COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

White Liberals Patronize People of Color

phrodeau said:
Box quoted Dan's entire post but you did not. Specifically, you removed a part that was actually on-topic, just so you can claim that the quoted post is off-topic.

How would you know to do that if you don't bother reading his posts, hmmmm?

You sound like someone who says, "I never watch CNN, and that report they just had on is totally false.
Click to expand...

I have now, at your suggestion, reviewed dan_c00000's entire response. I still find nothing that addresses the finding that liberals patronize people of color while conservatives do not.
 
DawnODay said:
I have now, at your suggestion, reviewed dan_c00000's entire response. I still find nothing that addresses the finding that liberals patronize people of color while conservatives do not.
Click to expand...
Oh, so you really want to get into the meat of this hypothesis. OK, here's a link to the actual paper: https://psyarxiv.com/pv2ab/

You'll notice that the authors admit their findings are preliminary and their sample sizes are limited. They also chose a parameter-based significance which changed from study to study.

Using a comparative analysis of political speeches delivered to mostly White versus mostly minority audiences by both Democrats and Republicans, Study 1 provides initial evidence of liberals enacting a competence downshift in a real-world setting. Presidential candidates who stand for the liberal political party expressed significantly less competence — using fewer words related to power and agency — to minority audiences than to White audiences.

Those who stood for the conservative party also tended to use fewer competence-related words with minority audiences.

Indeed, the main effect of audience race on politicians’ competence word usage reached significance; all politicians tended to use fewer competence-related words with mostly-minority audiences than with mostly-White ones.

Conservatives may show the beginnings of a competence downshift in this case because, in a political context, even conservatives wish to affiliate with their minority audience. (As such, this could constitute a challenging test of the hypothesis.)

The conservatives’ competence downshift, however, did not reach significance. This may be a function of statistical power — again, conservatives rarely addressed minority audiences or minority-focused issues.
Click to expand...
There's a graph in the paper showing just how small the sample size was for conservative candidates addressing minority audiences.

In all studies but one (Study 4), at least one indicator of conservatism revealed a significant competence downshift among liberal respondents (an exception is found in Study S1, see the Supplemental Materials for details). An internal meta-analysis revealed that, across studies, the competence downshift was significant among self-reported liberals and hierarchy-based liberals. Separate examination of the effects found within each study (see Table 6) reveals that, importantly, the pattern of results is consistent across studies for each indicator of conservatism. However, no one indicator of conservatism significantly predicted a competence downshift for each study. The competence downshift reached significance among self-reported liberals in 3 out of 6 studies, among values-based liberals in 1 out of 3 studies, and among hierarchy-based liberals in 1 out of 4 studies.
Click to expand...
So the effect only reached significance in some of the studies.
 
DawnODay said:
I'm a racist and I didn't read dan's post because the font color was black!
Click to expand...

Thanks for being honest dawn. How's pretending to be a dude on the internet working out for you? I notice that you've got a whole bunch of alts attacking me now. It's hilarious that you've gone through all this trouble. Here I'll bold the parts so you and your alts can read them.

The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences. The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, though “it was harder to find speeches from Republicans delivered to minority audiences,” Dupree notes.

- On page 14 you'll notice that racist Republicans only gave 14 speeches to minority groups over the past two decades. That's less than one a year.

- On page 20 Democrats used more warmth words than Republicans did. In other words Democrats care racist Republicans like box/dawn do not. That's why box/dawn often go to Klan rallies.

- On page 69 blind judges found that liberals were the ones determined to be the egalitarians. Meaning people felt that the liberals most wanted to "affiliate equality with a Black or White partner -- and conservatives to be the discriminatory ones".

Here's some more reading for dawn.

"The ideology of white supremacy is also rooted in Judeo-Christian faiths"

We find that white Trump supporters randomly exposed to a black (versus a white) man in the context of soliciting their support for a housing-assistance policy were more opposed to the policy, angrier about the policy, and more likely to blame beneficiaries for their situation.

“Scientific racism” is on the rise on the right. But it’s been lurking there for years.

This is for your alt box

“The danger of the Republican party being taken over by the lily-white-ist conservatives is more serious than many people realize,” Jackie Robinson cautioned in his syndicated column in August 1963."

Going to be a really shitty week for racist dawn and "her" alts.

Like I said, a shitty week for racist dawn.

How Wisconsin Fails its Black Residents
 
Last edited:
dan_c00000 said:
- On page 69 blind judges found that liberals were the ones determined to be the egalitarians. Meaning people felt that the liberals most wanted to "affiliate equality with a Black or White partner -- and conservatives to be the discriminatory ones".[/URL][/SIZE][/U][/I][/B]


[/B][/URL]
Click to expand...

I note with great interest that it's the Republicans who keep using illegal tactics and sleazy tricks to try and stop People of Color from voting. In states like Florida and Georgia I've seen Republicans remove People of Color from the voter rolls, shut down polling places in black neighborhoods, and destroy ballots cast by people with the "wrong" skin color.

We never see White Liberals doing this! It's always REPUBLICANS who try to stop People of Color from voting!!
 
spankednaked said:
I note with great interest that it's the Republicans who keep using illegal tactics and sleazy tricks to try and stop People of Color from voting. In states like Florida and Georgia I've seen Republicans remove People of Color from the voter rolls, shut down polling places in black neighborhoods, and destroy ballots cast by people with the "wrong" skin color.

We never see White Liberals doing this! It's always REPUBLICANS who try to stop People of Color from voting!!
Click to expand...

They do try to stop them from voting repeatedly, but not from voting once, which is their legal limit. "Vote early and often" is the Dem. motto. Voting rolls are purged periodically, because people move away or die and remain on the rolls. Is race included on the voting details? Have you ever heard of ACORN with their bogus registrations? Have you ever heard of places such as Chicago and their Dem. run machines?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...oters-outnumber-eligible-voters-462-counties/
 
Last edited:
Boxlicker101 said:
They do try to stop them from voting repeatedly, but not from voting once, which is their legal limit. "Vote early and often" is the Dem. motto. Voting rolls are purged periodically, because people move away or die and remain on the rolls. Is race included on the voting details? Have you ever heard of ACORN with their bogus registrations? Have you ever heard of places such as Chicago and their Dem. run machines?
Click to expand...
"Vote early and often?" Every time I hear or see that motto, it's a conservative spouting it.

What about bogus registrations? Someone tried to game the system to get more cash in his pocket. Nobody went to the polls claiming to be Mickey Mouse.
 
phrodeau said:
Oh, so you really want to get into the meat of this hypothesis. OK, here's a link to the actual paper: https://psyarxiv.com/pv2ab/

You'll notice that the authors admit their findings are preliminary and their sample sizes are limited. They also chose a parameter-based significance which changed from study to study.

There's a graph in the paper showing just how small the sample size was for conservative candidates addressing minority audiences.

So the effect only reached significance in some of the studies.
Click to expand...
I must say I'm disappointed that nobody wants to really discuss the topic, or even attempt to show that the study agrees with the headlines.
 
Box, do you know how many legitimate cases of voter fraud have been verified since 2000? Sources vary, but the highest figure I can find from a reliable source is 31. That's out of over a billion votes cast. There simply isn't any evidence that the draconian measures the Republicans are pushing are necessary. What there IS evidence of is that they're really just trying to disenfranchise groups that vote heavily Democratic.
 
YDB95 said:
Box, do you know how many legitimate cases of voter fraud have been verified since 2000? Sources vary, but the highest figure I can find from a reliable source is 31. That's out of over a billion votes cast. There simply isn't any evidence that the draconian measures the Republicans are pushing are necessary. What there IS evidence of is that they're really just trying to disenfranchise groups that vote heavily Democratic.
Click to expand...

Voter fraud would be hard to catch, but voter registration fraud by ACORN was quite common, and people were fined or went to jail because of it.
https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=acorn+and+voter+registration+fraud

And here is something else ACORN did which may be even worse: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e91_1255043975
 
Last edited:
Boxlicker101 said:
Voter fraud would be hard to catch, but voter registration fraud by ACORN was quite common, and people were fined or went to jail because of it.
https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=aaplw&p=acorn+and+voter+registration+fraud

And here is something else ACORN did which may be even worse: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e91_1255043975
Click to expand...

Do you even read your own links? The ACORN scandal was about employees faking timesheets to get paid for work they didn't do. At no time were there any credible accusations of voter fraud.
 
PrincepsCyberius said:
For the sake of clarity, and I think you have at times included me among them, can you list who you believe are Dawn's "alts"?
Click to expand...

I haven't noted everyone dan_c00000 has claimed to be one of my supposed alts but you're right, he has, at one time or another, included among my supposed alts: you (>4,000 posts); EmpressJosephine (>11,700 posts); Rightguide (>17,300 posts); Boxlicker101 (>31,600 posts); and BotanyBoy (>40,500 posts!). I think there have been others.

Given the total number of posts that would require me to have made, significantly over 100,000, I'm apparently here 24/7. He also clearly doesn't understand my ego. Why would I have only ~2,160 under my own name and >100,000 posts under various aliases? He has clearly reached the point of delusion.
 
DawnODay said:
I got owned because I'm a racist.
Click to expand...

Any time you're ready to answer questions racist dawn you can start right there.

Thanks for being honest dawn. How's pretending to be a dude on the internet working out for you? I notice that you've got a whole bunch of alts attacking me now. It's hilarious that you've gone through all this trouble. Here I'll bold the parts so you and your alts can read them.

The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences. The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, though “it was harder to find speeches from Republicans delivered to minority audiences,” Dupree notes.

- On page 14 you'll notice that racist Republicans only gave 14 speeches to minority groups over the past two decades. That's less than one a year.

- On page 20 Democrats used more warmth words than Republicans did. In other words Democrats care racist Republicans like box/dawn do not. That's why box/dawn often go to Klan rallies.

- On page 69 blind judges found that liberals were the ones determined to be the egalitarians. Meaning people felt that the liberals most wanted to "affiliate equality with a Black or White partner -- and conservatives to be the discriminatory ones".

Here's some more reading for dawn.

"The ideology of white supremacy is also rooted in Judeo-Christian faiths"

We find that white Trump supporters randomly exposed to a black (versus a white) man in the context of soliciting their support for a housing-assistance policy were more opposed to the policy, angrier about the policy, and more likely to blame beneficiaries for their situation.

“Scientific racism” is on the rise on the right. But it’s been lurking there for years.

This is for your alt box

“The danger of the Republican party being taken over by the lily-white-ist conservatives is more serious than many people realize,” Jackie Robinson cautioned in his syndicated column in August 1963."

Going to be a really shitty week for racist dawn and "her" alts.

Like I said, a shitty week for racist dawn.

How Wisconsin Fails its Black Residents
 
don't forget, most if not all MAJOR democrat political figures between 1860 and 1970 were how do you say, high muck mucks of the KKK.

Hell of course the Democrats have issues when talkin to the blacks when they aren't holdin on dah whip..
 
So were the Republicans of that era. And the values of the major parties flip flopped.

Why are you such a yutz?
 
Boxlicker101 said:
Liberals have adopted an old colonial phrase: "White man's burden."
Click to expand...

I just spotted this and hope that you are aware that,"Take up the white mans burden" comes from a poem by Rudyard Kipling published in 1899 and was specifically addressed to the US Republican government of McKinley and Roosevelt.

It recommends that the USA should take responsibility for educating and advancing the people of the Phillipines . It therefore addresses American Imperialism - and is probably the most (deliberately) misinterpreted poem of all time. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SugarDaddy1
How Justin Trudeau lost his grip
Replies
1
Views
41
Fuzzy1975
F
Rightguide
A Study You Didn't Hear About On The News
Replies
8
Views
121
schism666
schism666
SugarDaddy1
Liberals have a new Supreme Court target and you won't believe who it is
Replies
2
Views
95
YDB95
YDB95
Rotadom
Trump supporters became more likely to express dehumanizing views of Black people After 2016
2 3
Replies
56
Views
948
icanhelp1
icanhelp1
RoryN
Another Deplorable false narrative put to rest: “regret rate” for gender-affirming surgery is less than 1%
Replies
2
Views
47
coati
C
Back
Top