What's new

Hantlers explains why things are the way they are on reservations

It is often based on who I happen to be talking to at the moment actually. So the generic "people" seems apropriate.

The fact that it is always black people that pop into yours and your misconception that that is always how it must be is what I find interesting.

Again, if when you received the same stimulus, your initial reaction is completely different every time, the one with the remarkable brain is you, sir. We develop these images by habit and repetition. That your brain is immune to these things is almost super-human.
 
hahahaha. Don't be mad that I called you down from your soap box to borrow it for a minute. You are the jazzfanz king of this. Multiple people have told you this.

Yes, you always call me out on what I don't say, because you have no direct arguments. Like here, where all you looked at was the initial paragraph, and not the more substantive content later on.
 
Again, if when you received the same stimulus, your initial reaction is completely different every time, the one with the remarkable brain is you, sir. We develop these images by habit and repetition. That your brain is immune to these things is almost super-human.

I'm sorry that you imagine black people every time. That must suck.
 
You would have to prove that. Opinion has no place with the assertions you are making.

And even then, you would have to prove that the word welfare=image of poor black person (have to gender identify in that case, since you're being specific and all, which makes me wonder why you're not chirping about welfare being sexually charged against women or men) equates to complaining about welfare being racially charged or motivated, to which the correlation doesn't immediately exist.

Example. The term "professional basketball player" might bring up an image of a tall, black man. Firstly, that doesn't mean 100% of professional basketball players are tall, black men. Secondly, complaining about professional basketball players, say they're selfish ball hogs in comparison to their amateur equivalents, does not imply that black people are selfish ball hogs. That correlation does NOT exist unless you can prove that, and providing mass media as an explanation with no sourcing provides zero conclusiveness, just full speculation, which is pretty useless to explain the assertion you're making.

There's probably an argument for the welfare debate being sexually charged, as well. Since I'm not making it, why don't you? If you are not interested, who are you to tell my what topics I need to discuss?

I'm confused what correlation you think I am talking about in the third paragraph.

Which of the following do you think is not true?
1) That most of the images regarding welfare recipients in this country are black?
2) That the initial images we attach to meanings and phrases has an effect on our reactions to those meanings and phrases?
 
I'm sorry that you imagine black people every time. That must suck.

I'm sorry that you think you are super-human. That must suck.

As a suggestion, take a visit over to Project Implicit, where they do tests to see how prone you are to these initial reactions. You won't show any biases, right?
 
I'm sorry that you think you are super-human. That must suck.

As a suggestion, take a visit over to Project Implicit, where they do tests to see how prone you are to these initial reactions. You won't show any biases, right?

Nope not super human at all. Just don't buy into all your hogwash.

Why go take a test about how racist one is or isn't? I'd rather just go on being nice and fair to those I meet. I know that must be hard for you. If it helps you can think of me as black.
 
Last edited:
"Clearly, people are so afraid to post their REAL feelings, they overcompensate by making pictures of white people." -- OneBrown

Check again. When, among the pictures, you look at the people being portrayed as welfare recipients (as opposed to politicians, etc.), they are overwhelmingly black. This is especially clear on the third link.
 
The interesting picture I saw in those was this one:

welfare-queen.png


Not linking the page since it has a bad word in the article. Can extrapolate some things, but still not to the overreaching point that's trying to be made in this thread so far.

There was a link to the original study, which has no bad words I can tell:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/17m7r1rq#page-6

Some highlights:

· Sixty-two percent of poverty stories that appeared in TIME, Newsweek and U.S. News
and World Report featured African-Americans.
· Sixty-five percent of network television news stories about welfare featured African-
Americans.
· Fewer African-Americans are portrayed in "sympathetic" stories about poverty and
welfare
· Newsmagazines depict almost 100 percent of the "underclass" as African-Americans.

First, seeing a woman in the news story actually decreased opposition to welfare spending. Second, exposure to a welfare queen in the news significantly increased support for negative characterizations of African-Americans by an average of 10 percent.

True to form, exposure to the full confirmation of the script (i.e. black Rhonda) increased opposition to welfare spending by five percent and showed a 10 percent rise in an attribution of cause to individual failings. Likewise, white participants who watched the welfare story with the black Rhonda were more likely to hold negative views of African-Americans than those who did have a visual cue. Contrary to expectations, however, exposure to the white Rhonda produced the biggest increase in anti-black sentiment. That is, watching a story with the white Rhonda increased negative depictions of blacks by 12 percent compared to the black Rhonda and by 23 percent over the story without a picture.
 
Back
Top