Thread: UC Irvine study finds liberals to be racially bias

Most liberals believe african americans need help with everything, and in a sense cannot take care of themselves, so this does not suprise me.

Wow, you're presenting the article in a completely distorted fashion and drawing a completely backwards conclusion.

"Overall" the participants leaned left of center. That means that there was a spread in political ideology (from far left to far right), and taken as a whole, the participants averaged slightly left of center.

Then, it said that the people who were opposed to Obamacare were the ones who were 43% less likely to vote for Obama ..... in general those would be the rightwingers. However, when those rightwingers were told the plan was really Clinton's plan, they were ok with it.

So its actually the rightwingers that are racially biased if you read the article as it was written, instead how you want it to be written.

Originally Posted by Article

The half of the participants deemed most racially biased were 43 percent less likely to vote for Obama than the other half. And among the more highly prejudiced participants, 65 percent liked the health plan when it was called “Clinton's plan,” but just 41 percent liked it when it was attributed to “Obama and Democrats.”

...

Reasons listed for not liking health proposals from “Obama and Democrats” included “socialism,” “taxes being raised for average Americans,” “euthanasia of elderly patients,” and “benefits to people that don't work hard enough to deserve it.”

*snicker*

UC Irvine Study = Capt. Obvious

Thank you Capt!

I guess this is why the right hates "elite thinkers" and has Palin as their ideological mascot.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I guess this is why the right hates "elite thinkers" and has Palin as their ideological mascot.

Give us some "elite" thinking to hate.........

Elite thinking?

Ramrod health care?
TARP waste?
Afghan Standoff?
Value Added Tax?
NYC trial?
Cap and Trade?
Skyrocketing debt?

IMO, "elite thinkers" would be capable of more than the fucking mess listed above.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Wow, you're presenting the article in a completely distorted fashion and drawing a completely backwards conclusion.

"Overall" the participants leaned left of center. That means that there was a spread in political ideology (from far left to far right), and taken as a whole, the participants averaged slightly left of center.

Then, it said that the people who were opposed to Obamacare were the ones who were 43% less likely to vote for Obama ..... in general those would be the rightwingers. However, when those rightwingers were told the plan was really Clinton's plan, they were ok with it.

So its actually the rightwingers that are racially biased if you read the article as it was written, instead how you want it to be written.

I am aware of how the author of the story and the author of the study planned for the study to be perceived.

That was sort of my point. To illustrate the distortion of evidence and drawing of anomalous conclusions based on half baked wishful tenants, pointed in a predetermined direction. When you start a study with a preordained conclusion, regardless of how ill thought out it was, you can usually derive the desired results.

Originally Posted by funthea

UC Irvine Study finds that the participants in its study, overall being "politically left of center", were swayed away from Obama Care due to racial prejudices.

The study further finds those same liberals favored Obama Care when they were told it was called, "Clinton's Plan", and had been conceived by Bill Clinton rather than by Obama and the Democrats.

Wait a second. Wouldn't that conclusion require that there be no difference (or no known difference) between Obama and Clinton other than race?

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

.

"Overall" the participants leaned left of center. That means that there was a spread in political ideology (from far left to far right), and taken as a whole, the participants averaged slightly left of center.

.

BTW, while I don't doubt your interpretation was the intended interpretation; the phrase: "Overall, participants were “politically left of center.” As used, actually means that the participants, as individuals, were each and all "left of center".

In order for your claim of the meaning to be concrete, it would have had to read: "Overall, the participating body was politically left of center". This would have unified all the participants together. At that point, one could claim an implied average. However, the authors choice of words was, indeed, to label each individual participant, to be politically left of center.

I believe there to be a few grammarian scholars on this board that could confirm or dispel my interpretation.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I guess this is why the right hates "elite thinkers" and has Palin as their ideological mascot.

sorry but being elitist does not assume thought

Originally Posted by funthea

BTW, while I don't doubt your interpretation was the intended interpretation; the phrase: "Overall, participants were “politically left of center.” As used, actually means that the participants, as individuals, were each and all "left of center".

In order for your claim of the meaning to be concrete, it would have had to read: "Overall, the participating body was politically left of center". This would have unified all the participants together. At that point, one could claim an implied average. However, the authors choice of words was, indeed, to label each individual participant, to be politically left of center.

I believe there to be a few grammarian scholars on this board that could confirm or dispel my interpretation.

Based upon that single sentence alone, the true intent is a bit arbitrary. However, later in the article it was clearly stated:

Among participants, 45 percent identified themselves as liberal or very liberal, while 25 percent identified themselves as conservative or very conservative.

This would clearly remove any doubt as to the intent of the "Overall left of center" claim.

Originally Posted by Slon

Wait a second. Wouldn't that conclusion require that there be no difference (or no known difference) between Obama and Clinton other than race?

This is a legitimate criticism of the study.

Originally Posted by daddio

sorry but being elitist does not assume thought

I guess that technically is true, but in a practical sense I don't consider anyone elite if they're stupid.