Not news: "Trump supporters are racist." News: Now with scientific evidence

[Badger]

Reality lately has a liberal bias.

[Kingpoleon]

Reality lately has a liberal bias.

Sure, if you don't count economics as real.

[Badger]

Reality lately has a liberal bias.

Sure, if you don't count economics as real.

Very little economic or budgetary policy based in reality seems to be coming out of the White House or republican leadership nowadays

[Santander]

Reality lately has a liberal bias.

Sure, if you don't count economics as real.

Very little economic or budgetary policy based in reality seems to be coming out of the White House or republican leadership nowadays

To be fair to the current Republicans, and at the risk of pulling a bronz, economic policy on both sides in modern politics has always been based off partisan deterministic models with rectum-derived assumptions that are cooked up to fit predetermined narratives, if not blatant lies.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Anyway, I notice from the study that people opposed to Trump were more likely to support the program when presented with the version with the black person (this is also in contrast with the ideal situation, wherein government programs are regarded in a purely race-blind fashion). This makes me wonder if these reactions on both sides are related to the politicization of race and the poor state of race relations in recent years. The study notes that support for Trump captures this far more effectively than partisanship or ideology and thereby dismisses the notion, though I would posit that it is a mistake to think of support for Trump as a dimension unlike partisanship or ideology; rather, it is likely better correlated with positions on certain political issues than either of those are.

While I see your point it's important to note that  the finding is that the more someone supports Trump the more supportive they are of the policy if it's associated with helping a white person rather than a black person. You can of course reformulate this single result as "the more someone opposes Trump the more supportive they are of the policy if it's associated with helping a black person rather than a white person"

There is no way from the study to distinguish between the explanation "people who support Trump dislike black people" versus "people who oppose Trump dislike white people" and so on. It's also not exactly implying that people support the policy in a racist way, since it's subconscious priming.

     I am not reformulating that result, but rather referencing another finding from the study that the Vox article references. Quoting from the Discussion and Conclusions section of this study:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     As you point out quite correctly, the study cannot accurately make claims as to why these discrepancies happen or how people think about issues. The observations that opposite race-based discrepancies exist on both ends of the support spectrum is what makes me think that it might be capturing conditioning arising from attitudes towards certain political issues (particularly a variety of issues surrounding race relations that have gained prominence in recent years) as well as more conventional subconscious racism. That is only a hypothesis, however.

[Andrew]

. . . statistical significance is generally accepted at the 5% level. This means that if 30 out of 100 trump supporters were for housing assistance with the white dude, then 25 out of 100 were supportive with the black dude.

That is not at all what a 5% significance level means.

Without going into too much detail, it means there is a 5% or less probability that the difference in the results is due to chance (that is, at least a 95% chance that the difference is real).

[Lord Admirale]

I don't buy this.

[Kingpoleon]

Reality lately has a liberal bias.

Sure, if you don't count economics as real.

Very little economic or budgetary policy based in reality seems to be coming out of the White House or republican leadership nowadays

To be fair to the current Republicans, and at the risk of pulling a bronz, economic policy on both sides in modern politics has always been based off partisan deterministic models with rectum-derived assumptions that are cooked up to fit predetermined narratives, if not blatant lies.

Excellent summary.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

We already had this poll from last year showing that Trump supporters were the most racist and Bernie supporters were the least racist. But that doesn't mean all Trump supporters are racist.

Wow! Besides Kasich voters, Democrats are far less racist than Republicans - Gee, it sure doesn't sound like the pollsters thereof had a bias.

Because both sides have to be equal on everything.

[TheSaint250]

one has to wonder where they get it from:

White House won’t commit to signing joint congressional resolution condemning white supremacists

It just says "No announcements at the time."

He's gonna sign it. Calm down.

[pbrower2a]

Anyone who's worked in retail will know how much your white co-workers lose it at a black customer using EBT. Even if they look presentable

What? At a grocery store? Why are the clerks looking? It's nearly impossible to cheat with an EBT card. In Michigan the worst is of people buying sodas with their EBT cards, emptying the cans, and returning the cans for the 10-cent deposit that they then use on beer and cigarettes. There are rewards for reporting that -- and I would.  



 

[Famous Mortimer]

Anyone who's worked in retail will know how much your white co-workers lose it at a black customer using EBT. Even if they look presentable

I've worked in supermarkets. Sometimes people do make little digs (I wouldn't call them blow ups) at well dressed Black people who use EBT. They also make little digs at poorly dressed Black people who use EBT. They also make digs at poorly dressed White people who use EBT and nicely dressed White people who use EBT. Cashiers make digs at everyone because cashiers hate all their customers and that's how they pass the time. This is one of those instances where the only way to end "racism" as described by a left-winger is to institute segregation so that White people and Black people just never interact.

[Gustaf]

     Anyway, I notice from the study that people opposed to Trump were more likely to support the program when presented with the version with the black person (this is also in contrast with the ideal situation, wherein government programs are regarded in a purely race-blind fashion). This makes me wonder if these reactions on both sides are related to the politicization of race and the poor state of race relations in recent years. The study notes that support for Trump captures this far more effectively than partisanship or ideology and thereby dismisses the notion, though I would posit that it is a mistake to think of support for Trump as a dimension unlike partisanship or ideology; rather, it is likely better correlated with positions on certain political issues than either of those are.

While I see your point it's important to note that  the finding is that the more someone supports Trump the more supportive they are of the policy if it's associated with helping a white person rather than a black person. You can of course reformulate this single result as "the more someone opposes Trump the more supportive they are of the policy if it's associated with helping a black person rather than a white person"

There is no way from the study to distinguish between the explanation "people who support Trump dislike black people" versus "people who oppose Trump dislike white people" and so on. It's also not exactly implying that people support the policy in a racist way, since it's subconscious priming.

     I am not reformulating that result, but rather referencing another finding from the study that the Vox article references. Quoting from the Discussion and Conclusions section of this study:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     As you point out quite correctly, the study cannot accurately make claims as to why these discrepancies happen or how people think about issues. The observations that opposite race-based discrepancies exist on both ends of the support spectrum is what makes me think that it might be capturing conditioning arising from attitudes towards certain political issues (particularly a variety of issues surrounding race relations that have gained prominence in recent years) as well as more conventional subconscious racism. That is only a hypothesis, however.

I did get what you mean and I thought I had made an explicit mention of it. Must have forgotten to put that in, sorry for the unnecessary confusion. I was trying to clarify the difference between your point and the thing I was saying for the benefit of other people since I was initially confused by that myself. Didn't work out so well.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    Anyway, I notice from the study that people opposed to Trump were more likely to support the program when presented with the version with the black person (this is also in contrast with the ideal situation, wherein government programs are regarded in a purely race-blind fashion). This makes me wonder if these reactions on both sides are related to the politicization of race and the poor state of race relations in recent years. The study notes that support for Trump captures this far more effectively than partisanship or ideology and thereby dismisses the notion, though I would posit that it is a mistake to think of support for Trump as a dimension unlike partisanship or ideology; rather, it is likely better correlated with positions on certain political issues than either of those are.

While I see your point it's important to note that  the finding is that the more someone supports Trump the more supportive they are of the policy if it's associated with helping a white person rather than a black person. You can of course reformulate this single result as "the more someone opposes Trump the more supportive they are of the policy if it's associated with helping a black person rather than a white person"

There is no way from the study to distinguish between the explanation "people who support Trump dislike black people" versus "people who oppose Trump dislike white people" and so on. It's also not exactly implying that people support the policy in a racist way, since it's subconscious priming.

     I am not reformulating that result, but rather referencing another finding from the study that the Vox article references. Quoting from the Discussion and Conclusions section of this study:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     As you point out quite correctly, the study cannot accurately make claims as to why these discrepancies happen or how people think about issues. The observations that opposite race-based discrepancies exist on both ends of the support spectrum is what makes me think that it might be capturing conditioning arising from attitudes towards certain political issues (particularly a variety of issues surrounding race relations that have gained prominence in recent years) as well as more conventional subconscious racism. That is only a hypothesis, however.

I did get what you mean and I thought I had made an explicit mention of it. Must have forgotten to put that in, sorry for the unnecessary confusion. I was trying to clarify the difference between your point and the thing I was saying for the benefit of other people since I was initially confused by that myself. Didn't work out so well.

     Oh, not a problem. When a news article references a study I try to at least skim the study, since journalists obviously aren't academics and don't have the best credentials to speak to the work (of course I don't either). I mistakenly thought the detail I was speaking to was more buried than it was because I stopped reading the article and just went to the study.

[TheSaint250]

one has to wonder where they get it from:

White House won’t commit to signing joint congressional resolution condemning white supremacists

It just says "No announcements at the time."

He's gonna sign it. Calm down.

And, wow, would you look at that!: Trump signs resolution condemning white supremacy

[Badger]

one has to wonder where they get it from:

White House won’t commit to signing joint congressional resolution condemning white supremacists

It just says "No announcements at the time."

He's gonna sign it. Calm down.

And, wow, would you look at that!: Trump signs resolution condemning white supremacy

Such leadership! What a unifying president we have!