Uechi-Ryu.com

ATH joins CXT with a puff of hyperbole! This is the final nail in my debate coffin!

Anyway:

You'll willing to dismiss the experiences of black physicians, arguing that they might just be making up the whole thing. Ok, fine, sure. The thing is, it's a bit more plausible that a black physician experienced racism over their lifetime, given all the supporting evidence I gave you, than it is that my statement that there are a lot of white racists (per their own admission and all that supporting evidence) is racist itself. Mine's a statement of fact. Their statements are based on plausible experience plausible. Your statements go opposite to every single shred of evidence posted here besides your own opinion. That's the difference.

"...As opposed to those poor souls in the Nuez-Smith study--who don't even get the chance to defend themselves."

I know you like to hype things up to distract people from the issues, but, they DID have a chance; it's a peer reviewed article. ANYONE who was upset (including you, if you'd actually read the study, which we know you still haven't), could have written in and challenged the findings. More importantly, no "one" needs to be defended when someone says there is a "lot" of racism. I'm not bothered by the survey results I posted. I know what I think and feel. I don't feel condemned by black physicians who felt mistreated because none said I mistreated them or that the charges were the end of the world. It's only you, and perhaps ATH, who can get worked up about this stuff.

As for accepting conclusions without questioning, I've never been one to do that. I am a little skeptical of people who dismiss a whole bunch of evidence just because they don't like what it says, just because. I read letters to the editor on papers of importance to me very closely because they're usually well reseached and crafted and make good points. Your "letter to the editor," would just be "wa wa wahhhh... I don't believe your paper." That's why I'm not interested in your dissent; its as unsubstantiated as everything else you write.

"You didn't want to take the time to sift thu the whole study--so you want to make ME do it FOR YOU."

Lol, yes, it's always someone else's job to do the work. Love it. Hey, remember when you said you couldn't coment on the study without reading it? When you said you wanted more of it? ME NEITHER. You just blew all of it off because you don't weigh evidence, you simply rail against anything that challenges your preconceptions and your petty judgments about which quantifier I should have used (some vs a lot).

"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."

If you could elaborate, you would have made your first point. In DETAIL, how did you conclude the study was wrong? Not just wrong, but more than 10x wrong, since 3-4 million is still a lot? YOU didn't ask for more info, look for it yourself, or conclude you needed more information--you just dismiss everything. This qualifies as argument to you. If you were a police investigator trying to find out if Mr. Green did it in the study with the rope, and you were presented testimony that he did it, you'd exclaim "nonsense, he could have been acting a play, he's innocent!" rather than asking for more evidence and the entire transcript.

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

1) when your argument stinks, charge racism!
2) especially when you're championing the position that racism is over-called, for irony!
3) isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Here's some stuff for you to ponder. Remember, you get your evidence, your links, your questions answered, and your policy is to dodge, avoid, ad explain away all the holes and lack of answers on your side. Want a clean slate? Answer a few questions:

1) how exactly did you conclude that the survey with the quantitation of self admitted racism is WRONG? And how exactly did you blow off the whole Nunez study without reading it?
2) how many racists does it take to make "some" or "a lot"
3) just how many white racists are there in this country, since you're so certain its not the 3-30 million suggested by even a skeptical reading of the survey?
4) How come you'll never talk about the HUD study? Is it because you have no way at all to refute its key finding of racism in housing?
5) To whom should I direct my apology, since I never named any individuals or condemned them for their admission, even? Should I apologize in similar fashion if I ever slip up and say a lot of white people live in new york?

Good luck!

_________________
--Ian

IJ

Nope, your spinning or just not reading what I wrote---more evidence of your bais no doubt--;)

What I'm willing to "dismiss" is a study which ADMITS that it has NO evideince whatsoever of racial discrimnation----yet still insists that its untestable and unsupportable claims of "SUBCONCIOUS" racism are correct--THEN has the gall to actually claim that those so afflicted "might not even be aware of" of it.
The study also asks--essenetially--that people try to do the impossible of proving a negative--that they are NOT--"subconcious" racist.

To me that reads like somehting out of Trofim Lysenkos's textbook on "Science the Party Way"

Nope, your spinning again, in a peer-review study the PEOPLE NUEZ-SMITH ESSENTIALLY ACCUSED of being racists most certainly DID NOT get a chance to defend themselevs.
The got no chance to speak out on their behalf as YOU have been doing--they didn't get to address the peer-review panel as YOU have been addressing me, they didn;t get to have a e-debate like YOUR doing, they didn't get to personally address the isses as YOU have been doing.
They did not get to challange the methdology and conclusions they way YOU have been doing.

Hey, if they did--then PLEASE direct me to where there whole debate is posted or what section of the study has the same detailed Q/A that you and I have having--I can't seem to locate it in your links---;)

My likes or dislikes are not the point--sloppy methodology is however one of my MAJOR "dislikes" so I don't know if that should count or not.

All I know is that--and I've warned you about that tendency prior BTW--is that you have a real habit of quoting and linking stuff you have not really throughly reading thu--and worse--stuff you really don't understand.
Then when you get called on it you get all shifty and evasive.
MY best advice is that if you don't know how to use it--then don't pull it.

"Elaborate"--the study is fundamentally flawed in that it asserts a largely untestable hypothisis of "subconcious" rascism--then couples it with essentially demanding proof of a negative--in effect asserting that if people can't prove that they are NOT racist--then they must BE racists.
If your BASELINE assumptions are that jacked up--then how can you possible trust the rest of it???

Exactly how much more do I need to read?

I read what YOU posted.

Like I keep telling you IJ, YOU want to argue and debate and get all whiney about accusations of YOU being a bigot--and rightly so.
But you DEFEND a study which effectively accuses people of being SUBCONCIOUS bigots--and assumes that they ARE bigots unless they can prove otherwise--prove a negative.

Strange how much YOU fight the accusation YOURSELF, but have NO problems with inflicting that label upon others--based upon the color of their skin.

Consider this--if its not really accurate in your case--then maybe the study has accuarcy problems overall.
Its a least worth considering---well consdering by anyone not blinded by a deeply pernicious ideology that is.

Weird and ugly---can't tell you how much I hate teaching people for free.
If I'm going to have to keep doing this for you, I suggest then you set up a Pay-Pal account for me.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

First, you dismissed everything that was posted, including:

--A HUD study
--a self report study
--an article ABOUT the Nunez study which referenced another study
--The Nunez study itself. Without ever seeing it.

There was no explanation for all of those dismissals.

Second, you are dead wrong; anyone on earth was welcome to write Annals about the Nunez study and argue its conclusions. "Then PLEASE direct me to where there whole debate is posted or what section of the study has the same detailed Q/A that you and I have having" --> the letters in response didn't question the findings of the study, so apparently the medical profession at large didn't feel a need to argue the findings. It's a journal, not a forum, so asking for a debate on each issue is kind of, you know, absurd. It's be like me asking you where your researched and published articles are located--see how silly that would be?

Third: "All I know is that--and I've warned you about that tendency prior BTW--is that you have a real habit of quoting and linking stuff you have not really throughly reading thu--and worse--stuff you really don't understand." Seriously? Because you post nothing and dismiss everything you disagree with without a clear reason and without reading the study. You dismissed the self report survey by saying it MIGHT have issues, even though i took the possibility of a ten fold error into account with my math; you dismissed the Nunez study without reading it and based on one sentance about ANOTHER article made in another editorial; you won't even discuss the HUD study because it's pretty damning. Who are you to lecture on references and understanding?

Fourth: "the study is fundamentally flawed in that it asserts a largely untestable hypothisis of "subconcious" rascism"

Untestable? Where were you when a bunch of people admitted to racism in the first link?? What's untestable about a self report? Why do you have to pretend this is all about ephemeral subconscious racism like its dark matter in a supercollider physics study, when in fact we have self admissions in one survey and open bias in the HUD study? It's looking you in the face.

Fifth: "Strange how much YOU fight the accusation YOURSELF, but have NO problems with inflicting that label upon others--based upon the color of their skin."

Look, genius, just because I repeat a fact that there are a lot of white racists or white people who live in new york doesn't mean I'm judging them by their skin color. It's like two interlocking circles in Venn diagrams. I didn't attribute causation. I didn't say I could judge anyone's mind based on the skin color. That would be absurd, if I had EVER said it in my life. But there ARE a lot of white people in new york; there ARE a lot of white people who are women; there ARE a lot of white people who believe in gay marriage, or have BMI's greater than 30, and so on. If you can't understand the difference between pre-judging someone and acknowledging the fact that certain attributes occur commonly in a large diverse group of people, you lack the reasoning skills to continue this debate with any hope of understanding.

I actually DO teach people (people with 8-12 years of education beyond highschool) as part of my job. And you have a good sense of humor, and a great ability to be offended about the difference between some, and a lot, but answer me this: are the following statements all "racist?"

There are a lot of white people who:
1) are brown eyed
2) are not brown eyed
3) live in new york
4) don't live in new york
5) are convicted criminals
6) have never been convicted of anything
7) are obese
are nonobese
9) vote republican
10) vote democratic
11) vote neither democratic nor republican
12) are racist
13) are not racist

A person who isn't just arguing to argue, and who isn't impaired, should be able to realize that these simple, unassuming, rather innocuous and obvious statements are all true. NONE OF THEM ARE BIGOTED STATEMENTS, THEY'RE JUST SIMPLE FACTS. None of them say or even imply that you can tell something about a white person by the color of their skin. I would imagine you are the only person willing to write in without laughing and say you feel otherwise. Let's see.

_________________
--Ian

IJ

I dismiss what fails to stand up to rational questions concernign methodology, science and logic.
Its not my fault that the studies have such flaws.

"Dead wrong"--really and those objections--those people "welcome to comment" that was done PRIOR to the study being relased or AFTER the study is published?
And if it was prior, did Nuez-Smith address the concerns of the people saddled with "subconcious racism?"
What I'm getting at is did the people get the chance to defend themselevs PRIOR to the study being released--I assume that they were not--or the study would not have been published.

Or perhaps the people simply had the same biased POV as Nuez-Smith---so since the study seemed to confirm/reinforce a pre-conceived bias they not only didn't question it--they had ever reason NOT to do so.

Like I said, if you didn't feel it was important enough for YOU to take the time to post it--then you don't NOW get to argue that I didn't take the time to read it.
I read what YOU posted--if you don't like it--then post better.

Your confusing studies--I'm mainly talking about the whole "subconcsious" thing in the Nuez-Smith study.
Beisides, I have no reason to belive that the "self reporting" is any more accurate--as I recall MOST people felt that they, themselevs were just fine--they were mainly worried about OTHER peoples possible racism.

I have no idea what exact questions were asked, how they were phrased, or what was going thu the minds of the people that were asked--heck the demographics ALONE might have seriously jacked it up.

As I mentioned--just like LBJ--they might just be people that make a SERIOUS effort to promote civil rights--yet are so self-negative that they errounously PRECEIVE themselevs as being racist when they are anything but.
Look at the survey itself--essentially your asking me to BELIVE it when people self-report (maybe) they admit they are racist--but not to trust the comparitivly MUCH LARGER number that say they are not.

But the accusation of you being a bigot--when you judged people by their skin color offended YOU.

Yet you have no problem labeling the people in the NUez-Smith study as racist for lesser reasons--ie, what may or may not be deep down in their SUBCONCIOUS
Clearly you have very different standards for YOU and "others."

When its YOU, you won't even consider that YOU just might be SUBCONCIOSULY a bigot--you might not even be aware of your bigotry--which is excatly the logical conclusion of the Nuez-Smith study.
When its "others" however, you spend DAYS argueing that that they ARE-- and the study is perfectly accurate.

LIke I said weird AND ugly.

_________________
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 Never 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

"I dismiss what fails to stand up to rational questions concernign [sic]methodology, science and logic."

Once again, you've crowned yourself more of an expert in methodology, science, and logic, apparently armed with nothign more than your netsurfing opinion, than people who actually work in the relevant fields such that you can dismiss work created and approved by dozens of them that has withstood peer review. And you basically won't even say why; you sometimes won't even address glaringly positive studies, such as the HUD work. You hold your own preconceived opinions in far too high regard, and refuse to change them in the face of a mountain of evidence. I wonder if I'm the only one waiting for you to post anything of substance.

"Or perhaps the people simply had the same biased POV as Nuez-Smith [sic]"

Like, the entire readership of the Annals of Internal Medicine? Everyone's lost but you, it would seem.

"Beisides [sic], I have no reason to belive [sic] that the "self reporting" is any more accurate--as I recall MOST people felt that they, themselevs [sic]were just fine--they were mainly worried about OTHER peoples [sic] possible racism.

Well, if self reports aren't admissable, and you won't even believe that a tenth of self reports are correct (which would give us nearly 4 million racists), you've set a ridiculously high bar for anyone to meet. Perhaps this kind of ridiculously distorted standard for evidence is why nothing ever seems to satisfy you... perhaps you wanted a signed witnessed confession from at least 90% of white people to admit there are "a lot," but entering into a discussion with that kind of standard deliberately blocks any progress from being made. I would have happily considered more reasonable evidence (eg, self reports!) had you a single datum to share with us, but you don't. You don't to research you don't read studies you don't read court cases and you don't accept the findings of professional researchers? And you don't believe a survey because you don't know "what was going thu the minds of the people that were asked"? Seriously? You'll only believe a survey when you know exactly what everyone is thinking? The only person that can help you with that is Professor Xavier from the X-men. What a laughable defense... come back when you change your attitude, else, why should anyone bother discussing anything with you?

You also are now hinting, several times, that we should focus on the larger percent that WASN'T racist. I never said racists were predominant or even nearly so. I said there were a lot of them. The fact that most people don't live in NYC doesn't mean that there aren't a lot who do.

"But the accusation of you being a bigot--when you judged people by their skin color offended YOU."

I was offended--not by the ludicrous suggestion that I was bigotedly judging someone by their skin color by acknowledging a proven fact that there are a lot of racists among them, which is no ore "racist" than saying a lot of white people live in NYC (to review: not racist at all). I was perturbed by the sheer vapidity of the statement, which, unlike my statement, purports to criticize an individual (me) on the basis of erroneous assumptions.

"When its YOU, you won't even consider that YOU just might be SUBCONCIOSULY a bigot."

Really? Go back through my posts and see where I said, even obliquely, that I hadn't considered whether my thoughts are completely colorblind. I never said such a thing. Ever. I live in California, USA, Earth. I don't know where you are writing from, but on my planet, everyone knows that when the OJ trial verdict was read, many black viewers jumped in joy and many whites sat in stunned silence. (Notice, once again, my cautious adjective--which is correct--many did behave that way). I remember when the Rodney King verdict came out and we had riots in LA. We just had another public debate with protest marches over Mexican immigration. You really have to live in a bubble not to realize that race is an issue in America. I'm not saying it colors all of my or anyone else's statements. I'm not saying its our biggest issue, I'm not saying that this isn't a melting pot or a happy salad bowl (pick your term), or that we don't all band together when we need to or that we haven't made great strides. I just acknowledged a simple, obvious fact admitted by at least (low end estimate) nearly 4 million white people, which is that they have at least subtle racist feelings.

Are you completely ignorant of recent and not so recent events, or do you think they were cooked up by the liberal newsmedia, or are you in hardcore denial, or what? What is so horrible about recognizing a simple fact? Accept it and move on.

ATH, historically, doesn't like to use terms like "some" or recognize gray areas. He's a fan of hyperbole and makes it sound as if there's an ongoing holocaust of hatred and unfairness against whites and men that apparently without a single exception. While CXT occasionally slips up and admits the obvious (he thinks there are "some" racists) or reveals a completely biased set of starting rules (he admits that he won't believe a self report survey unless he has complete access into the mental state of all participants, ie, never), ATH just has the issue laid out in the language of absolutism, and there's nothing there to discuss.

_________________
--Ian

Just because I've let CXT make a misstep (discounting a study because he doesn't know the exact questions) for about a hundred posts now, and have been pointing out all along that he doesn't adequately read or consider posted evidence before dismissing it, it is probably time to point out the obvious: the survey link, way back in post #1, has presented the actual survey questions and detailed response information all along.

This illustrates with brutal clarity two problems:

1) dismissal of sources without bothering to fully evaluate them, that is, overconfidence in one's opinion so powerful one doesn't need to consider any contrary evidence. No matter what is said, his mind is made up.

2) a lack of any discussion initiative. I look for evidence, I post it; he doesn't read it, and if he thinks there MIGHT be a problem with evidence, he writes the entire thing off--instead of merely following the link to see that his question was answered only a click away. Even worse, he seems to think that lack of 100% confirmation of a hypothesis serves to 100% dismiss it, which would be totally groundless.

The item in question asked whites if they were racially biased in "any way." CXT may squeal that this type of question overestimates racism, but hopefully he will recall that my entire thread has been about the subtlety of racism today in contrast to the obvious state power employed against minorities in the past. If he's interested in arguing the signifcance of this finding, that'd be super. However, I bet we won't here him comment on the HUD study, as he has never found any fault with its obvious findings and has repeatedly ignored my requests for comments.

_________________
--Ian

IJ

Again with the double posts---can't you keep it togather IJ??

Nope, I just don't have the ideological bindness that so effects your own perceptions.

These are some pretty gaping holes in the fundamental assumtions of the study/studies.
Serious problems with the methodlogy that seriously call into question the validity of their conclusions.

You tell me, on just ONE of the questions BTW--that the fundamental assumptions ask people to prove a negative ie the doctors can't prove that they are immune to racism.
YOU can't prove YOUR not a bigot--how can they?

Lets turn this around:

-Presentation of studies as facts while being to lazy to present the whole thing--then using said laziness as a prop as to why people don't do YOUR legwork.
If you don't think its important enough to take the time to post--why should anyone else?

-Failure to ask basic questions as to the methodology of a given study.
Simply accepting it because it confirms your pre-concieved bias is BAD SCIENCE--and the mark of a poor scientist I might add.

I sudder to think of of the care you would be giveing your patients should the orthodoxy you embrace accept demonic possion as the causes of illness.

-Failure to consider other potential explinations of the possible conculsions of the studies.

-Turning scientific method in its head--in part by asserting a conclusion that by its very nature ie "subconcious" can't really be established in concrete fashion.

-Failure to consider tester bias as a driver for the conclusions.

-Failure to estatblish how bias was kept out of the studies.

-Failure to consider the ramifications of the study--if Nuez-Smith is correct and there is such a thing as "subconcious" racism/bias--that a person "might not even be aware of" then Nuez-Smith ALSO might be a victem of the SAME "subconcious" bias--therefore the study itself might be the result of such a bais--therefore the study negates ITSELF.

Now if you want to talk about the "self reporting" there are still serious questions.

The least of which is that if the words used were in fact "in any way" then.

-Your STILL ignoreing that the vast number of people answered that in the NEGATIVE.
A conclusion you keep wanting to sweep under the rug.

-We have no idea what the person being asked MEANT when they answered "yes"--could be something INCREDABLY minor--and the study didn't establish that.
In fact that the study used such verbage and failed to ask the logical follow up questions is fairly significant support that the study itself commits serious tester bias--and was done for the direct purpose of being able to claim a "flashy" result.

-As mentioend MANY times--there is a serioius difference between a personal feeling and overt expressed behavior.
What one feels and thinks--even if its wrong--is a VERY different kettle of fish than actually DOING IT.
The study did not link feelings to actions--so its a "so what"--if LBJ can be the personal bigot he was and the professional champion of Civil Rights he ALSO was--then mere feelings are not effectively relevent.

In similar vein, you THINKING/FEELING somebody is hot does NOT mean that your actually cheating on your signaficant other.
Or does it?
And by that ahm......."logic" of that study the adultry and cheating rate MUST be VASTLY higher than reported.

And I already commented on the HUD study.
Jesus IJ, at least READ what I wrote before you make claims.
But then again, flying off the handle and posting stuff that you don't really understand OR read throughly is a distressing habit with you.

Anything that might confirm your pre-chosen bias is accpeted without question and without exception.
Anything that might deny/contridict it is subject to the most harsh questioning and most devote attempts to disavow it.

The main difference between you and I is that I'm operating from a place of objective, rational evaluation.

Your operating from a highly emotional, irrational,
Lysenko-esque, ideologicaly driven place.

Of course, you also deny the slighest possility that YOU, YOURSELF is gulity of bias and bigotry in any form.
Yet your so very quick to assert that other folks ARE--just because of the color of thier skin.

Sad that YOU personally demand and argue for every possible benefit of the doubt--while denying pretty much EVERYONE else the same consideration.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

CXT, you called me lazy. After you've never posted a single link or citation and I've looked for and reported on dozens. Har har!

CXT, you said I overlooked limitations of studies. After I explained long ago how the Annals works--with a list of limitations in bold face for readers! Har har.

CXT, you accused me of ignoring the people who weren't racist, even though I've explained a half dozen times that I never said racists were in the majority, or even a large minority, just that there were "a lot;" would I be "ignoring the population outside of NYC" just by reporting the indisputable fact that many white people DO live in NYC? You take no initiative and do no research--but I'm supposed to characterize the entire state of American views on race? Har har.

CXT, you accused me of not realizing that the respondents might have been reporting only minor racism--har har! In the post prior, I clearly explained that my whole thread was about subtle racism! I addressed your concern before you raised it! Good one! Love the followup about how I post without reading! Har har.

CXT, you have accused me of being a racist for the millionth time because I assert there are a lot of white racists. In this, you are demonstrating either your unwillingness to read posts or to understand that saying there are a lot of white people in NYC does not in the slightest suggest that I can tell where someone lives by the color of their skin. If you cannot understand this, there is REALLY no reason to continue. You have nothing to offer these discussions save your own entertaining opinion that you're more of an expert on issues you won't read on than throngs of people who make their living doing surveys and research on the same issues. That joke, unlike many of the rest, is no longer funny, so I'm done wasting my time with you.

_________________
--Ian

IJ

I called you lazy because in my opinion you demonstrably ARE so.
Your conducting "argument by link" rather than actually present your arguments.
When called on the vast systemic problems of said studies---your essential replay is "but you really didn't read the link I posted!!!!"
Like I said, if you can't take the time to actually post the stuff you feel is relevent--quit bitching, moaning and whineing about nobody else wanting to do so either.
If you can't be bothered/won't take the time to read it and post it--why should anyone else?

I accuse you--demonstratable so--of wanting to apply the charge of bigot/racsist to pretty much everyone BUT yourself.
While argueing hard for a week that YOU OF COURSE are not such a bigot--even to the "subconcious" level that your utterly OK with foisting on others.

I accuse you of being a bigot/racist because of the sloppy fashion in which you spoke--and the hysterical fashion in which you defend your statements.
For the millionth time a simple "Oops, sorry" would have more than taken care of it---yet your vast ego won't let you even form the words "Sorry" or admit that you erred in ANY fashion.

And AGAIN, if the charge is "subtle" SUBTLE to the point of no claimed evidence of harms or overt acts--then I accuse you--demonstrabley so--of establishing an essentially MEANINGLESS distinction.
As mentioned, thinking/feeling that somebody OTHER than your signaficant other is hot--is hardly the same as cheating--unless you wish to argue otherwise.
Likewise a "subconcious" bigotry that one is "not even aware of" in the utter ABSCENCE of any overt harms or actual ACTS of racism/bigoty-which the Nuez-Smith study admitts that it DOES NOT HAVE, then whatever a person may be in the darkness of their soul is not really relevant.

And AGAIN IJ, the only reason I'm still posting here is YOU are--just like you always do--you can't beat anybodies logic so you fall back on just outlasting them.

You ran out of anything substantive last week and and have been doing your SOP of hysterical insistance otherwise for days.
All in the vain hope that if you repeat your sloppy thinking and poorly reasoned position enough times you can convience people otherwise.

It all boils down to how you PESONALLY treat the conclusions of the Nuez-Smith study.

When applied to OTHER people--the notion of "subconcious" racisim and bigoty is accpected without question or comment.
When applied to YOU however, THEN suddenly its cause for a week of debate/argument over how it DOES NOT APPLY--but ONLY to YOU.

I really wish you gave OTHERS the same benefit of the doubt YOU demand for YOURSELF.

That you fail to do so is proof postive that your not being intellecutally honest--nor are you being objective here.
Instead your being a good little "PC" soldier and repeating the Party Line.

Its also proof postive that at a fundamental level you personally doubt the conclusions of the Nuez-Smith study----if you actually believd them you would leave room for the possibilty that you were in point of fact a bigot--and perhaps that such bigotry "subconciously" colored/effects your speech and perceptions--just as the Nuez-Smith study concludes that it might.

Trofim Lysenko would be sooooooo proud.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH

Argument in Sum:

I research, CXT does not, so I am lazy.

I said "a lot" of whites are racist, so I meant "pretty much everyone," when in fact no one is racist but me for saying it.

There are NOT "a lot" of racists in the USA despite a variety of positive studies including one based on self admission that found almost 4 million racists even if there was a 10 fold overestimation.

If you hype up the fact that one of the studies I posted was on perceived racism noted by blacks (of course, unless the events were videotaped, the best conclusion is the blacks made them up or imagined them), people might overlook the inarguably positive and well designed HUD study or the self report study, or heck, our own mere awareness from personal life and the news that race still colors american perceptions and interactions.

Wait... I'm supposed to apologize again... um,

Dear White Americans, I recognize that all reports of race entering your thoughts, and in particular your own admissions of racial bias and observation of the same in others, as well as the observation of racism in whites made by blacks, including objective observation of racism against whites and hispanics in housing markets, was all ludicrous. I am particularly sorry for believing black people who noticed racism from whites, given that, ahem, white people confirmed that same racism when asked themselves (2/3 thought racism was at least somewhat serious problem; 1/5 saw it in their acquaintances, and while 13% admitted it themselves, a full QUARTER disapproved of interracial marriage). While I merely said a "lot" of white people were racist, per CXT, this is the same as indicting all white americans, so I thus recognize that the only racist person in America is me, and hereby beg for your forgiveness. Sincerely....

Wait, that would be BS. And I believe in sincerity.

CXT, I am truly sorry I wasted my time speaking with you.

_________________
--Ian

IJ

You know IJ, you keeping saying "goodbye" and "your done with this"---but you keep posting.
I'd say you "doth protest to much."
Your certainly intellecutually lazy, shifty, intellectually dishonest, ideologically driven and a dyed-in-the wool partisen.

But nice spin one your last post none-the-less.

Nope, its not really "research" at all---its more in the nature of blind, unquestioning, unthinking acceptance of whatever anybody says--just as long as it supports your pre-conceived personal bias that is.

AGAIN, your also demanding to be given the benefit of the doubt about "subconcious" issues of bigotry and racism that you "might not even be aware of"--that is if you honestly accepet the conclusions of the Nuez-Smith study.
Its telling that YOU demand the benefit of the doubt about YOUR "subconcious" attitudes, attitudes that "you may not even be aware of," yet have no problems what-so-ever in DENYING that same benefit of the doubt to others.

In fact, that you would so deny that the study is valid--when it applies to YOU--but insist that its perfectly valid when applied to others is all people really need to know about you.

Even YOU don't really accept its conclusions--not really.

Oh, and you keep doing this because your out of control hubris and towering ego prevents you from just admitting your logical inconcistances and the evident fatal flaws in the studies you posted.
You have staked your cognative schemate on certain idea and concepts--which to your POV are absolute "truths" and to have them repeatedly punctured like this creates such cognative dissonance that you just can't stand it--and your equally incapable of ajusting any of your pre-conceived attitudes.

Chances are that I'll have to step up and walk away for you--just like I have had to do in the past.

_________________
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH