So, are black people really more racist than whites?

[Dr Adequate]

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.

There's no point in lying to him about what I posted --- he read what I posted.

Your failure to unterstand simple sums do not make them erroneous, nor will saying so make it so. It would be necessary to find an actual error.

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.

You have gone round the same tiny bit of circular reasoning again and again.

Once would suffice. We know which mistake you wish to make.

The only alternative, as has been suggested here without recognition of the implications, is that Obama has policies that preferentially please blacks.

This is not true. Many other alternatives have been suggested. Indeed, the only reason that my suggestion alone does not constitute an infinite range of alternatives is that votes are discrete.

 

[chris epic]

I agree with the OP that if 80% of whites declined to vote for Obama, it would be used by some as evidence of racism.

If 80% of whites didn't vote for Obama, 80% of whites would only be realizing that Obama is full of it.

 

[Tmy]

Racism? Its not like the ARENT voting for Hilliary because shes white.

 

[chris epic]

Latinos have voted in overwhelming margins for Clinton... how does that fit into your hypothesis?

The Clintons are Spanish. Clinton is just an Americanized form of Clintonio.

 

[chris epic]

I don't think anyone has proposed that, yet.

As a matter of fact, Elind, Smackety hit it RIGHT on the buttom. Most people here are using the term "racism" in a very dangerously broad sense. In order for it to be racism, racism must be backed by the power of oppression. That's the best I can say it, but Slingblade has a much better definition.

Racial superiority and inferiority is the stuff RACISM is made of. Ethnic preferences because one better relates is completely social- just as has been mention several times before on this thread, it is no different than Christians voting for a Christian president; residents of Utah and Mass voting for Mitt; etc.

Its an identity issue, not an issue on what ethnicity is superior, and what one is inferior.

But again, we also have to be careful of assuming that the blacks are voting for a black based on the color of skin. That assumption can be just as racially motivated.

 

[SimpleIrony]

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.

I love it when people invent surveys. If you had surveys to back you up, why didn't you trot them out earlier? It would have saved a lot of time.

You have two pieces of information. The white vote, and the black vote. The black vote has gone to Obama, the White vote has split (but females tend to go for Hillary.)

From this you conclude that the white vote hasn't based their vote on skin colour, but the black vote has. From that you conclude that the reason most black people vote for a black man is can only be skin colour.

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.

The ONLY alternative? And you had the unbelievable audacity to say I think like a creationist?

 

[chris epic]

I guess here is the screwed up logic.

If you're white and you vote for a black, you're not racist.

If you're white and you vote for a white, you're not racist.

If you're black and you vote for a white, you're not racist.

If you are black and you vote for a black, you're racist.

That just has to be the most backward, ignorant thing I've heard.

 

[Rob Lister]

you people are nuts.

that's all...nothing else.

 

[LostAngeles]

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

It can't be that he has good policies that PEOPLE like?

You made the suggestion that they're voting for him because of his melanin levels, you prove it.

As a matter of fact, Elind, Smackety hit it RIGHT on the buttom. Most people here are using the term "racism" in a very dangerously broad sense. In order for it to be racism, racism must be backed by the power of oppression. That's the best I can say it, but Slingblade has a much better definition.

Racial superiority and inferiority is the stuff RACISM is made of. Ethnic preferences because one better relates is completely social- just as has been mention several times before on this thread, it is no different than Christians voting for a Christian president; residents of Utah and Mass voting for Mitt; etc.

Its an identity issue, not an issue on what ethnicity is superior, and what one is inferior.

But again, we also have to be careful of assuming that the blacks are voting for a black based on the color of skin. That assumption can be just as racially motivated.

What he said.

 

[Elind]

As a matter of fact, Elind, Smackety hit it RIGHT on the buttom. Most people here are using the term "racism" in a very dangerously broad sense. In order for it to be racism, racism must be backed by the power of oppression. That's the best I can say it, but Slingblade has a much better definition.

Smackety made a rational statement, to the effect that people vote for some possibly unstated comfort level, without considering issues first. In this case we have two candidates whose greatest differences are obvious when viewed, not heard. However I take exception to the "power of oppression" term as being too simplistic. Simple favoritism based on race alone suffices to be called racism; at least when done by whites.

Racial superiority and inferiority is the stuff RACISM is made of. Ethnic preferences because one better relates is completely social- just as has been mention several times before on this thread, it is no different than Christians voting for a Christian president; residents of Utah and Mass voting for Mitt; etc.

It is different, because Romney can claim a lot more in common with Mormons than just looks. Obama, if you read his history, has virtually nothing in common with the average black American's typical upbringing (or whites either, for that matter).

Its an identity issue, not an issue on what ethnicity is superior, and what one is inferior.

Identities cannot be viewed in racial terms, even without necessarily using words like inferior or superior? Preferential treatment on that basis alone suffices, I think.

But again, we also have to be careful of assuming that the blacks are voting for a black based on the color of skin. That assumption can be just as racially motivated.

:shrug: Yes, at least one pundit here has already called me a racist, simply for having the temerity to bring up this subject (actually, I think he was to timid to do it in this thread, it was done in another).

Someone else has also made this suggestion, but without proposing what other "policies" Obama has brought up that could be of preferential benefit to black Americans. I'm not aware of any, but I'm interested to hear of them. If there are none, what does that leave?

Statistics can be dangerous, as I'm sure we all agree, not only because they can be misrepresented. That there is discrimination by whites is of course known but the numbers that I have seen do not present as clear a racial preference as among blacks. For example one Googled survey indicates that among non college whites (democrat this is) roughly twice as many voted for Hillary as for Obama, but among college educated the advantage seems to be for Obama. Those numbers did not however dissect what role Hillary's gender played, nor did they give the relative proportions of college educated, whites, versus not. That there is going to be a bias from whites based on race alone is indisputable, but my personal impression is that it has been refreshingly subdued.

On the other hand the black vote seems much clearer in preference, with only about 20% voting white.

It does however appear that some people think this is a taboo subject to discuss based on the seeming indignation that is expressed.

I think simply that consciously or not, understandable or not, exclusive or not, there is an expression of racial bias in black voters, that has yet be explained in any other terms.

 

[Elind]

It can't be that he has good policies that PEOPLE like?

You made the suggestion that they're voting for him because of his melanin levels, you prove it.

Calm down buddy, and tell me what policies he has that will cause 80% of black Americans to vote for him and not well over 50% of all whites (after subtracting the racists).

 

[Elind]

you people are nuts.

that's all...nothing else.

 

[Elind]

I guess here is the screwed up logic.

If you're white and you vote for a black, you're not racist.

If you're white and you vote for a white, you're not racist.

If you're black and you vote for a white, you're not racist.

If you are black and you vote for a black, you're racist.

That just has to be the most backward, ignorant thing I've heard.

The way you put it, I guess I have to agree.

 

[LostAngeles]

Calm down buddy, and tell me what policies he has that will cause 80% of black Americans to vote for him and not well over 50% of all whites (after subtracting the racists).

I don't know. I don't have a direct tap into the black mind or the white mind. Just mine.

Also, I believe your figures have been called into question several times?

 

[chris epic]

Simple favoritism based on race alone suffices to be called racism; at least when done by whites.

That's just it, your definition of "racism" is inaccurate. I think you're confusing racism for "prejudice." No symantics; there is a BIG difference.

Identities cannot be viewed in racial terms, even without necessarily using words like inferior or superior?

Racial not Racist. Racism comes complete with oppression, delusions of ethnic superiority, and biggotry.

Do you know of an African-American candidate in the past that received the majority of the African-Amercian vote? No, it hasn't happened. I think from that example alone, your theory falls apart.

:shrug: Yes, at least one pundit here has already called me a racist,

Now you're just being sensitive. I never accused you of being a "racist." A little ignorant, yes, but not a racist.

 

[chris epic]

The way you put it, I guess I have to agree.

Just becareful, your whole entire premise is completely marginalizing the black vote.

 

[This is The End]

Dr. A., do you propose that, in reality, Obama "deserves"* 80%, which is what one indicator shows; or that, in reality, Obama "deserves" 50%, which is what another indicator shows?

*I understand "deserves" to have meant "what the current public consensus is".

Statistics should never override all available information, only strive to include it in some way.

Only speaking to my personal opinion, from various news media and a few real people, I see closer to a 50/50 split than it being 80/20 either way.....

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Elind, the point remains that until you can prove that 80% of Black voters vote for Obama because they believe that white people are the inferior race, it is simply not racism. It is not my definition, it is the definition from history.

The Black Power movement certainly had members in it who would sometimes say the above, but they were largely in the minority, and there is a reason 'Black Power' is not a racist chant, whilst 'White Power' is.

Your OP, and further comments clearly demonstrate some desperation to rip the ripe and ready badge of racism off white people, and stick it firmly onto the black population.

Don't be so fast to assume there is some politically correct conspiracy.

As for your comments about being impressed by my posts, I am humbled.

 

[brodski]

Racial not Racist. Racism comes complete with oppression, delusions of ethnic superiority, and biggotry.

There is no need for racism to come complete with oppression at all. racism is an ideology and ideologies don't change just because those that hold them are incapable of implementing their desired policies.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dr. A., do you propose that, in reality, Obama "deserves"* 80%, which is what one indicator shows; or that, in reality, Obama "deserves" 50%, which is what another indicator shows?

*I understand "deserves" to have meant "what the current public consensus is".

No, no, that's one of the traps Elind fell into.

Watch the arithmetic.

Let's say that the split is 80% for Obama among blacks, and 50% among whites, as originally proposed, and let's take the voters to be 90% white and 10% black, ignoring other races.

(This is just an illustration, exact figures are not required.)

Then it follows that the public consensus would be 90% × 50% + 10% × 80% = 53% for Obama.

If "deserves" means "what the current public consensus is" then we find that it is the black vote that is much, much more skewed by racial bias.

But now suppose that the figures were the same, except that America was 90% black. Still with 90% of blacks for Obama, and 50% of whites, but now the blacks are the majority.

Then it follows that the public consensus would be 90% × 80% + 10% × 50% = 77% for Obama.

So now who's being racist, eh?

---

In general, we can see that if we identify what is reasonable with the public consensus, then we will always, as an artifact of this method, find that any given minority is more unreasonable than the complemetary majority, wherever they exhibit a difference.

And this is the very stuff of which prejudice is made.