal opinion is that Obama could be a strong and energizing candidate to people from both parties... if he had an actual track record of change and bipartisanship (or, even better, antipartisanship) Obama is charismatic, energetic, and inspiring. His trouble is that his own record is one of extreme partisanship. Obama has never bucked his own party nor has he ever cooperated with the opposing party - or gotten them to cooperate with him. Had Obama waited another 4-8 years and built a 'resume' of anti-partisan accomplishments he would have waltzed into the white house.. Heck - if he did that he could do it as a black-muslim-puppy hating- seal clubbing-Star Trek fan and STILL waltz in.

If Obama is smart he will discourage articles like this from being published by ignorant people trying to 'help' his cause;

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race;_ylt=AsDYj1bKe1lfmBMYBcqxBays0NUE

Let me spare you some reading;

If you don't vote for a candidate because of his race you are racist, but if you vote for a candidate because of his race you are not racist;
On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks,

If you think the majority of people are responsible for their lot in life, you are racist - but if you think black people are helpless you are not;
AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks ... ...many calling them responsible for their own troubles.

It is racist to say "bad things" about black people;
Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things,

It is only important what white people think about black people. What black people think about black people is irrelevant;
Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

It is racist to think that black people are capable of being as well-off as white people by their own effort.
More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."

If you are not capable of seeing how this article is un-helpful let me point out a few things;

1) Making blanket statements calling people you want (and need) to influence 'racists' is not likely to win you favor with them - but it does increase the probability of a contrary effect.
2) Insulting black people with ignorant observations of 'racist behavior' is still an insult.
3) Not all blacks are good people with unfortunate circumstances. Not all whites are ignorant racists. As a group each ethnicity has unique difficulties to overcome. It should be OK to talk about that. It is not constructive to label observations and/or opinions about a race which are not "good things" as racism.
4) Racial harmony cannot be achieved by ignoring blacks views on whites (or blacks views on blacks) - Blacks only say "good things", right?
5) Either the study is incomplete or the article is. How do Asians respond to the same questions/stimuli? Hispanics? Blacks? Blind people? Mulatto? What effect does proximity to mixed race people in the same socio-economic class have? Different economic class? No or limited exposure to any? Education? Age? Gender? I could go on...

This whole article makes me angry. It sets back race relations by decades. It is insulting to both races. I surely hope that I am not the only person offended by this nonsense.

If the article actually said or even reasonably implied ANY of the things you are alleging, I'd be very offended. Unfortunately for you, I read the actual article.

EDIT: BTW, what evidence do you have this Associate Press article was written by "people trying to 'help' [Obama's] cause"? As opposed, to say, journalists.

Oh, and BTW;
My personal opinion is that Obama could be a strong and energizing candidate to people from both parties... if he had an actual track record of change and bipartisanship (or, even better, antipartisanship) Obama is charismatic, energetic, and inspiring. His trouble is that his own record is one of extreme partisanship. Obama has never bucked his own party nor has he ever cooperated with the opposing party - or gotten them to cooperate with him. Had Obama waited another 4-8 years and built a 'resume' of anti-partisan accomplishments he would have waltzed into the white house.. Heck - if he did that he could do it as a black-muslim-puppy hating- seal clubbing-Star Trek fan and STILL waltz in.

Um. Perhaps if you actually knew Obama's track record, you'd know he has cooperated successfully with Republicans in both the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate. Again, reality appears to have a liberal bias.

If the article actually said or even reasonably implied ANY of the things you are alleging, I'd be very offended. Unfortunately for you, I read the actual article.
CATMAN!

I truly am disappointed that you can't see that. Of all people I expected you to be sensitive to black issues.


Um. Perhaps if you actually knew Obama's track record, you'd know he has cooperated successfully with Republicans in both the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate. Again, reality appears to have a liberal bias.
Show me. I would like to see noteworthy examples. Very much so. Since it is a different topic maybe you could just PM me or post a link to an existing (or new) thread so this one does not stray. I am not kidding - I want to see it. I really would view it positively if it were of substance and not spin.

Show me. I would like to see noteworthy examples. Very much so. Since it is a different topic maybe you could just PM me or post a link to an existing (or new) thread so this one does not stray. I am not kidding - I want to see it. I really would view it positively if it were of substance and not spin.

Lugar-Obama nonproliferation initiative link (http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=278019)

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act link (http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=8dcb8c35-802a-23ad-4d37-9c8ea9c43460)

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/republican-il-senator-kirk-dillard-on-barack-obama/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Republican

I do see one thing with the article, which is the graph and the study itself that was done to come to these conclusions.

1. There is no reference to Demographic in the study, where did those that answered the poll live? Were they amongst the poor or more well off? What are the ages of the respondents? These kinds of things missing are what leads you to a biased study, and ultimately a skewed conclusion. I always follow the advice of my Calculus Professor, "Be wary of graphs & studies using them especially ones with no additional information, the results are more than likely skewed due to so many variables being at play."

2. Skeptic makes a very good point, no other racial inquiries were made in reference to opinions of the black race. This alone is enough to tell you that the article itself is designed to bring the racial equation back into the election. Of all the results, none give and answer that more 50% thing blacks are such & such, which means of course that the MAJORITY of whites DON'T think such things. Always be careful of wording, as it can be VERY misleading.

Examples from the article:
"Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain."

7 out of 10 = 70% compared to 85%, it doesn't seem that much, but the wording makes it seem so. Also those two numbers are without any concrete references. How many is that really for each?

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.

Now that is a misnomer of a statement, it absolutely makes no relevance to the author's presumption of racism amongst the White Democrats.

The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

The author's conclusion inherently fall on this fact not being considered. The Poll was done over nine days, only with slightly over 2200 respondents. Such a small poll certainly does NOT cover all of the US, nor is it an accurate sampling, as many demographics weren't even considered.

Then finally, there are a lot of other included Polling factoids that are not relevant to the study such as the percentage of Clinton supporters voting Democratic or Republican, Obama's competency for the job, the source of support for Obama as an alternative to McCain, etc. These are results that are not shown in the article but are merely referenced too, this alone gives it away that the author is simply on an endeavor to influence the vote, which I don't blame him for; such is the occupation of a propagandist.

CATMAN!

I truly am disappointed that you can't see that. Of all people I expected you to be sensitive to black issues.


:confused:

Why?

The author's conclusion inherently fall on this fact not being considered. The Poll was done over nine days, only with slightly over 2200 respondents. Such a small poll certainly does NOT cover all of the US, nor is it an accurate sampling, as many demographics weren't even considered.
fyi, 2200 is a very large sample. Most sampling is done with just 1000. for 1000, the sampling error rate is +/- 3.1%. Sampling error is the reciprocal of the square root of the sample population. Because of this, the sample error rate drops very slowly: a sample population of 10,000 would have a error rate of +/- 1% - just 3 times lower than using a sample population of 1,000. Hence why 1,000 is used: It's cost effective and comes up with pretty much the same results.
Nine days is a long time to conduct a poll: most are done in just 1 or 2 days. Taking this long adds further weight to this study's findings.

As for why no other demographics were considered: why would they? THe study was looking at something very specific, that of White voters perceptions of Blacks. So why ask a Latino, or a Black or a Chinese?


Then finally, there are a lot of other included Polling factoids that are not relevant to the study such as the percentage of Clinton supporters voting Democratic or Republican, Obama's competency for the job, the source of support for Obama as an alternative to McCain, etc. These are results that are not shown in the article but are merely referenced too, this alone gives it away that the author is simply on an endeavor to influence the vote, which I don't blame him for; such is the occupation of a propagandist.
The author is looking at how the race of a Candidate might affect a person's decision as to who to vote for. So all your suppositions are erroneous.

People's racist opinions have played major part in previous election campaigns. Everyone knows politicians lie, but voters lie too. Especially to pollsters, and especially in an attempt to appear more colour-blind than they actually are. Two famous examples of this:
The 1989 Mayoral race between Giuliani and David Dinkins (who's black). Polls leading up to the election had Dinkins at 20 points ahead of Giuliani, so it was a surprise when he won by less than 1%.
David Dukes, white supremacist and KKK member. ran for US senate in 1990, polls had him sitting at 20% support. So, again, it was a surprise when he gained 45% of the total vote, and 60% of the White vote.

This study looks at White people's attitudes towards Blacks and how it might influence their voting behaviour now and in the future. So there's little point looking at specific character issues of current candidates. Especially as a person's underlying racist attitudes could well influence their opinions of a specific candidates character issue.

I think how the poll is worded is quite... I'm not quite sure, but a do feel a little angry, but at the same time wondering if the poll has been misrepresented. I feel that it must be, at least a little, because the best possible result from that poll would 0% for every quality. However, the poll talks about negative stereotypes being bad and positive stereotypes being good - which is why I feel there is misrepresentation of the poll.

It also makes me wonder if the reason racism is the problem that it is in the USA is because of the way race is talked about in the USA - that race is a clear and delineated boundary between groups of people.

Seriously, if anyone asked me 'what do I think of Pakistanis' then I'd probably just rant at them about how inherently racist the question is.

As for why no other demographics were considered: why would they? THe study was looking at something very specific, that of White voters perceptions of Blacks. So why ask a Latino, or a Black or a Chinese?



The reason why would be in order to have a sort of control group.

For example - Let's pretend that 45% of white people were found to associate the work "gangster" with blacks. Without comparison it would likely seem racist. But if 85% of blacks were to also be found to associate the work "gangster" with blacks then the white opinion suddenly becomes much less likely to be perceived as racist at all.

The reason why would be in order to have a sort of control group.

For example - Let's pretend that 45% of white people were found to associate the work "gangster" with blacks. Without comparison it would likely seem racist. But if 85% of blacks were to also be found to associate the work "gangster" with blacks then the white opinion suddenly becomes much less likely to be perceived as racist at all.

That would be beyond the scope and objective of the study, and does nothing other than pander to those with a persecution complex, who needs compensatory data so as to absolve guilt.

If the scope of the study had been for all citizens, then it would have been a different story. This is not.

Also, your example is not a control group by any understanding of the word. Learn your terminology before using them.

The reason why would be in order to have a sort of control group.

For example - Let's pretend that 45% of white people were found to associate the work "gangster" with blacks. Without comparison it would likely seem racist. But if 85% of blacks were to also be found to associate the work "gangster" with blacks then the white opinion suddenly becomes much less likely to be perceived as racist at all.
That's not a control group. That's a comparison group. If you don't know the difference, you really shouldn't be commenting on a statistical study.
It doesn't matter what another group's (Black, Japanese, Indian etc etc) perceptions are of Blacks as it has nothing to do with what this study's objective and scope was.


And regards to your example: Blacks may view the word, 'gangster' in a positive (or at least different) way that Whites don't. So them equating it with being Black doesn't mean it's not racist of Whites to do so. Much the same way Blacks can call other Blacks niggas but Whites cannot.

If the scope of the study had been for all citizens, then it would have been a different story. This is not.

You can compare between different groups. You could also add asian, hispanics and others if you wished.

And regards to your example: Blacks may view the word, 'gangster' in a positive (or at least different) way that Whites don't. So them equating it with being Black doesn't mean it's not racist of Whites to do so. Much the same way Blacks can call other Blacks niggas but Whites cannot.

I would have thought there would be a percentage of blacks and whites who looked at the word gangsta in a positive and negative light. What is looked at for one group should be considered for all.

You are making a fallacious argument.

The article is not about the difference between control and comparison groups, nor is it about the word gangster. The article is about labeling a substantial amount of white democrats as racist without having a sound basis for measurement. It is about stifling "bad things" being said about blacks and it is about the strong implication of the study that blacks are incapable of succeeding by their own effort.

It is a simple concept that in order for a measured behavior of a group to be considered irregular it must be compared to the results from other groups. If you don't know this, you really shouldn't be commenting on a statistical study.

This 'study' makes no attempt to define regular (and therefore fails to illustrate irregular) behavior. It is only one of the many derogatory and patronizing assumptions and conclusions of this pseudo-science garbage.

It is only one of the many derogatory and patronizing assumptions and conclusions of this pseudo-science garbage.

This, coming from the mouth of someone who does not even know the meaning of "control group" and attempts to rewrite the meaning to fit his agenda, who makes numerous baseless accusations, let's not mince words, lies, at a statistical study, is rich.

If one wishes to look up examples of pseudo-science garbage, one only needs to look at you MS.

You are making a fallacious argument.

The article is not about the difference between control and comparison groups, nor is it about the word gangster. The article is about labeling a substantial amount of white democrats as racist without having a sound basis for measurement. It is about stifling "bad things" being said about blacks and it is about the strong implication of the study that blacks are incapable of succeeding by their own effort.
how sweet. You bring up about control and comparison groups and use the word gangster as an example, and when called on it, we're the ones making fallacious arguments?
How do you work that one out, Sherlock?

It is a simple concept that in order for a measured behavior of a group to be considered irregular it must be compared to the results from other groups. If you don't know this, you really shouldn't be commenting on a statistical study.

This 'study' makes no attempt to define regular (and therefore fails to illustrate irregular) behavior. It is only one of the many derogatory and patronizing assumptions and conclusions of this pseudo-science garbage.
no it's not. This study is done to look at one specific pov - that of White voters attitudes towards Blacks. It DOESN'T matter what other races think, because it has NO bearing whatsoever on this study.

You just want a study to call everyone racist so you can feel better about yourself. Well too bad.

The article sounds more like an attempt to shame people into voting for Obama.


A little over 2 thousand polled is a very small sampling of the American Voters.

The article sounds more like an attempt to shame people into voting for Obama.


A little over 2 thousand polled is a very small sampling of the American Voters.

Not statistically. IIRC, it's over twice what you need.