So, are black people really more racist than whites?

[Undesired Walrus]

So are black people really more racist than whites?: No.

However if 80% of white people did not vote for Obama because he was black, then of course we would be a racist nation,

Yes.

but when 80% of black people vote for Obama because he is black (or at least the other 30% or so of them who vote over and above whites), then that is not racist??

No, it's not racist.

What am I missing here?

A lot.

Seeing how racism is believing a certain race is inferior, until you can prove whether 80% of black voters find that a white president does not have the intellect or biology to be a leader, it is just wishful thinking on your part.

 

[Dr Adequate]

:sigh: reverting to form again, and I thought we were doing so well....


Actually in the latter case it seems they might be, as of today.

You are struggling.

You are struggling.

You are reverting to form again.

I said white people were color neutral, as can best be determined, but blacks are not, as you agree. Why do you always have to be so mean?

Rubbish argument and irrelevant. What can I say

I'll be kind and say the jury is still out, after all these years.


...or what you thought you said, or what you wished you said. Anything except what you failed to say (intelligently).

I'm too old to be getting testy at. You should know that by now.

You screwed the logic and mangled the argument.

Well, that was content-free, wasn't it?

Whites are not voting by skin color, but (a large percentage of) blacks are. The question is simply, should it still be called racist preference, or does that only apply if whites play that game?

Oh look, you did it again --- once more, you have managed to introduce your conclusion as part of your premise.

I recommend that you read my posts through again. The point is really incredibly simple. I barely know how to make it more simple.

Let's try it this way. In the Deep South, during the bad old days, white people were much more likely to lynch black people than black people were. We cannot immediately extrapolate from this fact the conclusion that this is caused by racist favoritism of blacks for their own race, because we also need to know whether the lynchings were justified.

To conclude, in that case, that this demographic pattern is the result of black racism assumes that the behavior of the white people can be taken as a standard of non-racism, and that any deviation from it constitutes black racism --- which is the thing to be proved.

Before we can take that leap, we would require more data.

 

[SimpleIrony]

You screwed the logic and mangled the argument. Whites are not voting by skin color, but (a large percentage of) blacks are. The question is simply, should it still be called racist preference, or does that only apply if whites play that game?

Where do you get the idea that the white vote is colour neutral?

You are assuming, as Dr. Adequate (who is very very clever) has pointed out, that 50/50 is a racially neutral split. You have no idea how many white voters are racially motivated in this election, but assume a figure of zero because the vote breaks evenly. But you have no reason for assuming that.

The other thing about the black vote is that people seem to be assumming it's all based on skin colour. Why? What is the demographic breakdown of black people in the States? How do they fit with the other demographics that Obama is doing well with? How do you know that black people just aren't more sexist than white people? What if they aren't voting for Barack, but against Hillary because she is a woman?

 

[Elind]

But DC is a majority black city - about 60%. It should be interesting to see how it votes compared to neighboring Maryland, which is only about 27% black. Baltimore is majority black also, comparable to DC at about 63%.

I live in Virginia, so I'm going to vote for McCain because he's white (*ducks, runs...*)

So let us know please, if there are any such "discriminatory" results published. I will be the first to admit that what has been provided so far is spotty, yet sufficient for the discussion.

 

[Elind]

Seeing how racism is believing a certain race is inferior, until you can prove whether 80% of black voters find that a white president does not have the intellect or biology to be a leader, it is just wishful thinking on your part.

Did I say racism is believing a certain race is inferior, or is that your definition?

I thought it was just simply having a dislike or distrust (or both) of someone based on physical characteristics.

I have had the displeasure of running into black people who were obviously and pleasurably racist about whites , but the only stupidity they expressed was concerning my being in the wrong part of town; otherwise I didn't think they thought I was biologically inferior. Then of course we have the Nation of Islam crowd, who make no bones about the superiority issue, but of course they call themselves Muslims, which is another level of protection.

I'm kind of sorry to see this comment from you because I have seen many smarter ones, but this is a pure knee jerk "politically correct" comment.

 

[Elind]

Well, that was content-free, wasn't it?

A Dr. A response, true to form.

Oh look, you did it again --- once more, you have managed to introduce your conclusion as part of your premise.

A Dr. A response, true to form.

I recommend that you read my posts through again. The point is really incredibly simple. I barely know how to make it more simple.

A Dr. A response. True to form.

Let's try it this way. In the Deep South, during the bad old days, white people were much more likely to lynch black people than black people were.

A Dr. A irrelevance. True to form.

We cannot immediately extrapolate from this fact the conclusion that this is caused by racist favoritism of blacks for their own race, because we also need to know whether the lynchings were justified.

Getting bored here. Ditto.

To conclude, in that case, that this demographic pattern is the result of black racism assumes that the behavior of the white people can be taken as a standard of non-racism, and that any deviation from it constitutes black racism --- which is the thing to be proved.

Good grief. :Yawn:

Before we can take that leap, we would require more data.

That's a joke. The only data you respect is the crap you imagine.

 

[Dr Adequate]

A Dr. A response, true to form.



A Dr. A response, true to form.



A Dr. A response. True to form.



A Dr. A irrelevance. True to form.



Getting bored here. Ditto.



Good grief. :Yawn:



That's a joke. The only data you respect is the crap you imagine.

Was something in that babble supposed to be a rebuttal of anything I said?

'Cos it wasn't.

I thought the lie at the end was particularly stupid.

 

[Elind]

Where do you get the idea that the white vote is colour neutral?

Did I say that? I think, in this case the issue was one of not showing obvious racial preference. Are you taking lessons?

You are assuming, as Dr. Adequate (who is very very clever) has pointed out, that 50/50 is a racially neutral split.

Your hero is clever at avoiding the issue, I'll admit, but do you think for yourself? Tell him you are owed a kiss.

You have no idea how many white voters are racially motivated in this election, but assume a figure of zero because the vote breaks evenly. But you have no reason for assuming that.

One vote breaks, now breaking, fairly clearly non racially. Another, on limited data but worthy of discussion, clearly racially. Are you one of these blinkered creationists or what?

The other thing about the black vote is that people seem to be assuming it's all based on skin color. Why? What is the demographic breakdown of black people in the States? How do they fit with the other demographics that Obama is doing well with? How do you know that black people just aren't more sexist than white people? What if they aren't voting for Barrack, but against Hillary because she is a woman?

Instead of asking trivial questions as if they were a response to a more obvious statistical interpretation, why don't you make a trivial attempt to prove your point, other than the uninspired one of wishing the question away?

 

[Elind]

Was something in that babble supposed to be a rebuttal of anything I said?

'Cos it wasn't.

I thought the lie at the end was particularly stupid.

This is getting childish. You may have your fantasies. I gave it a shot but just like previous attempts, you fail the test.

 

[LostAngeles]

I keep seeing numbers that say something like 80+% of Black Americans are voting for Obama.

Now, at a certain level one can kind of see that there would be a tendency to do so, just as some people would vote for Hillary just because they think the idea of having the first woman president is cool.

However if 80% of white people did not vote for Obama because he was black, then of course we would be a racist nation, but when 80% of black people vote for Obama because he is black (or at least the other 30% or so of them who vote over and above whites), then that is not racist??

It seems that if one votes for someone due to race that is not racist, but if one votes against someone for race then it is?

What am I missing here?

How do you know that they're voting for him because of his blackness and not his policies? Isn't assuming that to be the case, well, racist?

 

[Dr Adequate]

This is getting childish. You may have your fantasies. I gave it a shot but just like previous attempts, you fail the test.

I guess declaring yourself the winner is easier than rebutting my point.

Or, apparently, even addressing it.

 

[Elind]

I guess declaring yourself the winner is easier than rebutting my point.

Or, apparently, even addressing it.

Actually, I'm the loser, and I hadn't even thought it was about winning, but I know you find that hard to understand.

I hate to ignore posts, but why don't you just accept my disrespect, and I'll accept yours, and we'll find others more in tune with our respective styles to exchange perspectives with?

 

[Elind]

How do you know that they're voting for him because of his blackness and not his policies? Isn't assuming that to be the case, well, racist?

Well I don't, but the logical corollary would be that Obama's policies are racist according to your suggestion.

Feel free to elaborate, with less obviously politically correct assumptions.

 

[LostAngeles]

Well I don't, but the logical corollary would be that Obama's policies are racist according to your suggestion.

Feel free to elaborate, with less obviously politically correct assumptions.

How so?

You're apparently assuming that the black voters are voting for him only because his father is black and he identifies as black. You've characterized an entire group of people as doing something based on the color of their skin. This is, by definition, a racist characterization.

I suggested that the votes Obama is getting may be because of his policies and not his skin color.

How can his policies be racist then?

 

[SimpleIrony]

Did I say that? I think, in this case the issue was one of not showing obvious racial preference. Are you taking lessons?

From this:

I said white people were color neutral, as can best be determined, but blacks are not, as you agree. Why do you always have to be so mean?

Your hero is clever at avoiding the issue, I'll admit, but do you think for yourself? Tell him you are owed a kiss.

I've read three posts by him in, all of which seemed intelligent. I've read six posts by you; I can't say the same.

One vote breaks, now breaking, fairly clearly non racially. Another, on limited data but worthy of discussion, clearly racially. Are you one of these blinkered creationists or what?

No, I don't jump to conclusions based on insufficiant data. I know what an idiot right?

Instead of asking trivial questions as if they were a response to a more obvious statistical interpretation, why don't you make a trivial attempt to prove your point, other than the uninspired one of wishing the question away

Instead of accusing others of being mindless drones why not think things through?

You've jumped to the narrowest conclusion without sufficient data, and seem proud of yourself for doing so. Well done.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I guess declaring yourself the winner is easier than rebutting my point.

Or, apparently, even addressing it.

A Dr. A response, true to form.

Don't worry, Elind doesn't like me either .

Which reminds me, I still never found out why...

 

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, I'm the loser, and I hadn't even thought it was about winning, but I know you find that hard to understand.

Hard? Yes indeed. My understanding of your mental processes is limited to what I can glean from reading what you post.

The following would be an example of what is meant by "declaring yourself the winner" : "This is getting childish. You may have your fantasies. I gave it a shot but just like previous attempts, you fail the test."

This gave me no inkling, I confess, that your true sentiments would best be described by the phrase: "Actually, I'm the loser."

However, I do not feel downhearted by this lacuna in my understanding --- there are doubtless simpler things in the universe than whatever strange conflicts are going on in your head right now, and I shall concentrate on understanding those.

I hate to ignore posts, but why don't you just accept my disrespect, and I'll accept yours, and we'll find others more in tune with our respective styles to exchange perspectives with?

If the purport of this is that I should give you a free ride when you make silly mistakes, then I cannot imagine any earthly reason why I should do so.

 

[Elind]

How so?

You're apparently assuming that the black voters are voting for him only because his father is black and he identifies as black. You've characterized an entire group of people as doing something based on the color of their skin. This is, by definition, a racist characterization.

Am I repeating myself?? Are you repeating the obvious?

Yes, I am suggesting that blacks may be voting based on a racist principle. Perhaps I am wrong, but simple numbers suggest it. Prove me wrong.

I suggested that the votes Obama is getting may be because of his policies and not his skin color.

I asked YOU what were Obama's policies that curried preferential votes from a racial group? You utterly ignored it.

How can his policies be racist then?

 

[Elind]

A Dr. A response, true to form.

Don't worry, Elind doesn't like me either .

Which reminds me, I still never found out why...

You are too sensitive. I think I found fault with your desire to redefine the language by wanting to eliminate words like Evil and Good, and may have seen the same logic somewhere else, but I forget where.

If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry, but I try to express myself as briefly as possible and sometimes that can seem unduly personal.

As to your friend, his talent is to move any argument to a different playing field and then play a game of attrition, while routinely complimenting himself on his intelligence, but he's not alone and never has been.

Nuff said.

 

[Elind]

You've jumped to the narrowest conclusion without sufficient data, and seem proud of yourself for doing so. Well done.

You have proceeded to ignore any response to the actual numbers that prompted the thread by quoting someone else who made utterly speculative rationalizations for how the apparent "racial" differences could be accounted for while also using erroneous math and offering no substantive alternatives.

What can I say?

Since this thread started it appears that Obama is gaining momentum by getting an even higher percentage of the white democratic vote. If he becomes the clear front runner then most democrats will vote for him for that reason alone, and any definable differences between racial groups will disappear in the numbers.

This thread was started because it appeared earlier, by some numbers, that blacks were voting in significantly higher percentages for Obama than whites, and that voting patterns and surveys did NOT suggest that whites were voting AGAINST him for racial reasons.

On the one hand his candidacy is a very good thing, IMHO, for showing that racial discrimination is nothing like the level that the professional agitators like to pretend, but it also seems to suggest that many blacks still like to behave, through voting patterns, that they should vote with someone who looks similar.

The only alternative, as has been suggested here without recognition of the implications, is that Obama has policies that preferentially please blacks. What those could be that are not in themselves racially based I don't know, but I'm still hoping the poster will actually address the issue.