Educate us, oh brilliant one, for we see not the error of our ways.
Seriously, blame the victim for prejudice, throwing in a view blatantly prejudiced opinions along the way, and we should be embarrassed for treating the author harshly?
I believe someone earlier in the thread wondered whether Jews should have been better explainers of their religion and culture, so that anti-Semitism wasn't rampant throughout European history. You're essentially suggesting the same thing, you and Tim. What's more, it's not like Muslims in this country haven't frequently publicly condemned militant Islam. What else should they do? Go door to door like Mormons, handing out copies of the Qur'an?
Prejudice isn't rational. Might a good PR campaign counter it a bit? Perhaps, though there's a pretty strong PR campaign trying to inflame those prejudices here, too, so who knows how well it would work. But prejudices in which people take a small, visible group to be representative of the whole are rarely, if ever the fault of the whole. And pointing this out, in addition to pointing out that there's bigotry in the view itself, is hardly something to be ashamed of. But you know, that time you were in Pakistan, South America, Iran, the Soviet Union, and playing golf on the moon while running CIA ops in Beruit, and going into business with three Iraqi dissidents, all at the same time, has made you wiser than the rest of us, most certainly.
Bob, just dismissing those who disagree with you as "PC" is a wonderful way to avoid having to reflect on your own position, much less that of others.
Before someone suggests it, there is a difference between what Bob does with his frequent use of the "PC" label to deflect accusations of bigotry, and actual accusations of bigotry. Tim's position is that the reason people are prejudiced against Muslims, taking the actions and beliefs of a few to be representative of the entire population, is because the rest of the population hasn't done enough to counter those prejudices. Forgetting for a moment the fact that pretty much since the day of September 11, 2001, Muslims have repeatedly and regularly taken to every medium to say unequivocally that they disagree with militant Islamists, and that they don't represent their religion, or even the fact that millions of Muslims live among us peacefully, Tim's position is a classic rationalization of prejudice. And since he doesn't actually present any arguments for that rationalization, just expands on it, with quotes and assurances that he is not a bigot and actually had a Muslim friend once, it's not unreasonable to point that out. Perhaps, given the weight of the word "bigot," one should say why it's bigoted, but at least with the word "bigot" that is possible, but with "PC," which long ago lost any real meaning, that's not even remotely possible.
By the way, on the cultural center, which may have been a PR disaster, but only because of people's prejudices (seriously, it's in the same neighborhood as Ground Zero, but it's not like it's right friggin' next door, and even if it was, really?), if one wants to see that it wasn't really about that particular Islamic building, one need only look to Murfreesboro.
Perhaps I'm unusual (though I don't think I am), but this post didn't make lower my opinion of the blog, only my opinion of Tim, which didn't have far to fall to begin with. One of the things I like about this blog is that, unlike other group blogs that talk about political issues, the authors of this one are not grouped around a central political ideology or team. That makes it easy to see it as an only loosely associated group of authors, which means any one post isn't likely to affect the opinions of the collective of anyone who's actually, you know, paying attention.
“I’m not a racist! Just ask my black friend.”
Seriously, though, I think it’s quite clear that you’re a bigot, though not any more than a substantial portion of Americans. What’s disturbing is not the bigotry, which again is pretty much ubiquitous, but the fact that you think that the bigotry that you and so many share is the fault of the people against whom you’re prejudiced. What’s more, you think they’re not doing enough to make you and your ilk feel more comfortable with them. If you don’t recognize in this a timeless rationalization for prejudice, then you’re as unreflective as I thought.
It seems odd to ban the regular troll when there's a concern troll writing the original posts. If anything, having Bob here helps put Tim's main-page concern trolling into stark relief.
Shrinking this cultural divide really isn’t as hard as it seems. One simple thing moderate Muslims could do to this end, for example, would have been to denounce the Park51 mosque. Most Americans condemn the mosque as the tasteless, insensitive, oafish, irksome idea that it is.
This part of the post, particularly the last sentence of it, is all one needed to read to know that Tim is basically talking out of his ass (if the "blame the victim" schtick didn't tell you that right off). Because seriously, a cultural center with a prayer room that's not really even in sight of Ground Zero is a "tasteless, insensitive, oafish, irksome idea" only to people who are talking out of their asses.
At some point, Tim's going to write something insightful or at least interesting on this site. I'm afraid I'm going to miss it, because so far it's been all boilerplate conservative nonsense, and that doesn't inspire me to read any more.
I agree with RJ. I don't know Dennis, but see no reason to think he's a bad person simply because he's a conservative, and Mark seems to be genuinely trying to engage the issue and the poll itself. You're showing your own prejudices more than anything, here.
Eh, here’s a little project: count the number of gay couples on prime time television shows. Then count the number of black-white interracial couples on prime time television shows. Try it again with soap operas.
I think the Marx question would be pretty silly, since the vast majority of American Democrats have never read a word of Marx (though they may have heard something about "the opiate of the masses"), and are probably about as averse to the name as most American Republicans.
But I do think the racial questions are important because, while interracial marriage may not be up for debate, other issues related to race are, and it's not so bad to know how people stand on race. And interracial marriage is a pretty good weather vane.
It might help to read the other comments by that same employee, Dustin Ingalls. Relevant to the discussion we've been having, he notes that they asked the interracial marriage question of everyone, and that the questions in the report were not the only questions asked. This is puzzling (why didn't they include the other questions in this report? Are the results coming out in future reports?), and it may mean the survey was long, but it also answers one of the objections Mark and others have raised.
On the age issue, he also gives info on the margin of error for the young age group. This doesn't completely answer the concerns, but it helps a bit.
By the way, since a consistent theme from some commenters has been that this was a hit job, I thought this comment from the PPP blog by one of the PPP employees might be of interest:
BTW, we did ask this interracial marriage question of everyone, not just Republicans, but we'll be releasing the full results on that at a later date.
Eh, I'm not sure support for gay marriage and support for interracial marriage are the same thing. I also think it's interesting that, though it's within the margin of error, the highest % of respondents with favorable ratings of Palin was among the youngest age group, suggesting that they are in fact quite conservative.
Oh, I agree, but I don't intend it as the sole data point. Instead, it's another piece in a chain of evidence in a chain that supports the Mississippi poll, or at least suggests it's not an anomaly.
And let's be honest, I doubt anyone from the south is all that surprised. I mean, I've been to Mississippi, and while I love the state (I really do, and not just because it gave us this), racism is much more on the surface there than it is in much of the country in 2011 (parts of South Carolina, Mobile, and parts of Louisiana are the only places I've seen it so readily displayed in the last 15 years). You don't have to go looking for it, even among young people.
That a substantial percentage of African Americans believe that the U.S. government plays some role in the AIDS epidemic -- whether it created the disease, is withholding a cure, is using the disease against black people specifically, or a handful of other conspiracy theories -- is pretty well known, and completely irrelevant. But way to go with the, "I know you are but what am I" response.
It's not about a law, but it is about interracial marriage. And it's a few years old, but not old enough to not be relevant. Notice that nationwide, support for interracial marriage among whites over 50 is around 64%, suggesting that 36% either disapprove, don't know, or don't have an opinion. It's not unreasonable to expect that number to be higher in Mississippi or any of the former confederate states, and to be even higher among conservatives in that age group.
That poll doesn't help to explain, and perhaps even casts doubt on the youth results from the Mississippi poll, but since it's a southern state exclusively, and only polls conservatives, I don't think those results are outrageous.
Let me just add, before Heidegger writes 1200 words about how I must be a commie radical who's bombed some government office in the 60s because I think all conservatives are racist, that I don't, in fact, think all conservatives are racists. Or at least, I don't think all conservatives are any more racists than the average person (and I think to some degree everyone's a racist, including myself; the attitudes are too deeply ingrained in our culture for us not to be). In fact, I don't think most conservatives are any more racist than the average. But I do think you're likely to find more racism among conservatives, and in particular more overt racism. And of course, there's data to back me up on that.
I will say that the age issue (which has been discussed here already; good eye, Tom) is somewhat puzzling, but as people in that age group do tend to vote Democrat, it doesn't seem unreasonable to speculate that young Republicans tend to be more... let's say, fervent.
As Mark mentions in this post, there's independent evidence that suggests the poll isn't inaccurate.
By the way, if you look at political surveys over the phone, you'll often find policy questions thrown in like that. In general, the pollsters (and the people who hired them) want a quick look at an issue or two, and a bunch of information about potential voting patterns. In short polls like that (and it is short, even if it reads long -- probably took fewer than 5 minutes to complete), they usually put them near the end before the demographic stuff. It may lead to inaccuracies, but there's no inherent reason to think it does. As someone who, many years ago, used to do political surveys over the phone (I was in college and needed a job that would let me work nights, sue me), I can honestly say nothing about that survey structure looks odd.
This question was a bit odd in that, as Mark's original post (quoting the other blog post, maybe?) mentioned, interracial marriage isn't an election issue in Mississippi right now. However, I don't think that renders the results suspect. If anything, the unexpectedness would likely make people more honest, as they don't have the opportunity to think about what they should answer, instead of answering with what they really think. That's a common tactic in social psychology research, in fact. As long as the question was asked clearly, there's no reason to suspect the results are skewed because of some surprise factor (which I've never heard used as an argument against a political survey).
According to these numbers, 29% of the voters in the 2008 Democratic primary in Mississippi were over 60. Those numbers are likely to be off a little, because 13% of the voters in that primary were self-identified Republicans. By comparison, 44% of the voters in the 2008 Republican primary in Missisippi were over 60 (and as futher contrast, only 3% of Republican primary voters self-identified as Democrats).
On “Muslims and the need for reform or, at least, better PR”
Any time, Bob. Ardalyon and I will be here all week. Try the veal. Don't forget to tip your server!
"
Strange, I've argued my position several times, even in that comment., yet your response is patriarchal chest thumping.
Eh, I forgot that I just ignored General Ivolgin for a reason.
"
Educate us, oh brilliant one, for we see not the error of our ways.
Seriously, blame the victim for prejudice, throwing in a view blatantly prejudiced opinions along the way, and we should be embarrassed for treating the author harshly?
I believe someone earlier in the thread wondered whether Jews should have been better explainers of their religion and culture, so that anti-Semitism wasn't rampant throughout European history. You're essentially suggesting the same thing, you and Tim. What's more, it's not like Muslims in this country haven't frequently publicly condemned militant Islam. What else should they do? Go door to door like Mormons, handing out copies of the Qur'an?
Prejudice isn't rational. Might a good PR campaign counter it a bit? Perhaps, though there's a pretty strong PR campaign trying to inflame those prejudices here, too, so who knows how well it would work. But prejudices in which people take a small, visible group to be representative of the whole are rarely, if ever the fault of the whole. And pointing this out, in addition to pointing out that there's bigotry in the view itself, is hardly something to be ashamed of. But you know, that time you were in Pakistan, South America, Iran, the Soviet Union, and playing golf on the moon while running CIA ops in Beruit, and going into business with three Iraqi dissidents, all at the same time, has made you wiser than the rest of us, most certainly.
On “The Title of This Blog Post Is Only Slightly Inflammatory”
In this reply to his own comment, Heidegger suggests that one of you listen to a particular piece by Bach.
"
In this comment, Heidegger accuses you all of being commies.
On “Muslims and the need for reform or, at least, better PR”
Bob, just dismissing those who disagree with you as "PC" is a wonderful way to avoid having to reflect on your own position, much less that of others.
Before someone suggests it, there is a difference between what Bob does with his frequent use of the "PC" label to deflect accusations of bigotry, and actual accusations of bigotry. Tim's position is that the reason people are prejudiced against Muslims, taking the actions and beliefs of a few to be representative of the entire population, is because the rest of the population hasn't done enough to counter those prejudices. Forgetting for a moment the fact that pretty much since the day of September 11, 2001, Muslims have repeatedly and regularly taken to every medium to say unequivocally that they disagree with militant Islamists, and that they don't represent their religion, or even the fact that millions of Muslims live among us peacefully, Tim's position is a classic rationalization of prejudice. And since he doesn't actually present any arguments for that rationalization, just expands on it, with quotes and assurances that he is not a bigot and actually had a Muslim friend once, it's not unreasonable to point that out. Perhaps, given the weight of the word "bigot," one should say why it's bigoted, but at least with the word "bigot" that is possible, but with "PC," which long ago lost any real meaning, that's not even remotely possible.
By the way, on the cultural center, which may have been a PR disaster, but only because of people's prejudices (seriously, it's in the same neighborhood as Ground Zero, but it's not like it's right friggin' next door, and even if it was, really?), if one wants to see that it wasn't really about that particular Islamic building, one need only look to Murfreesboro.
"
Perhaps I'm unusual (though I don't think I am), but this post didn't make lower my opinion of the blog, only my opinion of Tim, which didn't have far to fall to begin with. One of the things I like about this blog is that, unlike other group blogs that talk about political issues, the authors of this one are not grouped around a central political ideology or team. That makes it easy to see it as an only loosely associated group of authors, which means any one post isn't likely to affect the opinions of the collective of anyone who's actually, you know, paying attention.
"
“I’m not a racist! Just ask my black friend.”
Seriously, though, I think it’s quite clear that you’re a bigot, though not any more than a substantial portion of Americans. What’s disturbing is not the bigotry, which again is pretty much ubiquitous, but the fact that you think that the bigotry that you and so many share is the fault of the people against whom you’re prejudiced. What’s more, you think they’re not doing enough to make you and your ilk feel more comfortable with them. If you don’t recognize in this a timeless rationalization for prejudice, then you’re as unreflective as I thought.
"
It seems odd to ban the regular troll when there's a concern troll writing the original posts. If anything, having Bob here helps put Tim's main-page concern trolling into stark relief.
"
Shrinking this cultural divide really isn’t as hard as it seems. One simple thing moderate Muslims could do to this end, for example, would have been to denounce the Park51 mosque. Most Americans condemn the mosque as the tasteless, insensitive, oafish, irksome idea that it is.
This part of the post, particularly the last sentence of it, is all one needed to read to know that Tim is basically talking out of his ass (if the "blame the victim" schtick didn't tell you that right off). Because seriously, a cultural center with a prayer room that's not really even in sight of Ground Zero is a "tasteless, insensitive, oafish, irksome idea" only to people who are talking out of their asses.
At some point, Tim's going to write something insightful or at least interesting on this site. I'm afraid I'm going to miss it, because so far it's been all boilerplate conservative nonsense, and that doesn't inspire me to read any more.
On “Revisiting the Mississippi Interracial Marriage Poll”
I agree with RJ. I don't know Dennis, but see no reason to think he's a bad person simply because he's a conservative, and Mark seems to be genuinely trying to engage the issue and the poll itself. You're showing your own prejudices more than anything, here.
"
Let's see, it seems Tom has now covered all the bases:
-Bias! Bias!
-Yeah, but black people believe some crazy shit too!
-Liberals are the real racists!
Yet, he hasn't actually addressed the poll itself or even the issue the question addresses.
"
Eh, here’s a little project: count the number of gay couples on prime time television shows. Then count the number of black-white interracial couples on prime time television shows. Try it again with soap operas.
"
Oh, I don't doubt that they're highly correlated. I'm rather saying that the relationship is non-linear, particularly at the tails.
On “Do a Plurality of Mississippi Republicans Want to Ban Interracial Marriage?”
I think the Marx question would be pretty silly, since the vast majority of American Democrats have never read a word of Marx (though they may have heard something about "the opiate of the masses"), and are probably about as averse to the name as most American Republicans.
But I do think the racial questions are important because, while interracial marriage may not be up for debate, other issues related to race are, and it's not so bad to know how people stand on race. And interracial marriage is a pretty good weather vane.
On “Revisiting the Mississippi Interracial Marriage Poll”
It might help to read the other comments by that same employee, Dustin Ingalls. Relevant to the discussion we've been having, he notes that they asked the interracial marriage question of everyone, and that the questions in the report were not the only questions asked. This is puzzling (why didn't they include the other questions in this report? Are the results coming out in future reports?), and it may mean the survey was long, but it also answers one of the objections Mark and others have raised.
On the age issue, he also gives info on the margin of error for the young age group. This doesn't completely answer the concerns, but it helps a bit.
"
By the way, since a consistent theme from some commenters has been that this was a hit job, I thought this comment from the PPP blog by one of the PPP employees might be of interest:
BTW, we did ask this interracial marriage question of everyone, not just Republicans, but we'll be releasing the full results on that at a later date.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2799451770086337664&postID=8659061201993601699
"
Eh, I'm not sure support for gay marriage and support for interracial marriage are the same thing. I also think it's interesting that, though it's within the margin of error, the highest % of respondents with favorable ratings of Palin was among the youngest age group, suggesting that they are in fact quite conservative.
"
Oh, I agree, but I don't intend it as the sole data point. Instead, it's another piece in a chain of evidence in a chain that supports the Mississippi poll, or at least suggests it's not an anomaly.
And let's be honest, I doubt anyone from the south is all that surprised. I mean, I've been to Mississippi, and while I love the state (I really do, and not just because it gave us this), racism is much more on the surface there than it is in much of the country in 2011 (parts of South Carolina, Mobile, and parts of Louisiana are the only places I've seen it so readily displayed in the last 15 years). You don't have to go looking for it, even among young people.
"
That a substantial percentage of African Americans believe that the U.S. government plays some role in the AIDS epidemic -- whether it created the disease, is withholding a cure, is using the disease against black people specifically, or a handful of other conspiracy theories -- is pretty well known, and completely irrelevant. But way to go with the, "I know you are but what am I" response.
"
James, ask, and ye shall receive:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx
It's not about a law, but it is about interracial marriage. And it's a few years old, but not old enough to not be relevant. Notice that nationwide, support for interracial marriage among whites over 50 is around 64%, suggesting that 36% either disapprove, don't know, or don't have an opinion. It's not unreasonable to expect that number to be higher in Mississippi or any of the former confederate states, and to be even higher among conservatives in that age group.
That poll doesn't help to explain, and perhaps even casts doubt on the youth results from the Mississippi poll, but since it's a southern state exclusively, and only polls conservatives, I don't think those results are outrageous.
Let me just add, before Heidegger writes 1200 words about how I must be a commie radical who's bombed some government office in the 60s because I think all conservatives are racist, that I don't, in fact, think all conservatives are racists. Or at least, I don't think all conservatives are any more racists than the average person (and I think to some degree everyone's a racist, including myself; the attitudes are too deeply ingrained in our culture for us not to be). In fact, I don't think most conservatives are any more racist than the average. But I do think you're likely to find more racism among conservatives, and in particular more overt racism. And of course, there's data to back me up on that.
"
I will say that the age issue (which has been discussed here already; good eye, Tom) is somewhat puzzling, but as people in that age group do tend to vote Democrat, it doesn't seem unreasonable to speculate that young Republicans tend to be more... let's say, fervent.
"
As Mark mentions in this post, there's independent evidence that suggests the poll isn't inaccurate.
By the way, if you look at political surveys over the phone, you'll often find policy questions thrown in like that. In general, the pollsters (and the people who hired them) want a quick look at an issue or two, and a bunch of information about potential voting patterns. In short polls like that (and it is short, even if it reads long -- probably took fewer than 5 minutes to complete), they usually put them near the end before the demographic stuff. It may lead to inaccuracies, but there's no inherent reason to think it does. As someone who, many years ago, used to do political surveys over the phone (I was in college and needed a job that would let me work nights, sue me), I can honestly say nothing about that survey structure looks odd.
This question was a bit odd in that, as Mark's original post (quoting the other blog post, maybe?) mentioned, interracial marriage isn't an election issue in Mississippi right now. However, I don't think that renders the results suspect. If anything, the unexpectedness would likely make people more honest, as they don't have the opportunity to think about what they should answer, instead of answering with what they really think. That's a common tactic in social psychology research, in fact. As long as the question was asked clearly, there's no reason to suspect the results are skewed because of some surprise factor (which I've never heard used as an argument against a political survey).
"
According to these numbers, 29% of the voters in the 2008 Democratic primary in Mississippi were over 60. Those numbers are likely to be off a little, because 13% of the voters in that primary were self-identified Republicans. By comparison, 44% of the voters in the 2008 Republican primary in Missisippi were over 60 (and as futher contrast, only 3% of Republican primary voters self-identified as Democrats).
On “How Responsible Are You for Where Your Taxes Go?”
Ugh, I'm in moderation because I linked to stuff (my stuff, which makes it a genuine offense).
Anyway, cool. Do you have any studies that test your empirical claim, though? The one I quoted in my comment above?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.