Who are the Racists: Conservatives or Liberals

[Hydra009]

Can you explain to me how they came up with that graph based on the poll results?  There is no liberal vs conservative, nor middle class/working class white category to review.

Literally every page has the following categories:  party ID, race, and family income.  Presumably, the middle class white category is a blend of two categories.  Just a bunch.

Additionally, I would say the whole premise of the graphs is contingent on which opinion(s) are correct.  Do you have the answer for that; do black (or white, or hispanic) take more or give more?

Heh, I'd wager you have a guess of your own...

[chill98]

Literally every page has the following categories:  party ID, race, and family income.  Presumably, the middle class white category is a blend of two categories.  Just a bunch.

Sooo there is no way to verify the accuracy of the graphs? They could just be making the whole thing up regarding whether liberal vs conservative vs middle class white has any bearing on what they present in the graphs.  Or is possible they had only a few (self defined) liberal vs conservative to base this graph on and because the pool was so small, the result is meaningless when applied to the whole?

Heh, I'd wager you have a guess of your own...

So you have no idea?  Or is your answer deflection?  After all, its the link you provided to (I assume) support a position.  Can you support it or should we just dismiss the graph as unsupported?  As I said, the poll itself seemed to me to better represent In-group/Out-group bias  than 'racism'.

[Hydra009]

They could just be making the whole thing up regarding whether liberal vs conservative vs middle class white has any bearing on what they present in the graphs.

That seems to be your core assumption, probably prior to even reading the data.  Good luck with that.

As I said, the poll itself seemed to me to better represent In-group/Out-group bias  than 'racism'.

[chill98]

That seems to be your core assumption, probably prior to even reading the data.  Good luck with that.

ah, more deflection...

But this doesn't answer my basic questions about the data as presented.  Though I do appreciate the fact you are not disputing my observations regarding that data.

So I guess the answer is, a critical thinker would be obligated to dismiss the graph, as in the data as presented does not support the conclusion.

[Duncle]

Okay...so what is racism anyway? A good starting place is a dictionary. This from Oxford:

racism
Pronunciation: /ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
noun

1Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: a programme to combat racism

1.1The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism

Other dictionary definitions that I've seen are similar.

Some on the left might argue for a much broader definition, one that would include "unconscious racism", "implicit racism" and so forth. I'm not convinced. It seems to me that there's a real danger in conflating what the British National Party or the KKK thinks/says/does with what many people, especially older folk brought up in a time when real racism was acceptable, think/say/do without any conscious malice. In these cases it might be better to use words like discrimination and prejudice. Dictionary racism is something that needs to be fought against wherever it raises its ugly head. Unconscious discrimination needs to be educated away.

Political racism in the dictionary sense is largely the preserve of the far right, and the mainstream right is guilty to the degree that it flirts with the Neo-Fascists, White Nationalists and other such bad guys. Since Trump has certainly done some such flirting he is to some degree guilty of racism, which is one of the reasons why I think he's so dangerous. And it doesn't reflect well on the party of Lincoln to nominate the shit. The left, on the other hand, are definitely not racist in the dictionary sense.

As far as affirminative action goes, I'm completely against it. Reasons as follows:
1. I believe in the principle that people shouldn't be discriminated against due to race/ethnicity. Discrimination for one group is necessarily discrimination against everyone else.
2. The people who are best able to reap the benefits of positive discrimination are often those that need it least, i.e. midddle class people from minority backgrounds. Reserving college places for black people doesn't help the folk in the inner cities who left high school with no qualifications- it helps the children of black lawyers and advertising executives.
3. The view of society that underpins affirmative action is just plain wrong. It kind of sees the goods that society produces (goods in a very broad sense) as being a sort of pie to be diivided up between that society's etnic groups. This is incredibly divisive.

I'm all for doing more, much more, for people in poverty. The UK (where I live) is hideously unequal; the US is even more so. In both countries ethnic minorities are a disproportionally large segment of the very poor. Lets help those people, but lets help them because they need it- not because of their skin colour.

[Baruch]

Great thundering herds of sweeping generalizations.

Don't like generalization?  Or don't like seeing American unmasked for the menace they are?  Trump and Hillary are Americans ... they are a menace because they are Americans.

So there are 320 million Americans.  You define 320 million unique adjectives to describe them, that would suit their supposed individuality.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Don't like generalization?  Or don't like seeing American unmasked for the menace they are?  Trump and Hillary are Americans ... they are a menace because they are Americans.

So there are 320 million Americans.  You define 320 million unique adjectives to describe them, that would suit their supposed individuality.

Sweeping generalizations are stupid.

[truthman8]

Of course Affirmative Action is no longer necessary! It never was! It is one of the tools Democrat Liberals use to keep racism going! Liberals through the Democrat party are the very authors of racism in America. It is their main accusation program against Christians, Conservatives, and Americans in general. Their premise is that the slavery stemming from the Trade Revolution of the 1500s was about "racism". It was never about racism, but about economics. The world was languishing in the Dark Ages until the Reformation started right at 1500. Henry VIII bucked the authority of the all-powerful church, paving the way for modern-day government. Trade began to expand, and the European continent began progressing out of the days of feudalism. Industry started to emerge from trade, and more people were needed to expand the prosperity that was being created. Nations that progress always take over those who do not progress, and so primitive tribes including Africans were taken along forcefully so that they would take part in world progress. Democrats along the way tried to stop attempts by Republicans to stop slavery, which incidentally only became wrong when America was founded on human rights. BTW, the first black slaves were taken by Muslims in 1512.

This is the first part. As soon as America was founded, a new philosophy called liberalism sprang up by Satanic reaction against a country based on rights and God. Liberalism was an affront to the new law system, claiming social activism over laws based on natural law of God. Atheism had also begun during the same time period, an attempt to nullify our God, not any other god, just the god of Judeo-Christianity.
Later on, Socialism and Communism, first only philosophies, would become political systems. But Liberalism remains a Satanic cult system, not a political philosophy. Its followers now cling to the Democrat party, while Republicans traditionally are conservatives. Democrat liberals are characterized by undue hatred of God, Jews, Christians, and Conservatives, who believe in limited government intrusion into the economy and personal property. They devote themselves to accusation programs such as racism and environmentalism. Their political party is now nothing but organized crime, with Republicans not far behind them because of the widespread corruption. They elect the worst examples of government leadership that they can find, and will not fight terrorists who threaten to destroy even them along with the rest of us.

[GSOgymrat]

As far as affirminative action goes, I'm completely against it. Reasons as follows:
1. I believe in the principle that people shouldn't be discriminated against due to race/ethnicity. Discrimination for one group is necessarily discrimination against everyone else.
2. The people who are best able to reap the benefits of positive discrimination are often those that need it least, i.e. midddle class people from minority backgrounds. Reserving college places for black people doesn't help the folk in the inner cities who left high school with no qualifications- it helps the children of black lawyers and advertising executives.
3. The view of society that underpins affirmative action is just plain wrong. It kind of sees the goods that society produces (goods in a very broad sense) as being a sort of pie to be diivided up between that society's etnic groups. This is incredibly divisive.

I'm all for doing more, much more, for people in poverty. The UK (where I live) is hideously unequal; the US is even more so. In both countries ethnic minorities are a disproportionally large segment of the very poor. Lets help those people, but lets help them because they need it- not because of their skin colour.

I agree. I think class has more to do with inequality in education than race and, as you say, if poor people were aided it would help racially minorities because they are disproportionately poor. The consequences of the ‘birth lottery’â€"the income and education of parents to whom a child is bornâ€"makes a big difference in social mobility.

[Hydra009]

Sweet Jesus, this thread has attracted its share of kooks.  Race issues tend to do that.  Ah well, I guess you can't fix stupid.

Anyways, here's more data:


Source

Kaisch and Clinton supporters look pretty good in comparison to the Trump supporters' abysmal attitudes.  Though the Kaisch people were definitely outnumbered by the Trump people at the Republican primaries.

1990s to 2012 Dem/Rep white attitudes towards blacks (At some points in time, the Republicans actually scored better, but generally the Dems had a narrow lead.  A few graphs showed some pretty wide gulfs, though)

Can't argue with the facts, though I'm sure some nitwit is going come along soon to yet again play the role of the pseudoskeptic to dismiss data he doesn't like.

[Blackleaf]

Of course Affirmative Action is no longer necessary! It never was! It is one of the tools Democrat Liberals use to keep racism going! Liberals through the Democrat party are the very authors of racism in America. It is their main accusation program against Christians, Conservatives, and Americans in general. Their premise is that the slavery stemming from the Trade Revolution of the 1500s was about "racism". It was never about racism, but about economics. The world was languishing in the Dark Ages until the Reformation started right at 1500. Henry VIII bucked the authority of the all-powerful church, paving the way for modern-day government. Trade began to expand, and the European continent began progressing out of the days of feudalism. Industry started to emerge from trade, and more people were needed to expand the prosperity that was being created. Nations that progress always take over those who do not progress, and so primitive tribes including Africans were taken along forcefully so that they would take part in world progress. Democrats along the way tried to stop attempts by Republicans to stop slavery, which incidentally only became wrong when America was founded on human rights. BTW, the first black slaves were taken by Muslims in 1512.

This is the first part. As soon as America was founded, a new philosophy called liberalism sprang up by Satanic reaction against a country based on rights and God. Liberalism was an affront to the new law system, claiming social activism over laws based on natural law of God. Atheism had also begun during the same time period, an attempt to nullify our God, not any other god, just the god of Judeo-Christianity.
Later on, Socialism and Communism, first only philosophies, would become political systems. But Liberalism remains a Satanic cult system, not a political philosophy. Its followers now cling to the Democrat party, while Republicans traditionally are conservatives. Democrat liberals are characterized by undue hatred of God, Jews, Christians, and Conservatives, who believe in limited government intrusion into the economy and personal property. They devote themselves to accusation programs such as racism and environmentalism. Their political party is now nothing but organized crime, with Republicans not far behind them because of the widespread corruption. They elect the worst examples of government leadership that they can find, and will not fight terrorists who threaten to destroy even them along with the rest of us.

Hail Satan!

[chill98]

Sweet Jesus, this thread has attracted its share of kooks.  Race issues tend to do that.  Ah well, I guess you can't fix stupid.

Anyways, here's more data:

Well I am sure your graph (without the questions/data asked attached) may answer someones questions but it does not answer the question I asked. 

Can you explain to me how they came up with that graph based on the poll results?  There is no liberal vs conservative, nor middle class/working class white category to review.

Looking at your newest attempt to answer my questions, it does not come close to what your original graph attempted to portray. Though it is apparent you are trying...

The Trump supporters' views on affirmative action and neighborhood diversity do not necessarily reflect racial bias alone, said Michael Traugott, a polling expert and professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, who is not publicly supporting either Trump or Clinton. Rather, the results could also suggest anxieties about economic insecurity and social standing.

Which would help explain some of the 20+% of Clinton supports who agree with the Trump supporters on these issues you are trying to represent as racism.  I admit I was surprised to see that many in the Clinton supporters regarding intelligence.  But then, maybe it was an interpretation issue and intelligence was interpreted as educated.  Less educated is what the respondents heard.    So do you prefer to think +20% of Clinton supporters think Blacks are less intelligent or do you prefer to think that maybe they interpreted the question wrong?

It sought responses from voters who support Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, and her rival U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. It also surveyed supporters of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and Ohio Governor John Kasich, the last two Republican candidates to drop out of the race.

So where is the Sanders people results from this poll? 
Sanders drops out sometime after June 17 - results not shown
Cruz drops out around May 3 - results shown
Kasich drops out around May 4 - results shown

Have you considered that this puff piece you present is biased in multiple ways?  Furthermore, this exclusion of the Sanders supporters and inclusion of the Dropped out Republican candidates makes me wonder a bit more about Sanders claims of Media/DNC bias towards his attempt to become president.

Or is this particular puff piece just another attempt at race baiting to get what they want?  Did the Sanders supporter responses make the Clinton supporters look like a bunch of racists therefore we don't want to show those results?  And did you consider these factors when posting this particular graph to support your position?

I don't consider you a kook/nitwit, just biased.   But then again, you just can't seem to avoid turning any perceived disagreement into some kind of marginalization of the differing opinions you meet up with can you?

Finally, I would say that the origin of this exchange, the yougov.com graph and whether it is supported by the data should be rejected as unsupported by the data.  I would further present that your current attempt should also be discarded via the lack of data AND the exclusion of the Sanders supporter responses.

[Nonsensei]

Did the Sanders supporter responses make the Clinton supporters look like a bunch of racists therefore we don't want to show those results? 

Honestly even without Sander's numbers, Clinton supporters aren't looking very good. I'm just eyeballing it, but it looks like Kasich supporters are actually slightly less racist than Clinton supporters overall.

And lets look at the big picture here. If these numbers are trustworthy, then yes Trump supporters are notably more racist. But hes hovering just above 40% on average while Clinton is hovering just below 30%. Now imagine this report without Trump in it.

30% of Clinton supporters are racist against Black people? This is a liberal group, right? Did i miss something?

To me, this just confirms what I already knew. Both candidates, and the people supporting them, are nothing to write home about. Maybe even something to feel ashamed of.

[Duncle]

I agree. I think class has more to do with inequality in education than race and, as you say, if poor people were aided it would help racially minorities because they are disproportionately poor. The consequences of the ‘birth lottery’â€"the income and education of parents to whom a child is bornâ€"makes a big difference in social mobility.

Class has a lot to do with education, and also a lot to do with inherited wealth and with the valuable social contacts that being born into an economically priveleged group brings. Contrary to the myth of the US being a "Land of Opportunity", America has probably the lowest rate of social mobility in the industrial world. The UK is also very bad; places like Sweden and Denmark are best. And social mobility in the US and UK is almost certainly going down, just as inequality of wealth and income are going up- this has been the trend since the late 70s/early 80s.

Along with Climate Change, this is one of the 2 big political issues of our time.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Law of unintended consequences.. Much of the right wing policy is based on resentment,  resentment that someone might be getting something you don't or can't get even if they deserve it or not.
Welfare is a prime example.  I can recall back in the 70s and before then reading many opinion pieces written by readers in newspapers exousing resentment because they saw someone in a grocery store get out of a new car and buy a steak with food stamps then go on to tell us all how they work so hard and can't afford  so much as stale bread from the markdown bin and then came along Reagan and his infamous welfare queen and so everyone who did receive benefits was lumped together as all lazy, black criminals despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of people receiving any type of government assistance were white people. Jobs were perceived to be threatened by Affirmative action although the vast majority of the jobs being lost had nothing at all to do with affirmative action, but globalization and corporate malfeasance and corporate merger takeover, but the average voter needed a scapegoat and policy is boring..