Yale research accidentally proved liberals more racist than conservatives

submitted by [deleted] from (hotair.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alienhunter 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

It's fairly ironic. I've noticed a kind of racist trend from some who seem to think that racism means hate, rather than judging people based on their race.

You see this with the people who will call for lower standards for minorities because they "can't help it" when in reality they are basically admitting they consider the minorities inferior.

I think there's also a pretty important distinction to get made between Xenophobia and racism. Most conservatives tend to be some degree of xenophobic, but that has a tendency towards simply distrusting outsiders rather than making any racial judgements necessarily. Liberals on the other hand tend to be more xenophilic but hilariously often hold strong stereotypical attitudes that foreigners find off-putting. It's really a weird dynamic.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

All good points.

Adding my two cents:

'Racism' can be used to mean both hate and generalization ('they must all be killed' vs 'people sharing x characteristic seem to behave in x way').

Generalizing, using inductive reasoning, is an essential survival tool, as in ... 'child, avoid packs of hyenas!'

Denying people the right to use inductive reasoning condemns them to be stupid in an important way.

Also, in most countries in the world, xenophobia and racism are related, because states/countries tend to be nation-states.

But when a country consists of a brown soup of ethnicities, where the citizens are an amalgam of foreign-to-the-land peoples, well, then things get complicated.

Finally, I think that 'liberals' is a misnomer when used to describe those that are anything but liberal, especially when they exhibit totalitarian tendencies.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Good points.

I agree that generalization itself is fine, but it's important to remember that generalizations are just that. I think a lot of people apply a generalization as a rule which is a logical fallacy. I've noticed this a lot when traveling, it's often a consequence of culture shock, people will act surprised when they see things that don't fit their expectations based on their generalizations. Often this is because the generalizations are not totally accurate, often they are accurate but you've stumbled onto the exception, often people's expectations are colored by tourist propoganda and the like and they don't seem to understand that the tourist ideal and the reality are a bit different, it's called the Paris syndrome, people have mental breakdowns when the romantic big city of love turns out to be a regular big city.

Avoiding the semantic argument of what is or is not a liberal. I think there's more a dynamic of people who are "flexible" vs people who are not.

Since liberals often tend to value and promote travel and cross cultural experiences, it's more likely that inflexible liberals will seek these out and end up getting culture shocked and exhibiting what we'd say are "racist" tendencies. Typically represents itself as picky eating, vapid idiotic comments that foreigners are different from what they are used to, lamenting how they aren't progressive on current culture war issue, etc.

Conservatives who are inflexible likely simply won't travel in the first place. Meaning that those who do travel tend to be the more flexible ones.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, generalizations are either accurate or ... not. All things being equal, inductive reasoning tends to create accurate generalizations. When some generalization is inaccurate and consistently wrong, it simply fades away, naturally.

Inaccurate generalizations need to be propped up by lies in order to survive. And that's, essentially, what e.g. Hollywood, advertising and other bullshit-manufacturing industries, do. They prop-up inaccurate generalizations and false narratives, presenting very rare exceptions as typical, and actual reality as never being the case.

As for 'liberals', being myself an actual liberal, I get annoyed when the term is used to refer to useful-idiots witlessly regurgitating government-corporate astroturf (in favour of compliance, censorship, disarming the citizenry, etc.), thinking that this is what 'liberalism' is.

Conservatism is not the opposite of liberalism, totalitarianism is.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's fair, but at that point we're getting into the semantic argument. I don't disagree with you, that's a completely accurate opinion of what the terms actually mean, they are not however how the terms are used in the popular discourse.

I'm speaking more of the general US split of everyone into two camps. That aren't easily defined but more or less all encompassing.

On this one metric conservatism vs liberalism can be described as simply a difference in philosophy as to whether resources should be allocated sparingly or liberally. Which is of course not how these terms are used in the common parlance.

I'd say I don't agree completely with the idea that generalizations naturally correct themselves in optimal conditions. Though I suppose that will also lead to a discussion about what optimal conditions are. I'd argue that some misconceptions tend to be self perpetuating as a simple consequence of them being the initial conclusion people will draw with a shallow understanding of the issue in question. And the majority of people will never have the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of any issue, leading to the misconception being the "common sense" answer.

It's hard to provide specific examples to this as most people won't understand them. I suppose one easy to understand model would be the claim that "the moon is upside down in Australia" which seems utterly stupid but is actually true when you consider perspective. At least when compared with the northern hemisphere.

I also think people hold somewhat inaccurate generalizations of their own culture as well that they simply don't question because they haven't needed to change their perspective. One of these I'd criticize is the American value of "freedom" which Americans seem to believe is a unique aspect of their society while simultaneously living in one of the most litigious societies with a number of very intrusive local ordinances that seem to have all sorts of dictates on what you can and cannot do. Is that freedom? I guess you could easily argue that this belief is due to propoganda though. Freedom isn't exactly an issue that can be easily measured and compared after all.

[–]HugodeCrevellier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The moon example is not a case of generalization, and, in any case, it can be demonstrated simply, within seconds, ending any possible misunderstanding, otherwise, yes, good points all.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not a case of generalization perhaps. It. Sn be demonstrated simply if you understand the concept. Regardless it had been one that I've gotten immediate pushback for mentioning in the past because people outrightly reject it.

It's very difficult to give examples. Most racial stereotypes ring true on a very basic level but most of the time they themselves seem very much intertwined with people's own idea of their own strengths.

You'll see in the west they've got a very strong idea that they value individuality as opposed to the east Asian cultures that value collectivism, this isn't entirely wrong, but it's not exactly correct either. It doesn't take much more than a quick look at American pop culture towards whatever the Hollywood issue of the year is to see the American tendency towards collective cultural opinion for example. And in the case of china, the dissenting opinions are suppressed outright leaving only the state approved "collectivist" opinions remaining. In my opinion, while it's obviously wrong to assume both situations are the same, they seem to resemble each other to me.