Yup. Ranger nailed you.
I can't believe I wasted time trying to teach you things. I should have listened to Rock's "These people are experts in the field; that's enough" line.
Bitch slapped Republicans
- Thread starter Rockfish1
- Start date
I can't believe I wasted time trying to teach you things. I should have listened to Rock's "These people are experts in the field; that's enough" line.
On a 0 to 100 dial, how do you have only 2 options? You have 100 options to that survey question.
If you totally disagreed with the premise of the question you'd give it a 50....AKA....neither agree or disagree.
That's like saying you can choose black, white, or any shade of gray -- but nothing with any hue of color in it.
Those two are not equivalent
and one does not tend to prove the other. I think you are saying that there an identifiable group of people who are mostly motivated by racial resentment. But that isn't the same thing is that racial resentment is the best single predictor of Trump's support. Party identification is obviously the best SINGLE predictor. There is likely a long list of other predictors before you get to racial resentment.
It's being investigated right now. Evidence forthcoming. Also read the book Clinton Cash. Throughout the history of the Clinton administration they have been involved with many questionable campaign contributions. You are aware of all this as its common knowledge.
Simple. The options given people to respond to those statements are agree, disagree, or somewhere in between.
Scroll up and find the thoughts I posted regarding question #4. Tell me, if I wanted to offer an answer that accurately reflected those thoughts, how should I answer?
Because I wouldn't say I agree with the sentiment and I wouldn't say I disagreed with it. I also wouldn't say that I have no opinion. Nor would I say that my thoughts fall somewhere on a continuum between agreeing or disagreeing.
So given the choice between black (agree), white (disagree), or a shade of gray, I'd choose Yellow.
A big part of this, of course, is that I harbor no presumptions about anybody because of their race -- and the statements in all 4 instances necessarily require a respondent to generalize.
Well, where does such a narrow range of options leave anybody like me who steadfastly refuses to generalize about somebody because of a characteristic like race?
Another thing I'd add to this is that I suspect that, if there's a "race" that a stereotypical Trump voter resents, it's probably Hispanic -- not black, like the questions tested (however poorly).
But I'm pretty sure that, if we were located adjacent to mainland China rather than Mexico and Central America, and the primary influx of cheap labor came from Chinese people rather than Hispanics, then that's where this alleged "racial resentment" would be focused.
I'd say it's pretty easy to mistake anxiety about competition from cheap immigrant labor to be more about the "immigrant" and less about the "cheap competition" -- particularly if that's precisely what you set out to discover in a "survey".
Like I said, I doubt the displaced Disney IT guys would be more sanguine about having been displaced if the folks who were hired to replace them had been Dutch.
None of that makes sense either. The questions should be about Hispanics, but somehow that's really what's being measures and if we lived next to China, that's what would be measured, even though the questions would still actually be about blacks? You're talking in circles.
As obvious to you that Trump isn't about race, it's obvious to us that he is. The difference is we can back it up with research. All you have are your own protestations, which don't magically become good arguments simply because you keep repeating them.
Hardly. I'm saying that the root source of this trepidation is economic, not racial, in nature. And it would be easy to confuse the two -- even for somebody who themselves feels the trepidation. If Canada was the origin of the influx of cheap labor, then the ire of these kinds of voters would be directed at Canadians.
The race/ethnicity of these folks is entirely incidental -- and stems from where we're located (and, of course, the disparity in economic opportunity between our country and our southern neighbors').
Let me put it this way. A lot of comparisons have been made between Trump and the rise of nationalist parties/candidates in Europe (Le Pen, Farage, etal). Do you think voters there are focusing their attention on Hispanics? Of course not. They have a much different kind of mass immigration problem than we do -- and it isn't Spaniards leaving Spain for France. And I'd say that security is at least as big a motivator there than economics, maybe bigger.
Laughably stupid research, sure.
"We're not interested in that kind of racial resentment."
Yeah, do tell.
No you can't back it up with research
Obama's immigration program is lawless. The immigration courts are in a shambles, the border is a mess, a circuit of appeals sua sponte slapped down Obsm's amnesty program, and the Border Patrol Union took the unprecedented step of endorsing Trump. Do you really want to see all this as racial resentment? Maybe voters are of the same mindset. According to your "research" this all could be seen as racial resentment. If it is, any immigration enforcement is based upon racial resentment. I don't think so.
Edit: links
Last edited:
You made good and helpful points, but you're disagreeing with people who don't rely on evidence and are instead immune to it -- or maybe allergic to it. It's an isometric exercise.
First of all, I don't agree. If this were really all about economics, then appeals to non-economic fears wouldn't work. But Arab terrorists and Mexican rapists aren't coming for your jobs. They're coming for your sons and daughters. Those aren't economic appeals.
Second of all, even if you were right, so what? The source of the racial resentment doesn't change its existence.
Third of all, none of these comments justify your repeated assertion that this research is methodologically flawed. You are complaining about interpretations you disagree with, nothing more.
You guys got nothing
The "gold standard" study is nothing but a result oriented confirmation of a prexisting opinion. The questions are constructed in that fashion. I have pointed out several ways A. the questions could be worded to determine alternatives motivations to race and B. shown that the data is not conclusive of the purposes for which you use it. This might pass the Daubert standard, but it won't stand up even under the most basic examination. You have waaayyyy overplayed the data.
All you got in response are typical banalities that you have posted for years.
All you've demonstrated is that you're not qualified to dissect quantitative social science research.
They also represent a tiny percentage of the appeals actually being made. Talk to some of these people some time. I have. You don't need some bogus "study" to find out what is driving them. They'll tell you -- and you won't even need to give them a hackneyed question about why black people lag economically to get them to.
Because a pretty significant portion of the resentment in question here isn't ultimately racial in nature. The race factor, for such people, is incidental. Granted, I'm sure plenty of people allow their economic angst regarding immigrants to morph into racial enmity. But, then, I know WWII vets who to this day don't have the first nice thing to say about Japanese people. When I'm around them and they make comments to that end, I have to remind myself that, however illogical I find that perspective to be, no Japanese person ever tried to kill me or my friends.
Truth be told, I'd say that people who feel economically insecure due to tectonic shifts in the labor market should be far more concerned about the impacts of technology, in all of its forms and manifestations, than anything having to do with either trade or immigration. I think it was Tyler Cowen who pointed out once that nearly three times as much job attrition in the past 50 years or so was attributed to technological development rather than outsourcing or anything of that sort. But, then, it's hard to have hard feelings towards robots and computers -- or to shame others for doing so.
No, it is not the interpretations I disagree with. If the authors of this farce were truly interested in getting an accurate read on racial resentment, they'd have gone about it in a much different way than they did. As even you acknowledged, they wholly discounted all but one kind of racial resentment. That's not a gripe with their interpretation or conclusions -- it's simply pointing out that they put garbage in and thus got garbage out.
And, while that by itself ought to be enough to discredit this "study", it's just for starters. Their "statements" necessarily required broad racial generalizations and left out all sorts of perfectly legitimate responses that wouldn't fall anywhere on a straight-line "agree/disagree" continuum.
Again, if I believe that anybody -- regardless of race -- could do better than they have if they "try harder" (however I would define that), then it follows that I believe that about any black people who are lagging behind. But I also believe it about any white people (and Asians, Hispanics, Slavs, and Eskimos) who are lagging behind. So, given this is representative of what I believe, how in the hell am I supposed to respond to their question?
If I say that I agree with statement #4, that pushes me toward their "racial resentment" category -- despite the fact that I believe the exact same thing about white people. On the flip side, if I disagree with statement #4, that is not at all an accurate reflection of my beliefs -- because I very much do believe that anybody who isn't doing as well as they want to can do better by way of their own efforts, choices, habits, etc.
As such, I'd probably have to put that I agree with the sentiment -- which makes me (in these numbskulls' eyes, anyway) a racial resenter, despite the fact that my belief about efforts/choices/behaviors and economic success being inextricably linked is entirely race-neutral.
This is the sort of thing that software engineers would call a "bug". My sentiments have nothing to do with race -- but would nonetheless, in the conclusions of the study, make me "racially resentful." And I'm not.
Whatever you might think about that criticism, it ought to at least be clear that I'm taking issue with more than just their interpretations.
Last edited:
H
"Economic, not racial, in nature"...yeah, because I've never heard people say the illegal Mexicans were taking all the jobs, which is in turn leading to the economic problems. Don't worry, that's not racial. It's all economic.
"Economic, not racial, in nature"...yeah, because I've never heard people say the illegal Mexicans were taking all the jobs, which is in turn leading to the economic problems. Don't worry, that's not racial. It's all economic.
That statement is economic in nature, not racial. The complaint isn't that these people are Mexicans, the complaint is that they're "taking all the jobs." That they're Mexicans is incidental to that complaint.
And, as I said, if it were the case that we had a similarly wide disparity in economic opportunity with Canada as we do with Mexico (and virtually all of Central America) and, as such, 1 million+ Canadians were coming here illegally every year to participate in our more lucrative labor market, then I strongly suspect that all this ire would be directed at Canadians.
Don't get me wrong. As I told Goat above, I'm sure that such economically-oriented animus often bleeds over into race. And, while that's certainly unfortunate, to say that the animus has its origins in racial resentment is bound to quite often be incorrect.
So, let me get this straight. Those "damn illegal Mexicans" are taking the jobs, but there's no racial resentment there? I only quote that because that's usually how I hear the complainers say it.
You also seem to have difficulty separating the survey(s) and the Trump study which examined data pulled from those surveys.
Last edited:
This is incredible. How can you make posts like this with a straight face?
The origin of their complaint is the jobs. The fact that it's Mexicans (in their eyes, anyway) taking them is incidental to that.
How often do you hear people complaining about blacks "taking all the jobs"? I mean, the authors of this study used (hackneyed though they were) views on blacks to determine racial resentment. If these complainers you're talking about here are motivated by their racial resentment, why are they leaving blacks out of it?
I'm not discounting that these sentiments of economic insecurity are often manifested in racial overtones. But I don't think that's where they actually originate from. If they did, then why single out Mexicans? Why not gripe about Indians or Afghans? I'd offer that it's because few Americans feel (economically) threatened by those people.
I would argue that, as you're the one flatly rejecting actual quantitative research for no good reason other than that it just doesn't sound good to you, you're the one using emotion rather than reason, here.
I think bad quantitative research -- which this clearly is -- must be flatly rejected. To accept it will invariably lead to faulty conclusions. Heck, Goat, even you acknowledged that they totally disregarded certain kinds of racial resentment (because it didn't "interest" them). I'm guessing you don't dispute that these other kinds exist, right? If not, then how in the hell can you justify the authors leaving them out when testing for (unqualified) racial resentment?
If you present me with research that is actually sound, I'll give it due consideration. But this tripe doesn't even come close. And any person or organization who attached their name to it -- or has touted it as the least bit reliable or useful -- should be embarrassed.
Whys is this yawn? Are you saying that 169 federal lawsuits are not big enough, but Obama visiting Hiroshima is?
Last edited:
This isn't clearly bad research. Maybe they wanted to measure black resentment of whites, but they couldn't, because those questions weren't in the survey data. Maybe they didn't care. So what? It has no bearing on how valid the data they did examine is. That's like rejecting a study about changing opinions on marriage equality because it failed to look into opinions on bananas.
Like CO.H, you are obviously unqualified to pass judgment on social science research. Based on your criticisms, you don't even understand how it works, so how can you feel comfortable rejecting it out of hand?
Actually the opposite
Rockfish used the study to support this statement:
"Racial resentment isn't the only thing driving Trump's support, but it's the biggest single thing."
You support this.
That statement doesn't even pass the smell test. If you think racial resentment is a bigger "thing" than the fact that Trump is the GOP nominee in the source of his support you either aren't paying attention to anything or have willingly and anxiously succumbed to silly talking points the Democrats always use to brand the Republicans as having racial resentment (FWIW, I think it is the latter). There are also strong issues surrounding the crappy economy, jobs, and Hillary's dishonesty driving his support. The designers of the study tried to make this so, but their methods are so full of holes, (which I and others have pointed out) the data is useless for the purposes you are trying to use it. You have made no attempt to examine the data, you just accept it as valid because it comports with your views.
Take your ad hominems someplace else, they are not arguments and they can't ever support your view.
The term "racist" is overused and incorrect when the subject is Mexican, Mestizo, Chicano, Latino, Hispanic, Salvadoran and Puerto Rican. These labels don't identify race, but rather ethnicity, culture and national heritage.
Having said that, there is a great deal of prejudice among Americans concerning these folks, and some politicians are more than happy to take advantage of this prejudice to promote their own political agenda. Also it should be known that the ethnicity, culture and national heritage of all these groups differ.
Having said that, there is a great deal of prejudice among Americans concerning these folks, and some politicians are more than happy to take advantage of this prejudice to promote their own political agenda. Also it should be known that the ethnicity, culture and national heritage of all these groups differ.
History is replete with American xenophobia. We hated the Irish when they came, then the Germans, then the Chinese, then the Japanese. Now it is Mexican. I am not sure those were even mostly economic, and I am not sure today's example is different.
Largely speaking illegals are not showing up and taking $50,000/year jobs. Dishwashers and migrant farming seem to make up a lot. Minimum wage assembly work. Georgia managed to get rid of the illegals in farm work and lost $140 million in crops the state could not get harvested. The next year they used prison labor. Did that really help any poor people needing work? http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...rgias-immigration-law-backfires/#837a693404a6
LOL. This statement proves right here that you didn't even try to understand the study.
Hint: the Trump supporter study was not conducted by the same people who actually conducted the surveys.
You really, really shouldn't criticize things you don't bother to read.
Nope. Flat wrong. They told us that these questions measured "racial resentment" writ large -- it was unqualified. It did not say that it was only resentment of whites towards blacks. It said that that data result represented "racial resentment" of all respondents.
But the data they got cannot be usefully applied, because they obviously left out any other kind of racial resentment.
And, still, that is only the first problem with it. I'm only pointing it out because you did acknowledge that. It forces respondents to use generalizations -- even if they, themselves, don't generalize. That's every bit as big a problem as only testing one potential kind of racial resentment to determine what respondents are or aren't racially resentful.
The whole thing is a joke.
Because I can read. And because I can think. Don't pull this "you're not qualified" crap on me, Goat. That's weak sauce.
You're the one standing up for blatantly awful "social science research" here, not me. If you can't see that, then perhaps you should try thinking for yourself instead of swallow whole what some moron throws at you.
Heck, you won't even specifically engage my actual criticisms. What do you say about the generalizing aspect of it? What do you say about my several explanations of how I'd approach #4? Given what I've said about that, do you think it's correct that I'd be characterized by the study as harboring racial resentment? At least you made an effort to address the lack of examining other kinds of racial resentments. But it wasn't exactly a terribly strong attempt.
I don't mind you taking issue with what I say. But at least actually take issue with my actual words -- instead of just using the lazy standby of "you're not qualified!"
Of course they were. Do you really think the average person sits there and sweats other people because they're different? Or do they sweat the threats they -- rightly or wrongly -- think they represent?
We worry about new people coming around because we think they want, and will get, what we have. It can be very easy to mistake this for xenophobia. But notice that nobody bats an eye about "damn Japs" when Toyota or Honda builds a plant in Indiana.
Why do you suppose that is?
And yet again, here is proof that what you're really upset about is the way they interpret the results and the label they choose to use, rather than anything methodological.
Yet another irrelevancy.
Either defend your's and Rock's unsupported conclusion about the "single biggest thing" or quit adding to this thread.
Two guys with no idea what they're talking about reject solid survey data because they don't like what it shows, based entirely on their own blinkered preconceptions -- which are more real to them than reality itself. And it happens again and again and again.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Fort Wayne native, Illinois guard Luke Goode in transfer portal
- Latest: hookyIU1990
-
