Us white liberals need to be better than this. Christ. Reports like this aren't surprising, but they are disheartening.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Yale: "White Liberals Present Themselves as Less Competent in Interactions with African-Americans"
- Thread starter Chief Malik
- Start date
User banned (72 hours): Antagonizing and insulting another user.
You're probably a peasant then, no offense. Not necessarily poor, mind you, see Trump who has never read a book in his life
God no. This is clearly the result of self-consciousness.
Not at all likely. If there were, we'd see it among Conservatives as well, where we already know the racism to be stronger.
I think you're incorrect. No decent person is going to deliberately condescend to someone, indirectly insulting their intelligence, on purpose. This is clearly subconscious.
Furthermore I'd say your second point is an overly generous reading of these findings. Occam would suggest that it is indeed driven by racism, yet conservatives simply don't give enough of a fuck to modify their speech to "accommodate" black people.
Occam wouldn't suggest that at all. You're proposing an explanation that has two mechanisms; one to cause subconscious racism to lead to changed speech patterns, and one to block this in cases where we already know racism exists. I'm proposing an explanation that has one mechanism; where people are aware to some extent of their own privilege they (subconsciously or otherwise) change their speech patterns to avoid asserting it.
What do you want from me? I've voted for Obama twice and would vote for him again. I scream at Trump supporters on twitter in all caps all the time. To Pimp a Butterfly was on my top ten list of that year. I donate money to Ethiopian kids in Africa and I went so far as to adopt three of them and mail plenty of Christmas decorations and gifts during the holidays. I'm a good person but fuck it, whatever, nothings good enough so I guess I should just take my Rachel Maddow book and go back to my condo to suffer? Whatever.
Unsurprising, its usually followed by paternalistic impertinent comments once they find out you might have achieved more than them.
Thats for us minorities.Off topic but is it genius or absurd that the Yale sight automatically highlights certain passages and prepares them for an easy tweet lol
Basically this
When you're separated by privilege and parenting from interacting with people of different backgrounds, then learn about um the last 3 or 4 centuries of white American behavior towards black Americans, there is a tendency to over correct and get nervous
For the purposes of this study, I'm wondering how the researchers arrived at "less competent" as a descriptor of the language used, as opposed to "conversational."
That warm, less wonky and technical framework tends to be why I actually prefer speeches I've seen prominant Dems give at minority events. They're more human, which should be the goal.
That warm, less wonky and technical framework tends to be why I actually prefer speeches I've seen prominant Dems give at minority events. They're more human, which should be the goal.
Seeing the way most white people vote, the technical manner in which they are spoken to is perhaps misguided.
Do Republicans ever even address groups of minorities anymore?
Wat.
Wat.
I dumb myself down for everyone. I've had to explain too many big words too many times. I definitely believe the study though as I've seen it happen repeatedly even at my office.
You see the white savior complex a lot too. People just want to be treated as true equals for the most part.
But of course, just look at Era as anecdotal evidence.
"We shouldn't have to fix our racist issues because other people are bigger racists. You coloreds should be grateful that we're not like them."
"We shouldn't have to fix our racist issues because other people are bigger racists. You coloreds should be grateful that we're not like them."
I think we should be better, but that takes looking at unconscious biases we all have and act on, even if we aren't intending to be in any way racist. I would assume that the majority of these individuals were not, in fact, trying to dumb down their message in any way intentionally but that's been ingrained at a societal level, especially for older white Americans. But hey, both sides, amirite?
You're the one "both sidings"
This was a topic racism from white liberals. There was no reason to post a video about a Republican
I do it as well. Not to African Americans but socioeconomic situations.
I work in a factory. I swear, talk like a dummy, etc. I also worked in an office prior to this and spoke elegantly lol.
Ah yes, talking down to a PoC is just as bad as wanting to go to a public lynching in the south. Again, should white liberals be better? Yes. Are they trying to be subtlety or overtly racist towards minorities? Yeah, I think that's a mighty big stretch there. You do know what unconscious biases are, don't you?
Lol. Even though I stated its not a race thing but a well intentioned class or socio economic thing that affects all races and creeds? Ok then...
I have to wonder if you even read my post or can comprehend anything deeper or more substantive than surface level sensationalism. You certainly haven't been able to contribute much if anything to the discussion.
Only when we are discussing the four humors, dear boy. I find that I myself am more the phlegmatic sort.
It's grotesque. Social media is a societal cancer.Off topic but is it genius or absurd that the Yale site automatically highlights certain passages and prepares them for an easy tweet lol
I see they compared this with Republican speeches but what about minority race liberal politicians? I remember noticing that Obama's speeches would shift when speaking to predominantly black audiences. It sounded fine in context but I wouldn't be surprised if the transcripts might trigger Yale's benchmark for a "competent speech" shift. Seems like a glaring gap in research.
I do a lot of speaking to minority youth on behalf of my occupation, getting them interested in getting themselves ready for a job in my field. It's always interesting when I have co-workers who have never done it before come along with me. I speak to the kids using the same tone and vocabulary (minus the fuck words) that I use at work, explaining what a word means if I see confused faces as I go, but otherwise just talking. I don't code shift, and the kids respond really well to being talked to like peers instead of being condescended to, but my co-workers are usually really afraid that they won't be understood if they don't step down the level of the conversation to what they assume the kids will understand.
And that's the killer. People make bad assumptions and show their asses. Talk to people like they are people and pick up on context clues if you are losing them and then you can modify your speech. Don't go in thinking that you are smarter than anyone.
And that's the killer. People make bad assumptions and show their asses. Talk to people like they are people and pick up on context clues if you are losing them and then you can modify your speech. Don't go in thinking that you are smarter than anyone.
Yeah I can relate to this. I started "dumbing down" my speech as a teenager because I was relentlessly mocked for using big words. I didn't do it intentionally, I just read a lot and subconsciously used that expanded vocabulary, but other kids would get mad at me and say I'm doing it on purpose to show off, or some shit. And this was all white people, because there were almost no minorities in my school. So I started consciously making an effort to avoid bigger words with some people to not piss them off, which was largely a socio-economic thing. With my personal friend group, it's a pretty diverse mix of people, but we're all nerds so I never filter out my vocabulary.
However, on occasions where I have filtered myself when taking to a person of color, I have had to ask myself if there's some unconscious bias going on there. But the vast majority of the time I do that is when taking to other white people. So idk, it's definitely something worth thinking about.
Edit: Although I haven't really done this nearly as much since high school (graduated in 2010). Now I tend to just talk the same way all the time and explain things when asked because people and don't get pissed at someone for using big words as much as when I was a teen.
Last edited:
I think it's important to ask whether subconscious behavioral changes come from a place of conscious prejudice/conscious malice, or if -- in this case -- it's over-correcting because you're aware of your subconscious bias and you're trying to avoid it.
Is it appropriate to conclude from this article "White liberals are the true racists," or "White liberals are more aware of subconscious bias so they're over-correcting for it?" -- which may in itself be an example of implicit, though not malicious, bias.
I subconsciously 'code switch' depending on the group of people I'm with, and I'm sure some of it is racially driven, other is class driven, other is occupationally driven, and other implicit associations. When I'm at the bar talking with someone who seems blue collar to me, I'm less likely to talk the same way that I do when I'm talking to engineers at work, or when I'm arguing politics with a high-brow-coastal-elitist-globalist like myself. I play in multiple basketball leagues, and likewise, the way that I talk to my friends on my basketball team, who are far more diverse than, say, the friends I grew up with or went to college with, is different than how I talk with my family. For me, I think I do this to try to "fit in" and "be liked," but I'm sure some of it is probably implicit bias due to implicit associations
I think someone could come away from this and say, "The way you talk to the black guys you play basketball with is very different from the way you talk to the Indian guys you work with and it's very different from the white guys you talk to at the bar," and conclude that my behavior comes from a place of malicious racism. To me, it doesn't feel like it does, but rather, it's certainly informed by associative biases but comes from a subconscious effort to "be accepted" or to not seem like a snob.
It reminds me of when Hillary and BIll Clinton went on TV in the early 90s in the run-up to the 1992 primary/election, and while defending Bill's sexual/marital transgression, Hillary layered on a thick southern accept and said, "Y'know I'm not sittin here like some lil wiman standin by mah man, like Tammy Wynette. (...) And if that's not enough then heck don't vote for him!" Clinton grew up in New York, she went to Wellesley in the suburbs of Boston, she attended Yale Law School, and while Bill was from Arkansas, Hillary never had a southern accent and had never given that sort of performance like that before in public. Yet... it worked. The interview was considered a huge success and put Bill's sexual/marital transgressions to rest for the Democratic primary and mostly for the General election. Hillary was trying to appeal to the blue collar, family values, hard working Southern or Midwestern woman. No classmate of hers at Wellesley or Yale ever listened, intentionally, to Tammy Wynette. Is it classist to do this? Perhaps. Maybe it's showing an inherent bias against "dumb south'ners" or something, as if they're not able to understand a more sophisticated defense of her husband's sexual aggression and disloyalty... Certainly Hillary would have been at the forefront of women's liberation at a school like Wellesley and could have made a vigorous defense using that 'code' but it wouldn't have worked the same way, politically, that her defense did.
Is it appropriate to conclude from this article "White liberals are the true racists," or "White liberals are more aware of subconscious bias so they're over-correcting for it?" -- which may in itself be an example of implicit, though not malicious, bias.
I subconsciously 'code switch' depending on the group of people I'm with, and I'm sure some of it is racially driven, other is class driven, other is occupationally driven, and other implicit associations. When I'm at the bar talking with someone who seems blue collar to me, I'm less likely to talk the same way that I do when I'm talking to engineers at work, or when I'm arguing politics with a high-brow-coastal-elitist-globalist like myself. I play in multiple basketball leagues, and likewise, the way that I talk to my friends on my basketball team, who are far more diverse than, say, the friends I grew up with or went to college with, is different than how I talk with my family. For me, I think I do this to try to "fit in" and "be liked," but I'm sure some of it is probably implicit bias due to implicit associations
I think someone could come away from this and say, "The way you talk to the black guys you play basketball with is very different from the way you talk to the Indian guys you work with and it's very different from the white guys you talk to at the bar," and conclude that my behavior comes from a place of malicious racism. To me, it doesn't feel like it does, but rather, it's certainly informed by associative biases but comes from a subconscious effort to "be accepted" or to not seem like a snob.
It reminds me of when Hillary and BIll Clinton went on TV in the early 90s in the run-up to the 1992 primary/election, and while defending Bill's sexual/marital transgression, Hillary layered on a thick southern accept and said, "Y'know I'm not sittin here like some lil wiman standin by mah man, like Tammy Wynette. (...) And if that's not enough then heck don't vote for him!" Clinton grew up in New York, she went to Wellesley in the suburbs of Boston, she attended Yale Law School, and while Bill was from Arkansas, Hillary never had a southern accent and had never given that sort of performance like that before in public. Yet... it worked. The interview was considered a huge success and put Bill's sexual/marital transgressions to rest for the Democratic primary and mostly for the General election. Hillary was trying to appeal to the blue collar, family values, hard working Southern or Midwestern woman. No classmate of hers at Wellesley or Yale ever listened, intentionally, to Tammy Wynette. Is it classist to do this? Perhaps. Maybe it's showing an inherent bias against "dumb south'ners" or something, as if they're not able to understand a more sophisticated defense of her husband's sexual aggression and disloyalty... Certainly Hillary would have been at the forefront of women's liberation at a school like Wellesley and could have made a vigorous defense using that 'code' but it wouldn't have worked the same way, politically, that her defense did.
Last edited:
OP
OP
I forget sarcasm doesn't go over too well online at times.
I was agreeing with you, lol.
This study isn't saying anything new. Us minorities been knew this. White Guilt must be something else to deal with.
Always fun blowing some white liberal's mind when they find how educated you are. Even better when they realize how much you're crushing it in your career.
This though:
.....is a hell of a quote.
Always fun blowing some white liberal's mind when they find how educated you are. Even better when they realize how much you're crushing it in your career.
This though:
.....is a hell of a quote.
Off topic but is it genius or absurd that the Yale site automatically highlights certain passages and prepares them for an easy tweet lol
Both lol
I had to quickly skim the article, so I might have missed something, but I found this a bit confusing:
vs.
They seem to be about different things: the former about words related to competence generally, and the latter about words that suggest competence on the part of the user.
I'm guessing I overlooked a paragraph about those being from different studies, and the article was pointing out related patterns across different situations. But yeah, the combination of the thread title and the blurb in the OP is slightly misleading, it seems.
vs.
They seem to be about different things: the former about words related to competence generally, and the latter about words that suggest competence on the part of the user.
I'm guessing I overlooked a paragraph about those being from different studies, and the article was pointing out related patterns across different situations. But yeah, the combination of the thread title and the blurb in the OP is slightly misleading, it seems.
Post like these attempting to highlight pretentiousness often end up being incredibly ironic.
As a white dude it's kinda gross that this is your reaction instead of addressing the problem.
Edit: lol and you're not the only one
This.
I recall a bunch of white bernie bros blaming black people for not being educated enough to vote for him during the prelims.