WASHINGTON POST: Psychological Study Finds Bush Backers More Biased Against Blacks...

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

Though it's probably mostly to do with the fact that I never knew any black people growing up. I never knew a black person personally until high school, and never actually had a black friend until college.

Don't know how much that has to do with anything, I'm from Utah, which pretty much puts me in the same exact situation as you were. Except exchange the Navy for college

Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for African American compared to White American.

Go figure.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

ACK!

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
none of which have to do with fear of the neighbor.

So? That wasn't what I quoted was about.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Don't know how much that has to do with anything, I'm from Utah, which pretty much puts me in the same exact situation as you were. Except exchange the Navy for college

It's just a suggestion, I'm no sociologist. Do you think that the simple fact that we both grew up in mostly white areas means our life experiences were in any way similar? Unlikely. I'm only suggesting that the absence of relatable black people in my environment, growing up, likely was a major factor in the unconscious predjudices I have today.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


It's just a suggestion, I'm no sociologist. Do you think that the simple fact that we both grew up in mostly white areas means our life experiences were in any way similar? Unlikely. I'm only suggesting that the absence of relatable black people in my environment, growing up, likely was a major factor in the unconscious predjudices I have today.

Well, I'm simply suggesting that your argument is faulty, the absence of relatable black people was not neccesarily an influence as you suggest, or it would be in my case also. It's more likely the influence of other, white peole, around us that make some of the difference as well.

ACK!

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Well, I'm simply suggesting that your argument is faulty, the absence of relatable black people was not neccesarily an influence as you suggest, or it would be in my case also. It's more likely the influence of other, white peole, around us that make some of the difference as well. ACK!

My argument? Surmising that my bias is "probably mostly" due to a certain condition in my upbringing really isn't an argument, it's just a guess. And it is likely only one factor of many - the fact that you had a similar situation and turned out differently does not negate the point. Perhaps the influence of the factor was equal upon both of us, and you had some other factor that negated that influence. I really don't know. But it's preposterous to compare your life to mine and argue that, because you turned out one way, my "argument" is wrong.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


My argument? Surmising that my bias is "probably mostly" due to a certain condition in my upbringing really isn't an argument, it's just a guess. And it is likely only one factor of many - the fact that you had a similar situation and turned out differently does not negate the point. Perhaps the influence of the factor was equal upon both of us, and you had some other factor that negated that influence. I really don't know. But it's preposterous to compare your life to mine and argue that, because you turned out one way, my "argument" is wrong.

I didn't say wrong, I said faulty. Whether it's an argument or a guess. It's not "likely" that it's one og many factors, it's almost certain that there are other factors.

There would have to be, otherwise we should have the same outlook.

The only thing I was trying to point out, was that, considering we had similar backgrounds, it's interesting that we got such different results.

Yet, you seem to think that I was attacking you for some reason, I guess we do have different backgrounds.

ACK!

[mrmitchell]

I am not a sociologist, disclaimer accomplished

I think exposure to diversity is essential for people to grow up and be tolerant. That said, you're not a bad person or a racist if you never met a person of different ethnicity until high school or college, of course not. But it's very likely that you don't have much to go on other than stereotypes we see in the media.

An analogy: If you grow up in the city and never set foot on a farm until you're out of high school, you won't know much about farming.

No one is necessarily bad or stupid because they've not been exposed to something.

[Cyclotron]

Well, of course there are other factors. To me, likely = almost certain, but maybe that's just how I talk. But I don't think it's debatable that growing up in an environment in which black people are an unknown "other," and not a part of life or even seen save on TV (and we all know how skewed that can be), is likely to contribute towards biases, conscious and unconscious, in a way that growing up in an environment in which black people are present and represented is not.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

So? That wasn't what I quoted was about.

Well, since you quoted me, I disagreee. Sure, both parties use fear. My point was that the GOP urges its voters to fear people, often their fellow Americans -- blacks, feminists, gays -- while the Dems, according to you, urge its voters to fear policy options -- changing social security, drilling ANWR, etc. Fearing policy options is the starting point of a political debate; fearing whole groups of people is the starting point of prejudice. That's the difference.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Well, since you quoted me, I disagreee. Sure, both parties use fear. My point was that the GOP urges its voters to fear people, often their fellow Americans -- blacks, feminists, gays -- while the Dems, according to you, urge its voters to fear policy options -- changing social security, drilling ANWR, etc. Fearing policy options is the starting point of a political debate; fearing whole groups of people is the starting point of prejudice. That's the difference.

But they put faces behind the people. They want you to fear Ken Lay, George Bush, Newt Gingrich, etc

[Cyclotron]

Ken Lay is not an ethnicity, nor any other category of person.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Ken Lay is not an ethnicity, nor any other category of person.

Ken Lay is in a category of people...business leaders.

[mrmitchell]

Ken Lay is in a category of people...business leaders.

So...the Democrats have been campaigning on fear of business leaders?

It might explain our performance if it was true but you're just starting to get silly with this train of thought.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

Ken Lay is in a category of people...business leaders.

1) The Dems, slaves to their corporate masters that they are, never campaign against "business leaders."

2) Dem campaigning against Lay, Bush, Gingrich, et al is based on what they've done, not who they are.

3) Again, Dem fear-mongering is based on policy decisions (Bush invaded Iraq; Enron execs screwed employees and consumers) or potential policy decisions (Bush is going to fubar Social Security). GOP fear mongering is based on associating negative behaviors with whole groups of people.

Do you really not get this? Or do you really think "corporate executive" and "African-American" are equivalent categories? Either way, .