How One Liberal 'Proves' Republicans Are Racist

[mahagonny]

"PRRI also asked respondents whether they believed that, "It always makes the country better when all Americans speak up and protest unfair treatment by government." Then, it asked the same question, but substituted "Black Americans" for "all Americans." Democrats made no distinction between the two questions: 71 percent answered Yes to both. Among Republicans, however, 49 percent believed it made the country better when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair governmental treatment, but just 24 percent believed it when Black Americans spoke up and protested. Among Republicans whose most trusted news source is Fox News, the gap was 47 percent Yes for all Americans, and a bare 10 percent for Blacks."

From this, Harold Meyerson conclude that Republicans are very racist.

I can't recall a time when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair government treatment. So that question is hypothothetical. Sometimes you might think a protest could be a good idea, but when it happens you are surprised to find it's not just someone speaking up, it's looting, vandalism, violence, cops getting shot in the face, police using teargas, etc. Oh yes, and spreading of viruses.
The questions are not the same as 'all Americans should have the same rights to protest and speak out, agree or disagree.'

https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/how-racist-are-republicans-very/

[Hegemony]

I just feel like this thread is just asking for trouble. It's just going to attract polarized responses, isn't it?  And some reasonable calm people are going to post, but also some inflammatory people, and then others are going to take offense (probably sometimes justifiably), and the whole thing is going to be a train wreck. Is there anyone out there who doesn't already have an opinion? A strong opinion?  And if there is, why don't they go read some thoughtful writings on the topic, rather than a list of opinions of various degrees of fury, as this one will soon turn into? Has anyone ever been persuaded by people throwing comments around in an anonymous online discussion?  The research I've seen is that it just makes people more polarized and determined in their original opinions, and makes them detest the other side a little bit more. Can't we go do something useful instead?

[mahagonny]

I guess we all have some threshold for when controversy and clash make us uncomfortable. I respect those concerns.
where my ambivalence comes in is where the current climate requires us to accept ideas such as 'since is violence.' No one on the forum has been saying this, but neither has anyone pushed back against it. If silence is violence then what is the penalty to paid for not being silent and supplying a view of things that is unwelcome?
I honestly think the variety of responses here is interesting. I learn from it. If one were to post what I posted on a conservative forum it would be closer to an echo chamber. You would have loony right ideas posted and people who don't agree just ignoring them.
When people speak their minds candidly, clarity might be coming.
The current presidential election has been billed as a referendum on Trump and his anti-social personality. I don't think so. The two candidates have identified some clear differences in policy and priorities.
Coleman Hughes was asked recently how he could speak to Congress against reparations for slavery. It think his feeling was, how could he not?
If this thread isn't good idea for the community, it can be deleted. i would accept it.

[polly_mer]

I just feel like this thread is just asking for trouble. It's just going to attract polarized responses, isn't it?  And some reasonable calm people are going to post, but also some inflammatory people, and then others are going to take offense (probably sometimes justifiably), and the whole thing is going to be a train wreck. Is there anyone out there who doesn't already have an opinion? A strong opinion?  And if there is, why don't they go read some thoughtful writings on the topic, rather than a list of opinions of various degrees of fury, as this one will soon turn into? Has anyone ever been persuaded by people throwing comments around in an anonymous online discussion?  The research I've seen is that it just makes people more polarized and determined in their original opinions, and makes them detest the other side a little bit more. Can't we go do something useful instead?

People who are members of the large majority often are uncomfortable when members of the much less visible viewpoints really want to have discussions and push hard on the accepted viewpoints that are opinion, not fact.

No, random discussion doesn't tend to change anyone's mind.  However, for those who seldom see their views represented in the community discourse, finding out they are not alone is very reassuring.

If one truly supports diversity, then having the uncomfortable, and even heated, discussions is worth having so that everyone has the opportunity to be heard.

If you don't wish to participate, then that is your option.

Shutting down the discussion because you don't want to watch it is not your option.

[little bongo]

Very problematic response. If you say, "Shutting down the discussion because you don't want to watch it is not your option," that is an accusation. And when making an accusation, you need to show, quite explicitly, where and how the accused proposed shutting down the thread. One can interpret the hypothetical question "Can't we go do something useful instead" a number of ways, I suppose, but a shut down isn't one of them. A shut down is a specific and physical closing of a thread or forum. That didn't happen.

[onthefringe]

"PRRI also asked respondents whether they believed that, "It always makes the country better when all Americans speak up and protest unfair treatment by government." Then, it asked the same question, but substituted "Black Americans" for "all Americans." Democrats made no distinction between the two questions: 71 percent answered Yes to both. Among Republicans, however, 49 percent believed it made the country better when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair governmental treatment, but just 24 percent believed it when Black Americans spoke up and protested. Among Republicans whose most trusted news source is Fox News, the gap was 47 percent Yes for all Americans, and a bare 10 percent for Blacks."

From this, Harold Meyerson conclude that Republicans are very racist.

I can't recall a time when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair government treatment. So that question is hypothothetical. Sometimes you might think a protest could be a good idea, but when it happens you are surprised to find it's not just someone speaking up, it's looting, vandalism, violence, cops getting shot in the face, police using teargas, etc. Oh yes, and spreading of viruses.
The questions are not the same as 'all Americans should have the same rights to protest and speak out, agree or disagree.'

https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/how-racist-are-republicans-very/

I will admit that I don't even know what you are saying here. Yes, these are hypothetical questions. And people's varying responses mean that they interpret the hypotheticals differently. I think the country is better off because women and others protested to get women the vote. I think it's better because Blacks and others protested in favor of Civil Rights. I think it's better because LGBTQ+ people and others protested for gay rights. I think it's better because  many people protested for worker safety. All of those movements were at times associated with violence, and it's not clear to me that any of those important goals would have been achieved without those protests.

With regards to this particular poll, one possible explanation for the variance is that (many?) Republicans are actively racist and don't think Black people should protest. Another would be that (many?) Republicans don't think the treatment Black people are currently protesting represents "unfair" treatment. Another would be that (many?) Republicans associate Black protests with the recent BLM protests and think that Black protests are inevitably associated with the kind of violence you call out. In my mind, all of these explanations reflect some degree of racism in people who respond differently to the question about whether "all Americans" should protest compared to a question about whether "Black people" should protest.

I also am struck by the differential responses to armed protestors surrounding the Michigan State Capital, vs unarmed protestors in Portland, vs individuals kneeling during the national anthem. And by the baseline difference where Republicans in general don't think protests can make the country better, regardless of who is doing the protesting.

[Sun_Worshiper]

OP's point across a series of threads seems to be that racism is a myth and that actually minorities are violent and are asking for the police brutality that they experience.  Amusingly, the evidence s/he offers in this thread is a poll that suggests racism to be endemic among Republicans.

[mahagonny]

"PRRI also asked respondents whether they believed that, "It always makes the country better when all Americans speak up and protest unfair treatment by government." Then, it asked the same question, but substituted "Black Americans" for "all Americans." Democrats made no distinction between the two questions: 71 percent answered Yes to both. Among Republicans, however, 49 percent believed it made the country better when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair governmental treatment, but just 24 percent believed it when Black Americans spoke up and protested. Among Republicans whose most trusted news source is Fox News, the gap was 47 percent Yes for all Americans, and a bare 10 percent for Blacks."

From this, Harold Meyerson conclude that Republicans are very racist.

I can't recall a time when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair government treatment. So that question is hypothothetical. Sometimes you might think a protest could be a good idea, but when it happens you are surprised to find it's not just someone speaking up, it's looting, vandalism, violence, cops getting shot in the face, police using teargas, etc. Oh yes, and spreading of viruses.
The questions are not the same as 'all Americans should have the same rights to protest and speak out, agree or disagree.'

https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/how-racist-are-republicans-very/

I will admit that I don't even know what you are saying here. Yes, these are hypothetical questions. And people's varying responses mean that they interpret the hypotheticals differently. I think the country is better off because women and others protested to get women the vote. I think it's better because Blacks and others protested in favor of Civil Rights. I think it's better because LGBTQ+ people and others protested for gay rights. I think it's better because  many people protested for worker safety. All of those movements were at times associated with violence, and it's not clear to me that any of those important goals would have been achieved without those protests.

[snip]

I also am struck by the differential responses to armed protestors surrounding the Michigan State Capital, vs unarmed protestors in Portland, vs individuals kneeling during the national anthem. And by the baseline difference where Republicans in general don't think protests can make the country better, regardless of who is doing the protesting.

I don't necessarily agree with all of this, but just based on your post I suspect (and also hope) that if you were polling Americans to find out who's racist and who's not, you'd do a more credible job of it than Meyerson did.

With regards to this particular poll, one possible explanation for the variance is that (many?) Republicans are actively racist and don't think Black people should protest. Another would be that (many?) Republicans don't think the treatment Black people are currently protesting represents "unfair" treatment. Another would be that (many?) Republicans associate Black protests with the recent BLM protests and think that Black protests are inevitably associated with the kind of violence you call out. In my mind, all of these explanations reflect some degree of racism in people who respond differently to the question about whether "all Americans" should protest compared to a question about whether "Black people" should protest.

Another possibility is that these Republicans think Black people have reason to be unhappy about police malpractice, but that that malpractice has been affecting people of all races and so the logical thing to do would be to protest police brutality generally. But many are pointedly passing up that opportunity in favor of racial divisiveness and promoting other agenda that are not entailed in the situation of relations of police and citizens. And giving a microphone to race hustlers like Sharpton. So the harm outweighs the good.

OP's point across a series of threads seems to be that racism is a myth and that actually minorities are violent and are asking for the police brutality that they experience.  Amusingly, the evidence s/he offers in this thread is a poll that suggests racism to be endemic among Republicans.

I'll be ignoring you. If you want to know why, we can do PM. Trying not to flame the thread too much.

[mahagonny]

...or they could be Black, Republican small business owners who hope their store won't be damaged and looted.

[marshwiggle]

In the interest of taking this thread in a slightly different direction, I'm kind of curious as to the merit of seeing all of one's apparent opponents as terrible human beings.

For instance, how does it help Democrats to view all Republicans as anti-black racists? How does it help Republicans to view all Democrats as anti-white racists? How does it help feminists to view all men as misogynists? How does it help men to view all feminists as misandrists?

(I'm not saying all members of those groups think those things. I'm wondering what the value is for the ones who do.)

If there is no room for any common ground, then there's no point in any interaction or discussion of any kind.  It's hard to see what benefit there is in that. The only thing I can see is the comfort of self-righteousness and the safety of never having to listen to any different points of view in case they might raise some awkward questions.

[writingprof]

I think that white, professional Democrats see people "of color" as votes.  (I also think Donald Trump sees "evangelical" Christians as votes.)  In both cases, the targeted group is valued in the abstract rather than the particular, which is why gentry liberals continue to send their children to private schools.

In short: Democrats are racist.  So are Republicans.  So are white people.  So are "B"lack people.  Live with it.

[Sun_Worshiper]

"PRRI also asked respondents whether they believed that, "It always makes the country better when all Americans speak up and protest unfair treatment by government." Then, it asked the same question, but substituted "Black Americans" for "all Americans." Democrats made no distinction between the two questions: 71 percent answered Yes to both. Among Republicans, however, 49 percent believed it made the country better when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair governmental treatment, but just 24 percent believed it when Black Americans spoke up and protested. Among Republicans whose most trusted news source is Fox News, the gap was 47 percent Yes for all Americans, and a bare 10 percent for Blacks."

From this, Harold Meyerson conclude that Republicans are very racist.

I can't recall a time when all Americans spoke up and protested unfair government treatment. So that question is hypothothetical. Sometimes you might think a protest could be a good idea, but when it happens you are surprised to find it's not just someone speaking up, it's looting, vandalism, violence, cops getting shot in the face, police using teargas, etc. Oh yes, and spreading of viruses.
The questions are not the same as 'all Americans should have the same rights to protest and speak out, agree or disagree.'

https://prospect.org/blogs/tap/how-racist-are-republicans-very/

I will admit that I don't even know what you are saying here. Yes, these are hypothetical questions. And people's varying responses mean that they interpret the hypotheticals differently. I think the country is better off because women and others protested to get women the vote. I think it's better because Blacks and others protested in favor of Civil Rights. I think it's better because LGBTQ+ people and others protested for gay rights. I think it's better because  many people protested for worker safety. All of those movements were at times associated with violence, and it's not clear to me that any of those important goals would have been achieved without those protests.

[snip]

I also am struck by the differential responses to armed protestors surrounding the Michigan State Capital, vs unarmed protestors in Portland, vs individuals kneeling during the national anthem. And by the baseline difference where Republicans in general don't think protests can make the country better, regardless of who is doing the protesting.

I don't necessarily agree with all of this, but just based on your post I suspect (and also hope) that if you were polling Americans to find out who's racist and who's not, you'd do a more credible job of it than Meyerson did.

With regards to this particular poll, one possible explanation for the variance is that (many?) Republicans are actively racist and don't think Black people should protest. Another would be that (many?) Republicans don't think the treatment Black people are currently protesting represents "unfair" treatment. Another would be that (many?) Republicans associate Black protests with the recent BLM protests and think that Black protests are inevitably associated with the kind of violence you call out. In my mind, all of these explanations reflect some degree of racism in people who respond differently to the question about whether "all Americans" should protest compared to a question about whether "Black people" should protest.

Another possibility is that these Republicans think Black people have reason to be unhappy about police malpractice, but that that malpractice has been affecting people of all races and so the logical thing to do would be to protest police brutality generally. But many are pointedly passing up that opportunity in favor of racial divisiveness and promoting other agenda that are not entailed in the situation of relations of police and citizens. And giving a microphone to race hustlers like Sharpton. So the harm outweighs the good.

OP's point across a series of threads seems to be that racism is a myth and that actually minorities are violent and are asking for the police brutality that they experience.  Amusingly, the evidence s/he offers in this thread is a poll that suggests racism to be endemic among Republicans.

I'll be ignoring you. If you want to know why, we can do PM. Trying not to flame the thread too much.

I'll try not to cry myself to sleep tonight

I think that white, professional Democrats see people "of color" as votes.  (I also think Donald Trump sees "evangelical" Christians as votes.)  In both cases, the targeted group is valued in the abstract rather than the particular, which is why gentry liberals continue to send their children to private schools.

In short: Democrats are racist.  So are Republicans.  So are white people.  So are "B"lack people.  Live with it.

False equivalency, but beyond that I'd rather not live in a world where our response to racism is to "live with it"

[mahagonny]

In the interest of taking this thread in a slightly different direction, I'm kind of curious as to the merit of seeing all of one's apparent opponents as terrible human beings.

Theory: laziness has a lot of appeal. It's easier to say 'everyone who voted that way is thinking only about X (horrible, ignorant bias)' than it is to ask people what they are thinking about. Despair follows, which might have an element of self pity or fatalism.

[writingprof]

I think that white, professional Democrats see people "of color" as votes.  (I also think Donald Trump sees "evangelical" Christians as votes.)  In both cases, the targeted group is valued in the abstract rather than the particular, which is why gentry liberals continue to send their children to private schools.

In short: Democrats are racist.  So are Republicans.  So are white people.  So are "B"lack people.  Live with it.

False equivalency, but beyond that I'd rather not live in a world where our response to racism is to "live with it"

And I'd rather not live in a world in which our response to racism is to come up with elaborate theoretical constructs ("systemic racism!" "white privilege!") that make no difference in the life of any actual human being.  I suppose we'll both be committing suicide.

[marshwiggle]

I think that white, professional Democrats see people "of color" as votes.  (I also think Donald Trump sees "evangelical" Christians as votes.)  In both cases, the targeted group is valued in the abstract rather than the particular, which is why gentry liberals continue to send their children to private schools.

In short: Democrats are racist.  So are Republicans.  So are white people.  So are "B"lack people.  Live with it.

False equivalency, but beyond that I'd rather not live in a world where our response to racism is to "live with it"

But if you believe all of the "unconscious bias" stuff, then we have to "live with it" because at the microscopic level it can't be eradicated!!!!!

The people who believe racism can be, (and to a great degree, has been), eradicated are the only ones who believe there is an alternative to "living with it".