Rev Jackson shows his class again

[Darius871]

Originally posted by DaShi
Because, you'll find far more pontificating here than learning or educating.

So what, you'll probably find more porn and furry enthusiasts than learning or educating too. That doesn't make pontificating any less pointless.

[Kuciwalker]

Incidentally, the only reason I really care at all about the issue is because of the massive blindspot the MM has for it. As I said earlier, it's galling that they accused Hillary's campaign of being dependent on racists, while completely ignoring the other side, which was far more lopsided.

[DaShi]

Well, I agree. It won't likely change any one's opinion. But I don't think it's fair for you to single me out for it. If you don't like the way I post, what matter is it to you?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DaShi
So Kuci, are blacks more racist than whites?

The evidence supports that conclusion.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The evidence supports that conclusion.

What evidence? You're previous examples have been shown to not prove that. What new argument are you going to bring out now?

[Winston]

...the operative words being "because he's Black." Yes, it is a statistical fact that blacks overwhelmingly voted for the guy. However, there could be more than one reason that this is so. Kuci of all people should know that correlation is not causation.

Maybe they were just convinced that he would be more attentive to the issues most salient in their everyday lives than Clinton would be, and voted based on that. Surely you wouldn't call that rationale "racist" by any stretch of the imagination.

Maybe. We just know that it is indeed very hard to locate any Black person who won't support Barack Obama. I would say it's therefore not unreasonable to claim that race is the driving factor in their choice.

But Heaven forbid if White voters would apply that same factor on their part. I think that is what Kuciwalker took issue with. That, and how the media has tended to handle it.

Also, how far off is this following.. observation. Honestly? The guy can't have the following he does based on the actual political substance of his campaign, can he. The one that to any neutral observer just isn't there to be found.

[Kuciwalker]

You haven't provided any real refutation of my argument.

xpost

[DaShi]

Yes, I did. Several times. You just ignored it.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Winston
But Heaven forbid if White voters would apply that same factor on their part. I think that is what Kuciwalker took issue with. That, and how the media has tended to handle it.

Yes, but that's far off from saying that blacks are more racist than whites. That has to do with how society and the media handle race.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Maybe they were just convinced that he would be more attentive to the issues most salient in the everyday lives of black people than Clinton would be, and voted based on that. Surely you wouldn't call that rationale "racist" by any stretch of the imagination.

By the same token, if a white person voted for Hillary because they believed Obama would focus more on black issues than white issues*, that wouldn't be racist either.

Nah, because I never said "black issues," only "the issues most salient in the everyday lives of black people" and in fact on second thought DanS'ed it to "the issues most salient in their everyday lives" but it was too late. The fact that they happen to also be black could be merely incidental.

For just one hypothetical example, shifting more federal funds to inner-city schools is not a "black issue" per se, but you can't deny that it would be a more salient issue among blacks than whites given the simple coincidence caused by decades of self-perpetuating socioeconomic developments that happened to leave the inner city mostly black. So black voter X choosing black candidate Y who supports such a policy would not be 1) because Y is black or 2) because it's a "black issue," but 3) because X wants his/her kid to get a better education than he's getting now.

Extrapolate that simple hypothetical reasoning to the statistics you present, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that rationale #1 is any more common in the individual voter's own decision than #3. Now if there were an exit poll that specifically asked whether Obama's merely being half-black was a huge factor in voters' decisions, then you'd be getting somewhere.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Winston
Also, how far off is this following.. observation. Honestly? The guy can't have the following he does based on the actual political substance of his campaign, can he. The one that to any neutral observer just isn't there to be found.

No dispute here, I think the guy's a complete joke personally. That doesn't make anti-scientific thinking any less annoying to me.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Darius871
Nah, because I never said "black issues," only "the issues most salient in the everyday lives of black people" and in fact I DanS'ed it to "the issues most salient in their everyday lives" before you posted. The fact that they happen to also be black is incidental.

For just one hypothetical example, shifting more federal funds to inner-city schools is not a "black issue" per se, but you can't deny that it would be a more salient issue among blacks than whites given the simple coincidence caused by decades of self-perpetuating socioeconomic developments that left the inner city mostly black. So black voter X choosing for black candidate Y who supports such a policy would not be 1) because Y is black or 2) because it's a "black issue," but 3) because X wants his/her kid to get a better education than he's getting now.

I actually considered the socioeconomic argument, but AFAICT Hillary was actually doing much better than Obama among whites of the socioeconomic strata that are disproportionately black. Of course, there are confounding issues even there.

Again that's just a hypothetical to illustrate my point, but looking at the grand scheme of things I don't see any evidence that rationale #1 is any more common in the individual voter's own decision than #3. Now if there were an exit poll that specifically asked whether Obama's merely being half-black was a huge factor in voters' decisions, then you'd be getting somewhere.

Self-identification of racism would be a lot less reliable, actually.

And, as far as I can observe (and I know Ramo was huge on this point, and he's the policy wonk around here) Obama and Clinton were very, very close on the actual issues.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Darius871
No dispute here, I think the guy's a complete joke personally. That doesn't make anti-scientific thinking any less annoying to me.

Hey, hey. Even if I have statistical flaws (and I don't think I have any more weaknesses than are inherent to a question like this), that's not evidence of anti-scientific thinking, just insufficient care in constructing my argument

[DaShi]

So it was misogeny. Black people don't like women now.

Now I'm joking as it would be too cruel to poke hard at Kuci while he falls at the seams.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DaShi
So it was misogeny. Black people don't like women now.

Are you saying that's my argument, or providing an alternative interpretation of the facts?