Some Parents Choose Not to Allow Their Kids to Hear Obama's National Address

[jillio]

Being so "covert" it then also makes it easy to make false accusations without having to prove anything. There is no way anyone can defend against an accusation of covert anything. How convenient.


The best defense is a good offense, eh? Good try but it doesn't fly.

Did it ever occur to you that I disagreed politically with Carter and Clinton because of the things they did or attempted to do? It had nothing to do with assumptions based on labels (I assume that's what you meant). I disagreed with them each time they did something that I didn't agree with. I didn't think, oh, he's a Democrat so I will automatically disagree before he makes a move.

It seems you're the one making lots of assumptions about other people.

It's just a coincidence that they are both Democrats, huh? Right.

Stereotyping is the result of prejudging based on a label. It happens with race, it happens with political party, it happens with every single faction. The very fact that the first two examples that came to your mind were Democrats. Had you mentioned a Democrat whose policies you disagreed with, and a Republican whose policies you sometimes disagreed with, then the evidence of labeling would not be there. However, the first two examples you came up with happen to be of a political party to which you don't belong. An out-group, so to speak. I'm sure that there are Republicans that you have disagreed with, as well. Why did you not mention them? Because your first inclination is to name people you consider to be in your out-group.

 

[Reba]

Actually, it isn't psych-babble. ...

It is when it's misused in a non-professional manner, such as trying to disparage the motives of those who disagree with you and belittling their posts in the guise of analysis.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Did it ever occur to you that I disagreed politically with Carter and Clinton because of the things they did or attempted to do? It had nothing to do with assumptions based on labels (I assume that's what you meant). I disagreed with them each time they did something that I didn't agree with. I didn't think, oh, he's a Democrat so I will automatically disagree before he makes a move.

It seems you're the one making lots of assumptions about other people.

I am inclined to agree here...

We have a lot of Liberals followers here that dismiss everything the Conservatives does, even if they agree with what the Conservatives are doing. However there are a lot of sane people that actually do disagree or agree for valid reasons.

And God forbid... if anyone does anything without "oh my God, they are discriminating against Albertans, Quebecois or Newfoundlanders!"

 

[jillio]

It is when it's misused in a non-professional manner, such as trying to disparage the motives of those who disagree with you and belittling their posts in the guise of analysis.

No it isn't. It is sociological fact, well researched and supported, as I have already stated. And it isn't a matter of disparaging anyone, but of simply pointing out something that it has been known for years and years exists and influences people's decisions and behaviors. Terribly defensive tonight, aren't you?

 

[Reba]

It's just a coincidence that they are both Democrats, huh? Right.

I was giving you examples of two Presidents with whom I disagreed often who were definitely not black urbanites, since the focus was about the race.

No, it's not a coincidence that they were Democrats. They did things during their terms in office with which I did not agree. Hence, I disagreed with them for their actions.

Again, another attempted deflection that missed its target.

Stereotyping is the result of prejudging based on a label. It happens with race, it happens with political party, it happens with every single faction. The very fact that the first two examples that came to your mind were Democrats. Had you mentioned a Democrat whose policies you disagreed with, and a Republican whose policies you sometimes disagreed with, then the evidence of labeling would not be there. However, the first two examples you came up with happen to be of a political party to which you don't belong. An out-group, so to speak. I'm sure that there are Republicans that you have disagreed with, as well. Why did you not mention them? Because your first inclination is to name people you consider to be in your out-group.

First of all, I don't belong to either group. I've always been registered as an independent voter.

Secondly, as I explained above, I was using examples of Southern white Presidents to emphasize that my criticisms of Obama have nothing to do with race. I criticized equally other liberal presidents who happened to be white. You dealt the race card so that's what I played. Don't try to change the rules in the middle of the game.

I'm not paying you to be my psychologist so you don't need to diagnose my inclinations, thank you.

 

[deafskeptic]

I am inclined to agree here...

We have a lot of Liberals followers here that dismiss everything the Conservatives does, even if they agree with what the Conservatives are doing. However there are a lot of sane people that actually do disagree or agree for valid reasons.

And God forbid... if anyone does anything without "oh my God, they are discriminating against Albertans, Quebecois or Newfoundlanders!"

I try to be fair and I'll agree with some things with Republicans but not with other stuff. Most are civil and are not given to fits of paranoia. I used to read William F. Buckley even though I did not agree on everything he wrote about. Sometimes I will read the Richmond-Times Dispatch editorials.

Back in the early 90s, the editorial pages were so right wing (even more extreme than Koko) that it made Jabba the Hut look like a liberal. I remember once it ran a holocaust denial on the front page of the commentary section. Little wonder local liberals call it "Richmond Times Disgrace".

It has toned down a lot since the 90s but it's still right wing.

 

[Reba]

No it isn't. It is sociological fact, well researched and supported, as I have already stated. And it isn't a matter of disparaging anyone, but of simply pointing out something that it has been known for years and years exists and influences people's decisions and behaviors.

You aren't on duty here as the AD Dr. Phil. There is no need to on-line analyze and pronounce other posters' motives. Yes, you have misused psychology to disparage and belittle other posters.

Terribly defensive tonight, aren't you?

There you go again, diagnosing.

And you didn't even get it right!

 

[jillio]

I was giving you examples of two Presidents with whom I disagreed often who were definitely not black urbanites, since the focus was about the race.

No, it's not a coincidence that they were Democrats. They did things during their terms in office with which I did not agree. Hence, I disagreed with them for their actions.

Again, another attempted deflection that missed its target.





First of all, I don't belong to either group. I've always been registered as an independent voter.

Secondly, as I explained above, I was using examples of Southern white Presidents to emphasize that my criticisms of Obama have nothing to do with race. I criticized equally other liberal presidents who happened to be white. You dealt the race card so that's what I played. Don't try to change the rules in the middle of the game.

I'm not paying you to be my psychologist so you don't need to diagnose my inclinations, thank you.

I am not diagnosing anything. I am pointing out observations. I never claimed that you had a diagnosable disorder, just that you engage in the same behaviors that everyone engages in, and it has been supported over and over again that everyone engages in, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

Funny. No race card being dealt here. But I do find it interesting that you chose Southern White Presidents in an attempt to say that you do not, and never have, consciously or unconsciously, been aware of Obama's race. That is simply substituting one heuristic for another, and confirms that you, just as everyone, relies on them and that they influence both perceptions and behavior.

 

[deafskeptic]

I am not diagnosing anything. I am pointing out observations.

I did the same with one of the poster with the other thread that got closed though I think that I should have made it clear that just because he has traits that I observed doesn't mean he has a personality disorder. It could mean a number of things or nothing at all.

I think you and Reba should take this to pm though.

 

[darkdog]

Of course it's always an issue. Those that deny that it is are the very ones that harbor covert racial attitudes. They don't seem to grasp the fact that their very denial of the fact is what points to their covert racism.

Let's get specific. What is it they're denying that's taken as evidence of their covert racism? Their own personal covert racism? Or the existence of racism in general?

Actually, it isn't psych-babble. It is well researched and supported sociological fact.

Well, that makes me feel better. So I can accuse you of having subconscious racism and then say "Trust me- that's what's going on with you. It's well supported by research"?

It is a matter of context and intent. Let me ask you this: how many preachers did we see in the news praying for the death of let's say, Jimmy Carter? Or any other President that you would care to mention. How many labels have been applied to past Presidents in the same way they are being applied by a fringe minority in the current situation? How many parents kept their children home from school for Bush's nationally televised address to school children, or Ronald Reagan's nationally broadcast address to school children? I can go on and on and on, and when it comes down to the final analysis, there is one basic difference. Denying it is part of it.

Could it be possible that all this is simply due to an increased distrust of feeling of alienation from the federal government? Such feelings have been rising for years before Obama was elected. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al have not exactly improved the credibility of the federal government for many. You may disagree with those who say that, but to say things are different now and the only possible explanation is racism is to deny the existence of real concerns for many people.

 

[jillio]

You aren't on duty here as the AD Dr. Phil. There is no need to on-line analyze and pronounce other posters' motives. Yes, you have misused psychology to disparage and belittle other posters.



There you go again, diagnosing.

And you didn't even get it right!

My, my, Reba. You seem to be intent on being defensive tonight.

As I said, I am not analyzing nor diagnosing, but simply expressing what I observe. And no, I have not misused psychology to disparage or belittle anyone. You seem to think that expression of an observation is automatically a disparagement. I am simply offering sociological explanations of covert racism, as well as all forms of covert discrimination, how it occurs, and why it occurs. Whether or not you choose to accept that or not is your choice, but the fact that you refuse to accept it doesn't mean that it is not a well researched and well supported phenomena. Has nothing to do with either a diagnosis nor an analysis.

But I guess you are the singular example in all of humanity that does not rely on heuristics nor allow them to influence your behavior, your decisions, and your perceptions. Right.

 

[jillio]

Let's get specific. What is it they're denying that's taken as evidence of their covert racism? Their own personal covert racism? Or the existence of racism in general?

Ever run across someone who says, "I could not possibly have negative racial perceptions! I have black friends, for heaven's sake!"

Well, that makes me feel better. So I can accuse you of having subconscious racism and then say "Trust me- that's what's going on with you. It's well supported by research"?

Everyone relies on heuristics, and everyone has negative leaning heuristics against any group they consider to be an out group. The problem arises when they refuse to realize that everyone does it, and deny that they do the same thing that everyone else does in an attempt to prove that those attitudes are not there. Of course it's there in everyone. The difference is, one will admit that it is there and confront it in order not to allow it to create undue influence, while another will deny it's existence and thus allow it to proliferate. And yes, it is very well researched and well accepted in all of the social sciences. I will be happy to point you toward a few texts if you are interested in learning more about the phenomena.

Could it be possible that all this is simply due to an increased distrust of feeling of alienation from the federal government? Such feelings have been rising for years before Obama was elected. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al have not exactly improved the credibility of the federal government for many. You may disagree with those who say that, but to say things are different now and the only possible explanation is racism is to deny the existence of real concerns for many people.

Did you see the same labels being applied to past Presidents? Have you seen the same level of distrust being expressed openly and viciously with past Presidents? Have you seen preacher's calling for the death of past Presidents? How many people do you know of that showed up with loaded assault rifles when a past President spoke in Arizona as a "way to demonstrate 2nd Amendment rights"? How many parents did you see protesting Bush or Reagan's address to school children?

That is not to say that other concerns are not valid. But to deny that heuristics play a part in the intensity and nature of the reactions that we are seeing is simply naive.

 

[Calvin]

Mod note:

Alright, I think this thread needs to lock up to allow a cool down period and it will be under review.

Thanks.