A blog post on the anticipation of a racial war

[♪alt13]

1-I'm not sure who you meant by "he". Manson was serious, in that he really saw both the racism and the anger over it, and thought he could use that to ignite a racial war. The Crommunist is serious, in that it is a reflection of what society presents, through the eyes of a mad man.

2-Yes, he spent most of his post writing sabout the subject of his post, as opposed to what you wanted him to write about. That is a curious complaint. He has well over a dozen links in the article supporting his positions. He's written other blog posts on different articles, including how racism affects the criminal justice system.

Most importantly, he does not, to my understanding, take the position that there are racist politicians and non-racist politicians, etc. It's that racism is a cultural phenomenon, one that feeds our cognition and infests everyone (including black people).

3-No, the study did try to determine which whites held racist opinions first. No, the study did not correlate racist opinions to people looking black.

5-Canada seems to have a different sort of gun culture than the US. You don't have to be a black man to see the racism that bubbles in the strongly-pro-gun community.

UH yeah it did

For a study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, David Amodio, a psychology professor at New York University and Amy Krosch, a graduate student, performed a series of experiments that showed that their predominantly white study subjects tended to view biracial people as “more black” when they were primed with economic scarcity, and that the subjects were stingier toward darker-complexioned people overall.

First, the researchers asked 70 people to fill out a questionnaire that assessed their concern about economic competition between races. (The statements included things like, “When blacks make economic gains, whites lose out economically.”) They were then asked to identify the races of an array of images of faces, which had been created by fusing different percentages of a picture of a white person with an image of a black person.

The authors found that the more the subjects believed that whites and blacks were locked in a zero-sum rivalry, the likelier they were to see the lighter-complexioned faces as “blacker.”

I should not have said children because the pictures were of adults. It's kinda a duh conclusion. ie ****in dumb

 

[LogGrad98]

Then if the conversation is about occupation you bring it up. I mean, if I read some article about someone killing another person, rarely do they bring up the occupation of the alleged assailant unless it's pertinent.

What if you bring it up and use it derogatorially but mainly because your wife cheated on you with a real-life camel jockey and it destroyed your family, so now you hate camel jockeys in general especially when you found out that many of them are home-wreckers, thus perpetuating stereotypes. Would it be racist then?

 

[One Brow]

UH yeah it did

Wow, you really are committed to ignorance on this, eh?

To avoid backtracking, I'll repeat your claim.

First we identified which whites held racist opinions

Find anything in your quote that said some whites were "identified" as being the particular whites who held racist opinions, or that any of the study participants were treated differently as a result of some response.

Here's a link to the study. Good luck.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1404448111.abstract

I should not have said children because the pictures were of adults. It's kinda a duh conclusion. ie ****in dumb

Yes, your presentation of the study would be a dumb study. However, your presentation of the study is badly flawed, making your straw man argument worthless.

 

[One Brow]

What if you bring it up and use it derogatorially but mainly because your wife cheated on you with a real-life camel jockey and it destroyed your family, so now you hate camel jockeys in general especially when you found out that many of them are home-wreckers, thus perpetuating stereotypes. Would it be racist then?

Well, first of all its sexist to blame the jockey for the free-willed actions of your wife. The jockey took no vows to you.

 

[♪alt13]

Wow, you really are committed to ignorance on this, eh?

To avoid backtracking, I'll repeat your claim.



Find anything in your quote that said some whites were "identified" as being the particular whites who held racist opinions, or that any of the study participants were treated differently as a result of some response.

Here's a link to the study. Good luck.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1404448111.abstract



Yes, your presentation of the study would be a dumb study. However, your presentation of the study is badly flawed, making your straw man argument worthless.

You linked the abstract you dolt.

We could parse throught the full pdf but luckily crommunist has done the work for us.

For a study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, David Amodio, a psychology professor at New York University and Amy Krosch, a graduate student, performed a series of experiments that showed that their predominantly white study subjects tended to view biracial people as “more black” when they were primed with economic scarcity, and that the subjects were stingier toward darker-complexioned people overall.

First, the researchers asked 70 people to fill out a questionnaire that assessed their concern about economic competition between races. (The statements included things like, “When blacks make economic gains, whites lose out economically.”) They were then asked to identify the races of an array of images of faces, which had been created by fusing different percentages of a picture of a white person with an image of a black person.

The authors found that the more the subjects believed that whites and blacks were locked in a zero-sum rivalry, the likelier they were to see the lighter-complexioned faces as “blacker.”

They are measuring racial attitudes when they ask questions like “When blacks make economic gains, whites lose out economically.” not economic scarcity as the authors would have you believe.

I have no doubt that there is more than one study out there that makes a compelling case for increased prejudice under economic stress. This one ,however, does not do that.

It's ****in dumb.

 

[♪alt13]

Further the study does not matter. What matters is what crommunist chose to present. His representation of the study was crap.(accuracy I don't really know not gunna read it) His article was crap. Maybe he has better posts but you chose to start a thread by linking this one.

smh

 

[One Brow]

They are measuring racial attitudes when they ask questions like “When blacks make economic gains, whites lose out economically.” not economic scarcity as the authors would have you believe.

You only measure something when you record the results of it. Where in the description does it say that these results of the questionaire are recorded? Where does it say that people were given different treatment afterward, depending on their answers?

Do you even understand the concept of priming?

 

[One Brow]

His representation of the study was crap.(accuracy I don't really know not gunna read it)

Since you're not disputing it's accuracy, what part of it are you objecting to?

His article was crap. Maybe he has better posts but you chose to start a thread by linking this one.

I've linked others in the past.

 

[VINYLONE]

What if you bring it up and use it derogatorially but mainly because your wife cheated on you with a real-life camel jockey and it destroyed your family, so now you hate camel jockeys in general especially when you found out that many of them are home-wreckers, thus perpetuating stereotypes. Would it be racist then?

I'm not sure if "camel-jockey" can be considered a race. Please advise?

Further the study does not matter. What matters is what crommunist chose to present. His representation of the study was crap.(accuracy I don't really know not gunna read it) His article was crap. Maybe he has better posts but you chose to start a thread by linking this one.

smh

Wait what? It's crap but you didn't read it?

 

[LogGrad98]

Well, first of all its sexist to blame the jockey for the free-willed actions of your wife. The jockey took no vows to you.

Even still I could use the term camel jockey derogatorially and NOT have it be a racist term.

 

[babe]

Love that sig. . . . habemus coachem. . . .

regarding the OP, I wonder. . . . don't real communists call themselves nicer names nowadays??

A blogger who still calls himself "Communist" has gotta be living in a basement being fed by his mother at age ninety.

just as real as fairies.

 

[One Brow]

Even still I could use the term camel jockey derogatorially and NOT have it be a racist term.

You might be able to use it without racist intent. In some cultures, you could use it without racist baggage. However, you're in this culture, and in this culture, "camel jockey" has cultural meaning, and whether you intend that meaning or not, the meaning still sounds out in the mind of the listener. Ignoring that means leaving yourself open to being misunderstood.