Uechi-Ryu.com

IJ

And those "links and studies" didn't last one pass of objective questioning from me---or from anybody else that would take the time to ask simple questions--questions that NOBODY seems to have asked before, during, or after the study.
As mentioned IMO--and supported by others--the "standard" for performence has dropped rather swiftly over the last 30 years.

Not really "anti" as much as I am strongly "pro" logic.

Again, that is a poor evalutaion of the numbers on the phone interview thing.

A-The raw number sounds high--but its still only 13%, not a significant number--ESP when viewed in the larger context of the survey--that is IF you want to accpet its conclusions.

B-Besides, AGAIN, we have no idea what THEY meant when they claimed they were "racsists"--who knows what they feel is BEING as racist---after all if "flinching" and "subconcious" stuff is now "racist" then the bar is set staggeringly low.

C-AGAIN, you seem to be confusing feelings and thoughts with OVERT ACTS.
I would gently suggest that a person is not responsible for ones feelings and thoughts---they are ONLY responsible for their ACTIONS--and NOBODY seems to have actually copped to a racist ACT.

Seriously, are you guilty of cheating on your partner if you think to yourself "wow that guy is hot.??
Don't think so.
Unless you want to go all Orwell on me and set up the Thought Police--I don't think people should be punished for their thoughts and feelings--only their acts--if you would care to argue otherwise--love to hear THAT.

D-I think the sample is badly flawed---we don't even know the actual questions asked--which any researcher will tell you is crucial--as such I have no reason to belive its valid.
If you want to present the actual methodolgy then I'm open to discussing it--but without it--there is really nothing substantive to talk about.

E-Besides, lets see just how you really feel about the validity of such stats games.

We have similar numbers on Islamic peoples in the USA who support or condone acts and terror and terroists.
Are you in favor the Goverment putting these people into interment camps as they did the Japanese during WW 2?
If you follow your line of ahm....."reasoning" to its logical conclusion---if your "really" concered about what the numbers seem to say---then taking direct action to stave off such a serious threat is not only warrented--but NEEDED.
If you "really" belive that such numbers in such surveys are that accurate--and that they represent such potential harm--then you MUST support direct, hardcore action to prevent these people from killing others.
But somehow I doubt you'd be "OK" with rounding people and putting them into camps based upon a survey.

In direct context---would you then CHARGE the people that took that phone survey with the CRIME of being a "racist"--and if not, why not?

F-You also might recall that in a former posting, one of YOUR quoted sources estimates that over 25% (and growing) of whites have faced racial discrimnation.
How do we reconcile those numbers with the ones of the phone survay?
Is it resonable to conclude that vast numbers of blacks, hispaniscs etc harbor deeply racist attitudes against whites?
If YOUR material is accurate--then what steps do we take about that?

G-As I mentioned LBJ was an OVERT bigot with attitudes that would be considered "racist" by pretty much anyone today---yet he was a powerful force--at great personal cost to--to the cause of civil rights in this nation.
So even if I give you everything else---there is STILL no reason to alarmed.
Just like LBJ these people may well be aware of their attitudes and thus take every possible chance to rise above it and "do the right thing"

(yes that is an aside to Spike Lee )

Nope, you didn't make that nuanced distinction until I held your feet to the fire.
You made a blanket statment that the color of a persons skin is all the inforamtion you needed to "know" their deepest attitudes and thoughts.

You and I both know that if the situation were with a different group--say gays--you would have come unglued.

And rightly so.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

One way to continue arguing for now reason is to redefine your position.

For example, if someone points out that there are an estimated 30 million white people with self admitted racist feelings, which is unquestionably "a lot," try to confuse the issue by saying it's only 13 percent, which is no big deal. What if 13% of the country died of the flu? Would that be "not a significant number"?

C'mon.

Or, if the entire thread is about subtle racism, you could try to pretend otherwise. Why not challenge the entire relevance of the stat by pointing out they weren't burning crosses and wearing white hoods: "who knows what they feel is BEING as racist---after all if "flinching" and "subconcious" stuff is now "racist""

Yes! That's the entire point of me calling it "subtle racism." That's why the entire article and a ton of my other links refer to how the virtual elimination of overt racism doesn't mean that people have become colorblind. I guess your strategy is, if you can't beat em, join em, and say that the racism is subtle.

Or, if that's not working, we could try changing the subject! "AGAIN, you seem to be confusing feelings and thoughts with OVERT ACTS." Do I seem to be confused? I never said I thought there was an epidemic of all-capitalized "OVERT ACTS." It's you that's confused on that point. Want to "gently suggest that a person is not responsible for ones feelings and thoughts"? Go ahead! I've never said that a person, raised by certain parents in certain environments receiving certain messages about race, has complete control over their emotional response, however slight, to other races. (God knows I was taught to hate gay people, and tried to cure myself, and told gay jokes and shunned effeminite classmates just like everyone else to fit in through middle and part of high school). You'll notice I never tried to paint people with subtle feelings of racism as demons or blamed them for how they felt--I never commented on the genesis of this problem. HOWEVER it arose, it IS an issue--it affects how we live and it suggests we need to change how people form their perceptions of others.

Anyway, when changing the subject, it's considered perfectly ok to just say, "yes, it appears there are a lot of self admitted racists with probably mostly subtle feelings, why don't we talk about how it happened and what we should do about it?" You don't have to pretend that you've negated my thesis.

Or, you can invent positions of mine to critique: "Unless you want to go all Orwell on me and set up the Thought Police--I don't think people should be punished for their thoughts and feelings--only their acts." Um, I don't remember saying anyone should be punished, but, good point.

Or, you can bring up issues without any evidence and act as if I didn't already address them twice: "I think the sample is badly flawed." OH, you surmised that how? ESP? "We don't even know the actual questions asked--which any researcher will tell you is crucial--as such I have no reason to belive its valid." Mmhmmm. I guess you have no reason to believe it INVALID, either? Now, if you recall, I explained TWICE that even if the sample is off TEN FOLD, we're still talking about 3 million SELF admitted racists. You want to blow that off? Feel free.

Or, you can proceed to absolute nonsense. "We have similar numbers on Islamic peoples in the USA who support or condone acts and terror and terroists." Do we? 3-30 million islamic terror supporters?? Please, show me your link I gave you mine. Anyway, lets say there were such numbers...

"Are you in favor the Goverment putting these people into interment camps as they did the Japanese during WW 2? If you follow your line of ahm....."reasoning" to its logical conclusion---if your "really" concered about what the numbers seem to say---then taking direct action is the ONLY option."

Of course I'm not!! It's ridiculous! First, you wouldn't be able to identify them. Who would acknowledge that belief knowing the consequences? Second, belief is not a crime! I've never advocated punishment for belief. Third, this is obviously NOT a concern because if they represented a threat we'd have been hit many times over by them. Fourth, where would we even put 3-30 million, what, preterrorists? Fifth, how is incarceration a "logical conclusion" after noting subtle racsim? "Illogical" conclusion, maybe. (My reasoning, was, by the way, merely math, so if you have a problem with it, take it up with math.)

If none of that is working, and believe me, it isn't, you could always post distractions: "You also might recall that in a former posting, one of YOUR quoted sources estimates that over 25% (and growing) of whites have faced racial discrimnation." So? That doesn't change anything. But to review the rest of the comment: "Is it resonable to conclude that vast numbers of blacks, hispaniscs etc harbor deeply racist attitudes against whites?" No, it is not. They could have--SUBTLE racism, that's what the thread is about. And the white people could have faced discrimination ONCE so the number of offenders is unknown. "If YOUR material is accurate--then what steps do we take about that?" Me? Why am I responsible for the cure? I just said subtle racism existed, not that I could change the heart of racist americans. Sheesh.

And the distractions continue:

"So even if I give you everything else---there is STILL no reason to alarmed."

Did I say this was an enormous crisis? No, I merely said "a lot" of white people had subtle racist thoughts, and you turned it into a big deal. Back to basics here:

"If our sample was bad and that estimate is off by 10 fold, then there are still 3 million, 92 thousand, 114 racist white people in the United States. By their own friggin admission! Get it? I hope? FYI: 3-30 million people is "a lot." Period!"

That issue is done. You've presented absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise. You've raised your doubts about parts of certain research, but then you failed to look into that research to see if your doubts were justified. You were happy just to have an excuse to dismiss the obvious.

Now that it's obvious there are "a lot" of white americans with racist feelings, feel quite free to comment on whether this is a major problem, whether other races have joined in, what we can do about it, or how it happened. That's how interesting threads develop. IF respondents can interpret and advance a topic rather than try to argue that the earth is flat just to argue.

Or are you STILL going to argue the earth is flat?

_________________
--Ian

While we're nailing the coffin shut, you had previously argued that studies showing bias in housing might be misleading because they might have forgotten to consider whether black people asked to be in different places. I was surprised you would think that any study with such an obvious failing would get published, but, since you don't like to find source information yourself, here is a nice report from HUD.

http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf ... ummary.pdf

They take paired applicants (one white, one minority, otherwise equal) and apply to see if housing is available at the same time. On page iii of the summary, you can see that "consistent adverse treatment" dropped from ~26% to ~22% for black renters, held steady at about 25% for hispanic renters, and dropped from ~29% to ~17% for black buyers and from ~27% to ~20% for hispanic buyers between 1989 and 2000. The progress is great news, but when a FIFTH of minority buyers and renters faced housing discrimination in 2000, there is a lot of work to do. And a lot of at least "subtle" racism at work--no one can say if agents deliberately or subconsciously direct minorities to certain housing markets, but there's a lot of room for improvement regardless.

You can read the whole report at
http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgfin/hds.html

... if you desire to mentally debunk their work. If you do, please take the courtesy of letting HUD know their methodology and conclusions are erroneous.

_________________
--Ian

IJ

Lets not forget the time line here junior.

All of this stuff--flawed as it is--is ALL post-hoc.
You didn't even know about it when you made your comment--is all stuff you have "googled" over the last several days.
If you had it THEN and at the time said "According to "X" article or "Y" survey" that would have still been wrong but then you would not have been a bigot.
As it stands--your a bigot twice over--once for saying it sans-support--and a second time for floppy around trying to defend it.

Nope the entire thread is about YOU using skin color to assign what YOU think are other peoples feelings and attitudes.

And what I'm saying is that even according TO YOUR OWN LEAD ACTICLE there is no emperical proof of such "subtle rascism" and even less actual harms demonstrated.

As well try and posit "subtle anger" or "subtle lonelyness" or "subtle glee" which effects peoples lives--then show me a method for testing for such then show me the harms.

Because "jenius" (spelled that on purpose) without and OVERT ACT--which your own study admits its can't establish then all you are left with are "feelings"--which are beyond control in most cases--without meds that is

But like I said--I have no reason to belive that the survey is an any fashion valid--thus I have no reason to belive its conclusions.

And NO, its not "rediuclous" you seem to belive that there are THOUSANDS of racisit running around unchecked doing whom knows what to god knows who--and if they are NOT--then there appears to be no harms so big deal.
Its a simple matter of reality---you either belive the results of the survey or you don't.
If you do then you must not feel that its serious enough to requre ANY action on your part--other than whining about it on line--thus even YOU don't "really" see the survey as all that valid--if you did you would have to actually DO something about it.

I already "did" the "math" and found it unconviencing--and without the methodogy--pointless.
I simply feel its fatally flawed--and nearly useless--except to highlght just how people will go in willing blindness to accept a pre-set ideological viewpoint.

AGAIN, using a person skin color to foist YOUR feelings and attitudes about how THEY think and feel---is bigoted.
That you argue so needlessly when a simple "Oops" and an "Sorry" would do, is proof of the investment in your negative perception.

Heck, to judge by the standards of your own links---YOUR clearly gulity of not only "subtle" bigotry--but overtly racial hostile acts--you POSTED your bigotry--repeatedly.
And when you throw in your overt hostility to anyone of the relgious persuasation---well I get the distinct impression that your "projecting" in psych terms all the anger and hate and stewing resentment you have toward onto them.

Ah, IJ, without knowing anything else at this time---how do we estblish that the HUD study just doesn't show that the folks they looked at were "subtle racist?"
Is there any reason to project a conclusion to a larger population when it might just be a problem with the people they looked at?

How exactly did HUD go about preventing their own bais into the test?

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

You know, I also saw a study that said "a lot" of white people prefer Republicans and "a lot" prefer Democrats, but then I realized:

1) all studies can be dismissed by anyone "because."
2) it's wrong to foist my attitudes and opinions on someone because of their skin color (apparently one does that if one reads a study)
3) so there probably aren't "a lot" of whites who prefer Republicans or whites who prefer Democrats; presumably, they all voted for Nader, unless a study shows they did, then they didn't.
4) I really ought to be sorry for accusing any whites of "thought" crimes, which I apparently do by reading their self-reported beliefs

Really... it's just sad now. You're a world authority on race, too, and your single citationless vote overrules the self reported opinions of others, countless articles and observations, and other studies performed and reported by people actually in the field.

If you made these claims to a shrink, they'd probably wonder if you were suffering from mania. Meanwhile, feel free to continue to embarass yourself arguing against simple facts and mathematics. This thread has shown not just by a preponderance of evidence but beyond a reasonable doubt that subtle racism isn't uncommon, and I think it also does a good job of showing that you'd be willing to argue that you don't have parents if I said you did.

PM me if you post anything besides your own opinion that everyone's lost but you, and peace.

_________________
--Ian

IJ

Nope, not an "authority on race"--but heck I had to explain YOUR Nuez-Smith study TO YOU in terms of its self-admission as to its serious lack of concrete evidence.
So maybe your not as quite up on the topic as you think. either

You are right about one thing--almost all studies have flaws--sometimes serious ones.
A really tight, well thought out--well planned and well executed study is a rarity.

If the study is flawed--which I belive it to be--then the "self reporting" is meaningless.

Besides its STILL ALL "post-hoc" you didn't so much as mention that article in your first post.
Oh, your doing so NOW--but its a craven attempt at justification of a bigoted attutide.
Post hoc rationalizations do not an arguement make......well not a good one anyway.

Actually, IJ, given that your almost always wrong-seriously wrong--passionate and ideological driven to be sure--but wrong, on almost every topic you choose to pontifciate upon--I have learned that pretty much ANYTHING that you say is a pretty good indication that the reality of the situation is about 180 degrees from where you say it is.

Dude--"parents"---I don't have "parents"--I was grown in a lab to exacting specficiations for reason, ability to apply information, grasp of logic and skill at rhetoric---I'm not much fun at parties of course--but if you want to grow up and get beyond the simplistic dogma and willing, ideological blindness you so embrace.....well that I can help you with.

BTW I have nothing to say to you in private that I would not say in public.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

I made a statement that was obviously true. You challenged. I proved it. Then you deride the proof for being "post hoc." Seriously?

"but heck I had to explain YOUR Nuez-Smith study TO YOU."

No sir. I read it. I know what it said (self reports of black doctors, all presumably delusional).

"I don't have "parents"--I was grown in a lab."

Yeah, that's about on par with the rest of your logic. I know it was meant to be a joke but the rests of your posts were funnier actually.

PS: I didn't mean PM something unpublishable in public, i mean just let me know if you ever produce something worth reading.

_________________
--Ian

IJ

Nope, you made a bigoted statement that is only "obviously true" to other bigots.
Knowing a persons skin color does not entitle you to make assumptions about their thoughts and feelings.
Anymore than knowing someone is gay magically enables somebody to assert knowloge of THEIR attitudes.
Were the shoe on the other foot--you would be coming unglued--and with good reason.

You "proved" nothing other than you take seriously flawed..ahm....."research" as gospel--WHEN it seems to confirm your pre-conceived bias.

If you "read the (Nuez-Smith) study" then how could you possible have missed the SELF-ADMISSION of Nuez-Smith that despite considerable searching there was NO evidence of ANY overt acts of racism--NONE.

But since it "had" to be there--they they fell back on "subconcious" rascism---of which the PERSON MIGHT NOT EVEN BE AWARE OF--to which I again ask as to the methodolgy of figuring THAT out, sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

And then reversed the entire notion of our system of justice which demands that a person be considered inoccent until PROVEN gulity by asserting that doctors have not proven themselevs to be immune to racism--essentially demanding that one prove themselves NOT a "racist"--right down to your otherwise largely unknowable "subconcious," otherwise were going to assume that you ARE.

That should chill you to the bone.

That is does NOT is simply more proof that your motivated by ideology not science.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

Always good for a laugh, CXT.

"Nope, you made a bigoted statement that is only "obviously true" to other bigots. Knowing a persons skin color does not entitle you to make assumptions about their thoughts and feelings."

You. Don't. Get. It. I don't know anything about an individual because of their skin color; I never said I did. I CAN however accurately say there are a lot of white democrats, republicans, racists, nonracists, diabetics, whatever, if there are. And by virtue of the commonality of all those things, the sample size, AND THEIR OWN ADMISSION, yes, there are a lot of whites with subtle racist feelings.

You seriously think that its rational to take the alternative position and say no whites are racist until I interview every last million of them? Maybe there aren't any left handed ones either.

"And then reversed the entire notion of our system of justice which demands that a person be considered inoccent until PROVEN gulity by asserting that doctors have not proven themselevs to be immune to racism--essentially demanding that one prove themselves NOT a "racist"--right down to your otherwise largely unknowable "subconcious," otherwise were going to assume that you ARE. That should chill you to the bone."

*looks around, confused* Wait, I didn't know we were trying any individuals for racism! When did that happen, who's on trial? Who did I convict with my testimony?

You've got to be kidding. I accused no individuals of anything.

Let's apply your logic to your view:

"And then reversed the entire notion of our system of justice which demands that a person be considered inoccent until PROVEN gulity by asserting that black doctors have completely imagined any effect of race on their daily lives, essentially asking them to prove themselves NOT making up their reports."

Listen, if you are incapable of distinguishing between acknowledging the fact that a large body of individuals (white people) have some racists among them (which they obviously do, per the observations of many and their own self report), versus assuming that a particular white person is racist because of the color of their skin (which I've never done or suggested in the slightest), I'm surprised you managed to turn your computer on to type your rant.

Either someone turned it on for you or you're arguing just to argue. I think we both know which it is.

_________________
--Ian

IJ

I disagree, you made a blanket indictment of people based upon their skin color--and what that skin color tells you about their feelings and thoughts.

When called on it--instead of just saying "Oops--what I meant to say was "some" or "Oops I might have overreached a little."--you spent DAYS trying to justify your statement---that alone tells me your coming at this from a ideologically driven place.

As mentioned "their own admission" is drawn from a study that is seriously flawed--thus its conclusions can't IMO be trusted.

"Whose on trial"----see that's sophistry pretending to be seriousness.
Nobody is "on trial" per-se, what I'm highlighting is that the Nunez-Smith study embraces a outlook that in any other context is odious to our system of justice--namely that one is innocent until proven otherwise.

It fundamentally asserts that one is GULITY unless the person in question can prove that they are INNOCENT.
And since their assumption is that its "subconcious" and the person might well not "even be aware" of it---exactly how one can go about providing said "proofs" seems impossible.
In this case Nuez-Smith--whom ADMITS that they have NO evidence of ANY racial discrimnation still gets to advance the notion that these doctors are rascist because they can't prove they are "immune" to being so.
Its the worst sort of sloppy logic--and its NOT science---well its "science" that Trofim Lysenko would have support.
In effect, Nuez-Smith de-facto/in effect put a whole bunch of people "on trial" for being racists and judeged them "gulity"--in spite of the hard evidence to the contrary.

No, I think you should have said "SOME whites"--a much better term that gets across your same point without the uneeded implications of bigotry.

But then again, "I" wouldnt have made such an statement to start with--and if I did--unlike yourself, my hubris and ego isn't in control of my actions, so I would have just said "Oops" and fixed it.
I wouldn't have spent 3 days spinning and googling flawed studies to try and support a simple error.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

CXT:

1) A blanket statement would have been, "all white people are racist" or "most," or "you can tell what a white person believes by the color of their skin." I merely said there are a lot fo white people with subtle racist feelings, which is a fact, not a blanket statement. You may simply lack the reasoning to understand that saying a lot of white people have certain feelings, two legs, or vote republican etc does not in the slightest way "blanket" all or even most white people and certainly no individuals. This is obvious to most, but a struggle for you. I will be patient. Hey, if I said that americans in general were getting more obese, would that be prejudice against americans? Just curious, because they are. That doesn't mean my waist isn't still 31, you know? Someday, maybe.

2) [just admit] "Oops--what I meant to say was "some." Great, now you've admitted there are white racists. Before you were sorta pretending racism was gone, so this is progress. Anyway, no, I have no oops for you, because I meant to say, "a lot" I said "a lot" and there are "a lot." See all the references. "No, I think you should have said "SOME whites"--a much better term that gets across your same point without the uneeded implications of bigotry." Look, now you're just grasping at straws, arguing that "some" is better than "a lot." These are subjective terms, and we all know that 3-30 million could be considered "some" or "a lot" but that there is no doubt you're nitpicking just to be abrasive and argumentative. Find a new hobby. Whether my 3-30 million is some or not, it certainly is a lot. Sorry if that distresses you.

3) "It fundamentally asserts that one is GULITY unless the person in question can prove that they are INNOCENT." First, your logic is irrelevant. This isn't court. Deal with it. Second the study does not assert that. Annals of Internal Medicine is very cautious not to overstate findings; every article comes with a list of limitations. I bet if you READ THE STUDY you might find them.

Now that we've clarified this entire fuss was merely an argument you stirred up over "a lot" or "some" for no real reason, perhaps you'd like to tell us all how you showed all these studies, particularly the survey and the HUD study, were wrong?

If you're bored, maybe present a shred of evidence showing there aren't a lot of racists, eg, a survey negative for self reported racist feelings, or something else.

_________________
--Ian

IJ

Now your quibbling----first its trying and failing to produce studies that defended you POV--which you DIDN'T have prior to makeing the comment.
Now your doing a Clintionesqe "what is the definition of "is" and "the"" kind of thing.

The "stuggle" here IJ is you having to deal with your bigotry and venom directly instead of being able to sweep it under the rug.

It my feeling that you were trying to be vauge, while at the same time expressing your deep dislike for the "little people"--whom just like the conservative and the religious you so often smeer--somehow "deserve" your hate and scorn.
The problem is that you failed to be "vauge" enough--and spoke in the same off-hand manner bigots often do when they say what to THEM is a self evident truth.

Sorry IJ, but its NOT "irrelvent"--logic never is--and only somebody with bone deep ideological bias would EVER argue that "logic is irrelvent."

The Nuez-Smith study is deeply, perversely flawed from the get-go.
Its conclusions are unrealible and suspect at a fundamental level.
It is not science---or only science that Trofim Lysenko would consider "science"--which in his terms was all about using not emperical methodology but Party Theory to his field--natually it failed.

Again, I already laid out the flaws in the studies IJ--and those are just the ones I found WITHOUT looking in-depth.
And in-depth look would certainly expose more flaws.

Since you seem to have skipped that day in semantics class--the implication of "lots" is far worse than using a more neutral word like "some."
"Lots" fails to draw a distinction--any distiction, between people--other than their skin color that is.
Both of course are much less offensive than "most."

Either way the proper method of handleing this should have been "oops-sorry" but since we know that your hubris prevents you from EVER admitting that you make any mistakes of any sort and your towering ego prevents you from EVER saying your sorry--we are now 3 days into you defending your bile.

Its getting tiresome---I'd say your stratagy not being even close to being correct--but having the free-time and interest to keep posting fantically is working.
Your not right--people just get bored of dealing with your tiresome dreck--endlessly spinning out new angles and new yarns--with google's help of course.
Another reason why I prefer formal debate--there you have rules, actual standards of evidence and most of all a time limit.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

You can't invalidate a study published by Annals in a peer reviewed journal without reading it or having a good reason. Trying to makes you look like a fool. You don't have more knowledge than professional researchers, editors, and all of the peers who read the article. You can argue about the implications, and it's perfectly obvious that this was a self-report study. But as I pointed out before, if you don't like the assertion that there was actual racism experienced by all of these well educated physicians, you get to accuse them of imagining the whole thing. Pick your poison. For me, it makes a little more sense that they're not insane because of the self reported racism in the other study and countless anecdotes about subtle racism, such as that conclusively established by the HUD report.

Acknowledging that there are 3-30 million white racists in the USAisn't bile, or bigotry. It's just reality. I'm not sorry about it. It's not racism to say there are a lot of (name your common condition) among whites when there are. Deal with it.

As was clearly pointed out days ago, even if the survey is off by a factor of ten, which you've given no reason to assume that it is, there are about 3, closer to 4 million, self acknolwedged white racists in the USA. Want to call it some? Feel free. I call it a lot. That's the beauty of English and the internet.

The downside of the internet is that people can derail entire threads over an issue of semantics, even when they're wrong about the word choice

So you still have no citable evidence that there aren't a lot of racists in America and still claim a magical ability to dismiss a mountain of studies by more knowledgeable people? Fine, I have that power too, and I dismiss all your posts. If you'd like to debate at a more, I dunno, post-middle-school level than THAT, try:

--reading the Nunez study and critiquing it based on what's actually in it.
--posting any credible evidence that the estimates based on my study or off
--or just tell us how many racists you think there might be. make it simple. what's the cut off for "a lot?"
--ceasing to ignore the HUD study. I know its a tough one to refute, but, might get you some credibility.

If you'll excuse me, I need to go start a nuclear war over an art critic's review--he said a painting I liked was reddish orange, but I think it was orangey-red. And he needs to apologize!!!

_________________
--Ian

IJ


Now your using the flawed logic of the Nuez-Smith survey--your asking me to prove a negative...ie that there are NOT a lot of racists---and you really can't prove a negative.

Can you prove YOUR not a bigot?????

Getting the picture now IJ--or do I need to type more slowly?
The exact same "prove a negative" that I'm inflicting on you (although in your case I have MUCH more to go on than Nuez-Smith) is essentially the SAME argument advanced by Nuez-Smith.
That YOUR a bigot---because you can't PROVE otherwise, just like the people in the study---hey maybe its just "subconsious" bigotry and YOUR "not really aware of it"--either
Strange isn't it---how very differently YOU behave when the same logic and ahm......"reasoning" is applied to YOU--as opposed to those poor souls in the Nuez-Smith study--who don't even get the chance to defend themselves.
Interesting don't you think?
One rule for them--one study whose conclusions and implications are to be accepeted without question--EXCEPT of course when those implications apply to you.

Weird huh?

Actually I have very little trouble "dismissing" what YOU have posted of the study.
AGAIN, its why I so dislike "arguement by links"--NOW you claiming--essenetially--that YOU didn't post enough of the study to make a real analysis--which is YOUR fault not mine.
You didn't want to take the time to sift thu the whole study--so you want to make ME do it FOR YOU.
And I'm not playing your time wasteing games besides, I have already found several fatal flaws in the study with just what you already posted---you think I won't find MORE if I get deeper into the data.

Oh, but it most certainly IS, of your basing those numbers on a flawed, badly conducted, and baised survey--which you are--in fact its proof of the very bigotry of which your infected.
A "scientist" would be takieng a hard look at the flaws in the survey that I have already highlighted and ajusted their thinking accordingly.
ONLY somebody that is looking at this with their ideologcial blinders on would keep trying to defend that survey and those numbers---and your doing so precislely because it FEEDS your preconcieved bias.
Should the study NOT agree with your pre-chosen outlook--does ANYBODY honestly think you'd be spending any tome on it.

You maybe pretty small fish in terms of bigotry---but I have met Klansman that were less invested in their bais than you.

Oh, and BTW, the survey "was off" in its fundamental concept---its was "also ran" the momment that they ADMITTED they had "no evidence racial discrmination" yet even in the utter ABSCENCE of ACTUAL "evidence" decided to invent an essentially untestable hypothesis about subconcious feelings.

Another "downside of the net" is that people can spend days googling and posting bogus studies and articles to try and defend dreck..........which is clear that you have already figured out.

Your sloppy verbage is simply IMO a side effect of your bias.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

The status of American Racism is simple....


Whites are racist, always and the worst offenders (no proof necessary and nothing can exonerate you)....

non-whites are <b>Never</b> racist (they get the racist-as-you-wanna-be card) and even when they are acting racist, they should be forgiven without examining their behavior one iota....





Many whites came to this country as indentured servants (a well guarded secret that is easily forgotten or ignored), but we have carefully cultivated the fallicy that ONLY blacks or minorities had to struggle to achieve any degree of success .....



The liberal guilt industry likes to ignore the not so subtle forms of racism that italians, irish and many other presumably WHITE ethnic groups faced in historical America and they only focus on the the racism faced by those with darker skin tones....

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave