Hillary faints @ ground zero?

[agent00f]

So, we're supposed to believe that people getting beaten down by trickledown economics will vote for it again because they're not driven by other irrational anxieties, like race, gender, sexuality, immigration & all the general forms of otherizing wedge issues?

If we look at that gallop study, the most comprehensive one to date, it's pretty clear economics & other factors rather takes a back seat to racial ones.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Wait. I thought Hillary was a war hawk? Now she loves Muslims and is a secret terrorist. Will she fist bump the secret terrorist fist bump.

fist *jab*, gotta get the vernacular right, fist JAB... fist *bump* is too soft, has to be a "jab" to get the 'right reaction'

 

[realibrad]

So you believe Drudge when they claim it came from Clinton's campaign? That's the source of what you claim.

Do you believe anybody who tells you what you want to hear?

The Obama campaign believed it was her campaign. When it came out, he was already winning as far as I know, so it sure does seem like an attempt at the end.

Also, there was more than just the Muslim dress issue.

"I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values."

If Trump said that about Obama, I would say he was trying to play the birther angle, but when Hillary's camp say it...

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So, we're supposed to believe that people getting beaten down by trickledown economics will vote for it again because they're not driven by other irrational anxieties, like race, gender, sexuality, immigration & all the general forms of otherizing wedge issues?

Immigration has direct economic effects on the job market. I'm generally pro-immigration and pro-free trade, but the people on the bottom upset that their menial labor and manufacturing jobs are disappearing won't feel the same way. That's Trump's base. Of course, I don't deny the existence of wedge issues, nor that there is an intrinsic racial element to immigration. Christian fundies will reliably vote (R) as long as abortion and gays are around to scare them, probably no matter the economic issues. However, iirc Trump's area of support during the primaries was actually from less religious and more gay-ambivalent Republicans.

If you take a closer look at these sort of studies, racial resentment stands out as a better predictor than other metrics for party affiliation as mentioned. It also rather says something that trump handily beat the least racially resentful choices like rubio & such given the prominence of this metric.

The studies aren't conducted by salon, nor is the very recent one on the democraphics of trump support which reaches the same conclusions: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822059. You can tell because it says study from so and so org, where the name isn't salon, like for example gallop is spelled rather differently.

Now in all fairness not all republicans like trump, but it's rather undeniable he won their nomination relatively easily, and pretty unimpeachable they agree on most other things as well.

My bad regarding misattributing the study to Salon, the wording of the blog post at the end seemed to imply it. In any case, they do introduce their own analysis of the data, including their various controls, and draw their conclusions based on that. The word "resentment" doesn't seem to appear in that paper (unless Firefox's search is broken) and I don't want to read through that 40 page study just to see that it is unrelated to the claims in the Salon piece (the abstract certainly isn't as strong in its claims), which tells me there's something else going on.

 

[realibrad]

No, by pointing out society is generally more demographically diverse than it used to be, he's clearly implying there simply aren't as many racists for it be as systemic. But judging by the demographics of this election, it's pretty obvious all the older white males are voting for the white nationalist candidate.

I think you might be confusing the word systemic here. There is not a system of racism like there was. Racism is not part of laws ect. It could very well be that our society could be even more racist than the past, but systemic racism could be less.

What demographics of this election show Trump is the white nationalist candidate? I know racism polls have been done in the past for other elections, but did they do one for this already?

 

[agent00f]

Immigration has direct economic effects on the job market. I'm generally pro-immigration and pro-free trade, but the people on the bottom upset that their menial labor and manufacturing jobs are disappearing won't feel the same way. That's Trump's base. Of course, I don't deny the existence of wedge issues, nor that there is an intrinsic racial element to immigration. Christian fundies will reliably vote (R) as long as abortion and gays are around to scare them, probably no matter the economic issues. However, iirc Trump's area of support during the primaries was actually from less religious and more gay-ambivalent Republicans.

You can claim that, but it's contradicted by actual studies on the matter as demonstrated.

My bad regarding misattributing the study to Salon, the wording of the blog post at the end seemed to imply it. In any case, they do introduce their own analysis of the data, including their various controls, and draw their conclusions based on that. The word "resentment" doesn't seem to appear in that paper (unless Firefox's search is broken) and I don't want to read through that 40 page study just to see that it is unrelated to the claims in the Salon piece (the abstract certainly isn't as strong in its claims), which tells me there's something else going on.

No, all they have to do is present the data as it is, same as the economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-chart-8

The gallop study shows rather clearly that actual economics is not much of a factor in trump support, and things such as not knowing any minorities or immigrants & presumably believing all the trump/gop rhetoric about them is. However it's pretty revealing that supporters studied tend to *believe* that economics (caused by the dirty minorities & foreigners) is a factor.

 

[agent00f]

I think you might be confusing the word systemic here. There is not a system of racism like there was. Racism is not part of laws ect. It could very well be that our society could be even more racist than the past, but systemic racism could be less.

Systemic X is an emergent property of systems with a lot of aggregate X.

What demographics of this election show Trump is the white nationalist candidate? I know racism polls have been done in the past for other elections, but did they do one for this already?

The studies we're talking about above do, consider reading the rest of the conversation.

 

[realibrad]

Systemic X is an emergent property of systems with a lot of aggregate X.

So what part of the system is racist that makes it systemic? We dont have racist laws, so what makes the system racist? You can have individuals that are racist, and not the system.

The studies we're talking about above do, consider reading the rest of the conversation.

The only paper I have seen in this thread is this. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822059
That simply found that people who live in racially isolated places are more likely to vote Trump. It does not say anything about racism. Its also a correlation study, and did not find any casual mechanisms. Was there another that I missed?

 

[Pens1566]

And Hillary's the clear choice among Muslim terrorists, are you really going to vote the same way they are?

Actually, it seems they prefer Casino Mussolini ...

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-wants-t...witter-users-say-republican-will-help-2408204

 

[agent00f]

So what part of the system is racist that makes it systemic? We dont have racist laws, so what makes the system racist? You can have individuals that are racist, and not the system.

Appear you don't know what systemic X means. For example, if an arab/muslim or black guy goes for a job interview some portion of the population/interviewers might weigh that against him. Not getting jobs or such across the board for a group results in lower socio-econ status. This not only has a network but also cascading effect, whereby non-racist persons thinking in purely practical terms might consider that someone is not a good fit among co-workers who think negatively of them.

Notice there's no racist laws involved in this systemic discriminatory racism.

The only paper I have seen in this thread is this. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822059
That simply found that people who live in racially isolated places are more likely to vote Trump. It does not say anything about racism. Its also a correlation study, and did not find any casual mechanisms. Was there another that I missed?

The other articles are reporting on other studies done, some directly measuring racial resentment, which seems simple enough given they directly state and/or link to the studies.

It's not exactly contentious when studies consistently find one overarching factor leading to trump support above all others, and he actively panders to their language & ideas, that this is probably why those people like him.

 

[realibrad]

Appear you don't know what systemic X means. For example, if an arab/muslim or black guy goes for a job interview some portion of the population/interviewers might weigh that against him. Not getting jobs or such across the board for a group results in lower socio-econ status. This not only has a network but also cascading effect, whereby non-racist persons thinking in purely practical terms might consider that someone is not a good fit among co-workers who think negatively of them.

Notice there's no racist laws involved in this systemic discriminatory racism.

For it to be systemic, you have to define the system. Are you sure you don't mean to use systematic or some other word? In your example of a job interview, you would have to argue that there is something fundamentally compromised in the system of job interviews. Having a large group of individuals all have the same subjective feelings is not systemic. If in your example there was a policy or procedure that was changed or implemented due to racism, then you could claim systemic racism. I think you two are using different definitions.

The other articles are reporting on other studies done, some directly measuring racial resentment, which seems simple enough given they directly state and/or link to the studies.

It's not exactly contentious when studies consistently find one overarching factor leading to trump support above all others, and he actively panders to their language & ideas, that this is probably why those people like him.

I saw polls, but not a peer reviewed study.

 

[agent00f]

For it to be systemic, you have to define the system. Are you sure you don't mean to use systematic or some other word? In your example of a job interview, you would have to argue that there is something fundamentally compromised in the system of job interviews. Having a large group of individuals all have the same subjective feelings is not systemic. If in your example there was a policy or procedure that was changed or implemented due to racism, then you could claim systemic racism. I think you two are using different definitions.

Completely wrong pedantry aside, the system is our society, the one which has quite a few racists. A job interview is just one example within that system, of which are many in everyday life.

I saw polls, but not a peer reviewed study.

Polling is a tool for studying something, particular when the object of study is what people think.

 

[Roflmouth]

Completely wrong pedantry aside, the system is our society, the one which has quite a few racists.

True, you're part of "our society," LOL

 

[agent00f]

True, you're part of "our society," LOL

It's already pretty well established you can't tell when someone is mocking your racism.

 

[Roflmouth]

It's already pretty well established you can't tell when someone is mocking your racism.

And you can't tell, hilariously, when I'm *not* mocking yours

 

[agent00f]

And you can't tell, hilariously, when I'm *not* mocking yours

Sometimes it's fitting to mock what racists think of people with darker skin. Unfortunately folks who aren't known for being terribly bright think parodies are real, which is incidentally how /pol/ or /r/the_donald came to be.

 

[Roflmouth]

Sometimes it's fitting to mock what racists think of people with darker skin.

So you were mocking yourself then

Unfortunately folks who aren't known for being terribly bright think parodies are real, which is incidentally how /pol/ or /r/the_donald came to be.

Really? /pol and r/the_donald came about because not terribly bright folks confused parodies for reality? LOL, do you even think the things you write through before hitting send, or does the Tourette's make that impossible?

 

[agent00f]

So you were mocking yourself then

No, I'm mocking you & friends. The sort to confuse a parody for reality.

Really? /pol and r/the_donald came about because not terribly bright folks confused parodies for reality? LOL, do you even think the things you write through before hitting send, or does the Tourette's make that impossible?

Yes, the sort of material they worship now used to be a joke about how racist these folks are. These days people constantly ask if the_donald is actually real or not, validating Poe's Law.

 

[realibrad]

Completely wrong pedantry aside, the system is our society, the one which has quite a few racists. A job interview is just one example within that system, of which are many in everyday life.



Polling is a tool for studying something, particular when the object of study is what people think.

Lol, you did not even look at your link. If you had, you would have seen that it says 100% the same thing I have been saying.

The adjective systematic means (1) carried out using step-by-step procedures, or (2) of, characterized, or constituting a system. It typically describes carefully planned processes that unfold gradually. Systemic, which is narrower in definition, means systemwide or deeply engrained in the system. It usually describes habits or processes that are difficult to reverse because they are built into a system.

Again, the person is saying that they don't see overt racism and question systemic racism. Saying that lots of people are racist does not inherently mean systemic racism. Further, your stance is unverifiable because what you have said is that racism is there and it cant be seen because people hid it. Thus, people choose trump because they are racist, instead of many other possible reasons (mostly bad ones). At best, you can claim that the system is society.

Polling as any other tool is only as good as the person(s) whom wield it. Just because its a poll does not mean its valid. Just as correlation studies are as useful as the quality of their evidence. Check out the below. The correlation is apparent and explicit.

 

[agent00f]

Lol, you did not even look at your link. If you had, you would have seen that it says 100% the same thing I have been saying.

The adjective systematic means (1) carried out using step-by-step procedures, or (2) of, characterized, or constituting a system. It typically describes carefully planned processes that unfold gradually. Systemic, which is narrower in definition, means systemwide or deeply engrained in the system. It usually describes habits or processes that are difficult to reverse because they are built into a system.

Remember how I taught you how to use google? Now try to apply that to find whether "systemic racism" or "systematic racism" is used by people who study this stuff professionally. Then consider if it's more likely they're all wrong or someone like yourself is wrong; that shouldn't be very difficult or contentious. Subsequently, try to figure out why you're so wrong here (and so often, too), though I have ~zero confidence this point will be reach which explains the problem in the first place.

Again, the person is saying that they don't see overt racism and question systemic racism. Saying that lots of people are racist does not inherently mean systemic racism.

Of course it does, or else they wouldn't be racist. Or maybe you still can't figure out what systemic racism is despite the rather simple & clear explaination. Reading some of the link you just found via google might help.

Further, your stance is unverifiable because what you have said is that racism is there and it cant be seen because people hid it. Thus, people choose trump because they are racist, instead of many other possible reasons (mostly bad ones). At best, you can claim that the system is society.

Good thing we can use empirical methods to find why they choose certain candidates. I said people general avoid acting racist in public, which is probably why the studies don't ask "are you racist".

Polling as any other tool is only as good as the person(s) whom wield it. Just because its a poll does not mean its valid. Just as correlation studies are as useful as the quality of their evidence. Check out the below. The correlation is apparent and explicit.

You might've done somewhat better than not even wrong if you can even bother to look at any specifics of the studies. Someone answering with racial resentment and their being racially resentful is not the kind of correlation you might've heard of somewhere once. In fact it never appears like you know much about science or polling, so it's probably best to lay off proclaiming much in that context.

 

[realibrad]

Remember how I taught you how to use google? Now try to apply that to find whether "systemic racism" or "systematic racism" is used by people who study this stuff professionally. Then consider if it's more likely they're all wrong or someone like yourself is wrong; that shouldn't be very difficult or contentious. Subsequently, try to figure out why you're so wrong here (and so often, too), though I have ~zero confidence this point will be reach which explains the problem in the first place.

Of course it does, or else they wouldn't be racist. Or maybe you still can't figure out what systemic racism is despite the rather simple & clear explaination. Reading some of the link you just found via google might help.

Just because an adjective is followed by a noun does not mean the definition of the adjective changes. But, lets look at some definitions if you would like..

"Systemic Racism: In many ways “systemic racism” and “structural racism” are synonymous. If there is a difference between the terms, it can be said to exist in the fact that a structural racism analysis pays more attention to the historical, cultural and social psychological aspects of our currently racialized society." https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/c...t/docs/rcc/RCC-Structural-Racism-Glossary.pdf

"Structural Racism: A system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies dimensions of our history and culture that have allowed privileges associated with “whiteness” and disadvantages associated with “color” to endure and adapt over time. Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and political systems in which we all exist"

Okay, so that backs up my usage.

"Institutional racism or systemic racism describes forms of racism which are structured into political and social institutions. It occurs when organisations, institutions or governments discriminate, either deliberately or indirectly, against certain groups of people to limit their rights." http://www.racismnoway.com.au/teaching-resources/factsheets/32.html

Yep, fits what I have been saying again. For the term Systemic racism, there needs to be a structural factor and implementation. Had you looked at this at all, you would have seen this. Instead, you try and discredit me as x or y.

Good thing we can use empirical methods to find why they choose certain candidates. I said people general avoid acting racist in public, which is probably why the studies don't ask "are you racist".

If you mean to say that we can use empirical data to back up correlation then sure. Empirical data can do that, but it does not give an inherent conclusion. My graph used empirical data gathered by "empirical methods" to build the table. Empirical data is a much better thing to build ideas and assumptions from, but it does not inherently draw conclusions.

You might've done somewhat better than not even wrong if you can even bother to look at any specifics of the studies. Someone answering with racial resentment and their being racially resentful is not the kind of correlation you might've heard of somewhere once. In fact it never appears like you know much about science or polling, so it's probably best to lay off proclaiming much in that context.

Oh, you are right, I know nothing of science.

But, this again is a deflection. A poll can attempt to be scientific and still not be scientific. A paper can attempt to be quality and still fail at its goal. This is why peer review is important. While those peers might have many of the same assumptions and bias, it gives a chance to have a different view at the data. I have no doubt that Trump supporters are filled with racists in their ranks. I would even dare to say that in my opinion there are more racists supporting Trump than Clinton. That does not mean that Trump supporters are picking Trump for racist reasons.

All of this is a distraction from my post that I started talking to you about though. I would bet that this was your intent. Bring up as much crap as you can so as to distract from you original post. A person questioned if we had systemic aka institutional racism like we once had, and your reply to that. There is a reason you simply post links and do little to no work beyond that. Most people will see a link, read the title and move on. You appear to have backed up your position when in reality you have not as exampled by your recent attempt at systemic vs systematic.

 

[ivwshane]

Looks like buckshat is back in town.

 

[realibrad]

Looks like buckshat is back in town.

Agent is like a left version of Buck. Lots of claims and links but none of which back up his statements. First time I talked to Agent was about the Iraq death numbers where he linked to a discredited number. His argument was that it was discredited by people that he did not feel should be able to discredit. Then he claimed that terrorism is just how poor people fight wars. I never thought of it, but you are right that he is just like Buck. Same style.

 

[TheGardener]

The Obama campaign believed it was her campaign. When it came out, he was already winning as far as I know, so it sure does seem like an attempt at the end.

You can prove it 10 times over and Jhhnn will still deny it. He's a believer that if you retell a lie often enough, enough people will believe you.

The Clinton 2008 campaign fired a volunteer working in Iowa in 2007 for coming up with the Birther comment, which was emailed in to the campaign. In 2008 when the anointed Clinton was falling behind Obama, Sidney Blumenthal started disseminating "news" to the media that Obama was born in Nigeria.

But the real question today is, when is Clinton going to publicly apologize to Obama and the nation for her racist Birther lies? And has she ever publicly apologized for her obvious 2008 assertion that a black man as president, couldn't or wouldn't get up at 3:00 AM when a national emergency arose? Still waiting on that one too.

 

[realibrad]

You can prove it 10 times over and Jhhnn will still deny it. He's a believer that if you retell a lie often enough, enough people will believe you.

The Clinton 2008 campaign fired a volunteer working in Iowa in 2007 for coming up with the Birther comment, which was emailed in to the campaign. In 2008 when the anointed Clinton was falling behind Obama, Sidney Blumenthal started disseminating "news" to the media that Obama was born in Nigeria.

But the real question today is, when is Clinton going to publicly apologize to Obama and the nation for her racist Birther lies? And has she ever publicly apologized for her obvious 2008 assertion that a black man as president, couldn't or wouldn't get up at 3:00 AM when a national emergency arose? Still waiting on that one too.

Well its true if you tell a lie enough people will believe it. There is a reason so many believe Obama is a Muslim. I was able to dig up a few examples that Jhhnn asked for, but there are far more examples from the right.