The New York Times reports today on bigoted remarks from Republicans:
The racist discourse by Republican members of Congress, both in casual comments and in official statements, has become so commonplace that it now often slips by without any real condemnation from the G.O.P. Democrats frequently call for apologies but no longer expect any response, and those futile denunciations quickly disappear into a morass of polarized content on social media.
....The race-baiting comments resonate with Mr. Trump’s political coalition, which is 85 percent white in a country that is 59 percent white and becoming less so every day. Republicans in Congress have also sought to capitalize on the grievances of their base.
There's more to this than plain old anti-Black racism among the Republican base. Even among the relatively unbigoted, white Republicans are scared to death of being accused of racism. Take a look at this survey:
A full third of Republicans think racism against whites is a big problem and nearly three quarters think it's at least a moderate problem. This reflects several related fears. They're afraid that a stray remark could get them in trouble with HR. Or that a harmless (in their view) joke could get them ostracized. Or that affirmative action might cost them a job or promotion they deserve. They're afraid of young Black men but know they can't admit it. They're cynical about DEI training but feel they're not allowed to say so. And they're just not convinced that things are all that bad for Black people anyway nowadays.
These people generally don't approve of blatantly racist remarks, but they are tired of being forced participants in what they view as a racial charade that's way overblown. In the end, they're willing to tolerate racist overtones more than they're willing to tolerate Democrats who keep them in constant fear of setting a foot wrong with a "microaggression" or a "trigger."
Ferguson and George Floyd sparked this massive split between Democrats and Republicans on race issues. Take a look at this chart:
Republicans have always been less willing to spend money on Black assistance than Democrats. After Ferguson, though, they became a little more willing while Democrats became a lot more willing. However, that all disappeared after the Black Lives Matter protests following the George Floyd murder. Republicans thought things had gotten out of hand and returned to their old views. Democrats barely budged.
The result is a massive gap: only 13% of Republicans favor spending more on Black assistance while 70% of Democrats favor it. This is about the biggest partisan gap of any issue in America today. Even abortion isn't as polarized.
It's not easy to adjudicate this. Liberals believe that too many conservatives are just plain racist and won't admit it. Conservatives think liberals have taken identity politics way beyond the bounds of reason. But conservatives have always thought that, which makes it very hard to take them seriously this time around.
Still, that's the shape of the river these days. Education and race are the two biggest partisan identifiers in American politics today. Democrats are woke and college educated. Republicans didn't go to college and feel like they've been gaslit on race. This is where we're at.
Kevin. Please, not you too. Under no stretch of the definition have Republicans been, or do Repubs believe that they have been, "gaslit" on race.
What's next, you're going to point out that Trump "literally" said he might not come to the aid of a NATO country who hasn't spent enough?
I mean, they literally say things like “playing the race card” all the time because they believe it isn’t applicable everywhere. And those ppl who try to tell them that it is… would be perceived as gaslighting. Let’s not be so stupid here, guy.
Saying that they believe they are being gaslit doesn’t mean that they ARE. I’d advise you work on your reading comprehension. It probably won’t help you tho.
I'm a lifelong liberal democrat, I voted for Obama, Hilary, Biden, and other Dems across the board, and yet I agree with almost every point in this statement:
"A full third of Republicans think racism against whites is a big problem and nearly three quarters think it's at least a moderate problem. This reflects a fear that affirmative action might cost them a job. Or that a stray remark could get them in trouble with HR. Or that a harmless (in their view) joke could get them ostracized. They're afraid of young Black men but feel they have to hold in their fears. They're cynical about DEI training but feel they're not allowed to say so. And they're just not convinced that things are all that bad for Black people anyway nowadays."
Racism against whites, or "reverse racism," is real. In order to get around this point, Ibram Kendi style anti-racists try to gaslight the public by unilaterally redefining racism. In their terminology, one must have both prejudice AND power to be a racist. But, sorry, I find their attempt at dictating the "correct" way of thinking to be deeply insulting. Racism is, in fact, a prejudice based on race, and blacks are just as capable of expressing that kind of prejudice as anyone else.
Similarly, affirmative action, and now DEI, can indeed cost more qualified applicants jobs. It may be politically incorrect to point this out in certain Lefty circles, but what that implies is that certain Lefty circles are intent on shielding themselves from reality.
And harmless jokes do get people ostracized. This fact is so obvious after the last decade of censorship on campuses, in newsrooms, and in the entertainment industry that, sorry, but anyone denying this reality largely just discredits themselves.
And I am profoundly and unabashedly critical about DEI training and all other forms of DEI. I received an email from FIRE today declaring (FINALLY!) that the California Community College system is one of the top ten censors in the country for enforcing regulations compelling pro-DEI speech from its faculty:
"No one can rightly force another person to pledge allegiance to the flag, but in California, community college professors are required to profess allegiance to state-mandated views on 'diversity, equity, and inclusion.'
"In April, California Community Colleges imposed draconian regulations forcing more than 54,000 professors to teach and promote politicized conceptions of DEI."
So the views outlined by Kevin above are held by many people, groups, and political parties other than and in addition to Republicans.
And I know that a lot of Dems and Lefties are hesitant to admit mistakes on our side, but the truth is that the Left has gone very far over the deep end on topics of race. It has lost the country.
There are, in fact, majorities of every demographic group in the USA who support the Supreme Court decision overturning race-based affirmative action.
And, at this point, clinging to identity politics is more or less the Democratic way of going down with the Titanic. Either we change course, or Trump wins.
"Similarly, affirmative action, and now DEI, can indeed cost more qualified applicants jobs"
gonna need some data and evidence to back up this assertion.
"Racism against whites, or "reverse racism," is real"
it isn't. Halle Bailey being cast to play the role of Ariel is not is a hateful act of reverse racism.
HOW DARE PEOPLE HAVE AN OPINION ON WHAT I CONSIDER A HARMLESS JOKE! YOU LESSERS CANNOT JUDGE ME! ITS RACIST TO JUDGE ME FOR MY ACTIONS!!
Poor Leo grips ever more tightly onto his identity politics. Besides his bitterness, its all he has.
Well said.
For hundreds of years African Americans and other peoples of color more capable and better qualified have not been hired or even considered for jobs and appointments reserved for and given to European Americans. The people clinging to identity politics are the victims of the Friedman political economy, who cannot acknowledge class is why they are unable to succeed in a winner take all society. These losers resort to racism and opioids to suppress knowledge of their failure to compete against capital, making them susceptible to demagoguery and the sophistry of FIRE.
LOL
Bruh what
Another wall of text from Leo complaining he can't tell racist/sexist jokes in the breakroom.
I'm confused. Are you saying that the quotes in the NYT piece are not bigoted? Are you saying that they are and Republican politicians are saying bigoted things more often because they're deathly afraid of being called "racist"? This one doesn't quite add up...
It's a little hard to interpret these results because the poll questions are too vague or too easily misunderstood. For example, when Republicans respond that "racism against whites" is a "big problem," do they really mean that being accused of racism is itself anti-white racism? I am white but if I was accused of being "insensitive" about someone's identity, I might think that's unwarranted but certainly wouldn't call it "anti-white racism." So I would like to know more about what a white respondent means when they say "anti-white racism" is a problem. Polls almost never convey enough information to tell us much of anything.
"...So I would like to know more about what a white respondent means when they say "anti-white racism" is a problem. ..."
Things like newspapers capitalizing "Black" but not "white". Or describing criminal suspects as white but not as black.
There's more to this than plain old anti-Black racism among the Republican base. Even among the relatively unbigoted, white Republicans are scared to death of being accused of racism. ... A full third of Republicans think racism against whites is a big problem and nearly three quarters think it's at least a moderate problem.
I have trouble believing I'm reading this.
"Racism against whites is a big problem" because ... they're afraid they'll be called racist? That a "harmless joke" will be misinterpreted? That saying they're "afraid of young Black men" might be considered inappropriate, or even ... racist? That they might (gasp!) "get in trouble with HR?"
Truly, these are terrible fates that might befall a White person! Certainly they overshadow anything that actually happens to Black people because of racism, like being denied hiring or housing or credit, or being followed around in stores by security staff and/or accused of crimes without evidence, or suffering wildly out-of-proportion harassment and even violence at the hands of police, or or or ... And that leaves aside the contemporary effects of historical racism, eg ghettoization, poor public education facilities, low-quality housing, etc. And all this just off the top of my head.
And of course, there has never been any violence at protests other than by Black people (ahem January 6, ahem).
I swear, White America -- and in particular Republican White America -- has become little more than a bunch of whiny spoiled children. I can't believe I'm reading anything that even suggests this might be in any way excusable.
Kevin has a hard time internalizing the fact that the terrible things you mentioned often happen to people only because they are black, and pretty much never happen to anyone because they are white.
????????????????????
"It's not easy to adjudicate this. Liberals believe that too many conservatives are just plain racist and won't admit it. Conservatives think liberals have taken identity politics way beyond the bounds of reason."
Well stated, Kevin. And both sides are probably right. Conservatives and Progressives live in two different worlds on this, disagreeing down to fundamental questions like even "what IS racist."
You will note I said Progressives and not Liberals, because I think that a lot of normie Liberals secretly agree that identity politics are past the bounds of reason but unlike Leo (above) are literally afraid to say it.
White identity politics is also "identity politics"
To the substance, we have had a 160-odd year argument in this country about two things (a) what is "racist" act, and (b) at what point does the Gov step in (if at all) with a remedy once a racist act is identified.
Let me hand Leo the world's smallest violin, as I fail to see how DEI programs possibly qualify as racism against whites no matter how you look at them.
One of the behind the paywall quotes from the Article is Marjorie Taylor Green calling Ilan Omar the "Representative from Somalia, ...... I mean Minnesota."
Har de f-ing Har.
As this was (i) intentional and (ii) said in Congress, of course nothing is happening to Green. I have no problem with anti-racism policies imposing some penalty for intentional crap like this is a public context.
You will note that as worried as Leo is, he never, despite trying to make his point, submits ideas for what he thinks should happen to address structural DEI issues. It may be because he sees none.
But there it is, the 160 year old argument continues.
Here's a gift link to the full article, where other harmless jokes and inadvertent expressions of honestly-felt behavior by Totally Not Racist Republican Congress-critters are described:
link
So misunderstood they are, so unjustly persecuted. Really, they're the victims here.
@ YIKES:
yikes indeed:
"Let me hand Leo the world's smallest violin, as I fail to see how DEI programs possibly qualify as racism against whites no matter how you look at them."
My post above does not assert that DEI programs (specifically) qualify as racism against whites. But, since you've brought it up, yes, that possibility obviously exists.
From John McWhorter writing @ the NYT:
"To put it succinctly: Opposing D.E.I., in part or in whole, does not make one racist. We can agree that the legacy of racism requires addressing and yet disagree about how best to do it. Of course in the pure sense, to be opposed to 'diversity,' opposed to 'equity' and opposed to 'inclusion' would fairly be called racism. But it is coy to pretend these dictionary meanings are what D.E.I. refers to in modern practice, which is a more specific philosophy.
"D.E.I. programs today often insist that we alter traditional conceptions of merit, 'decenter' whiteness to the point of elevating nonwhiteness as a qualification in itself, conceive of people as groups in balkanized opposition, demand that all faculty members declare fealty to this modus operandi regardless of their field or personal opinions, and harbor a rigidly intolerant attitude toward dissent. The experience last year of Tabia Lee, a Black woman who was fired from supervising the D.E.I. program at De Anza College in California for refusing to adhere to such tenets, is sadly illustrative of the new climate ...
"D.E.I. advocates may see their worldview and modus operandi as so wise and just that opposition can only come from racists and the otherwise morally compromised. But this is shortsighted. One can be very committed to the advancement of Black people while also seeing a certain ominous and prosecutorial groupthink in much of what has come to operate under the D.E.I. label. Not to mention an unwitting condescension to Black people."
DEI is just a code word for conservatives that really means "I should get to do what I want without any of 'those people' complaining."
After 350 years of white preference and slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and lynchings in the U.S., anything else apparently seems like “discrimination” against whites.
Poor dears. How many white have been lynched? Ever?
I guess you don't understand that seeing "Black" capitalized in articles where "White" is not, or having someone misinterpret your totally-harmless play on the word "tulips," is just as bad as being lynched!
Your refusal to understand this shows that you're the real racist!
"Poor dears. How many white have been lynched? Ever?"
According to wikipedia:
"... The Tuskegee Institute has recorded the lynchings of 3,446 Blacks and the lynchings of 1,297 Whites, all of which occurred between 1882 and 1968, ..."
.. which means that, as fractions of the population-adjusted average populations of Whites and Blacks in the US between 1880 and 1970 (source), Blacks were lynched at a rate over 22 times that of Whites.
This is not hard.
If you vote for bigots, you are yourself a bigot.
DEI started out as a good idea, but then consultants saw it as a ticket to riches.
Same with ESG.
Granted, the extreme left might be just that, and should probably rein it in a bit. However, it seems the conservatives only think you are racist if you are wearing a white sheet or firing up the ovens. Given a choice, I tend to side with a little overcompensation on the left.
Understanding racism is important, but nothing is sufficient short of addressing the issue effectively. And that means understanding the root cause. Until you know what action to take, you don't know the root cause. When you are taking effective action, then it's because you know the root cause.
Racism is a manifestation of prejudice. If someone's prejudice is not racism, then it's because they found something else to be prejudiced about.
So, why are some people prejudiced? The answer is in asking why are some people not prejudiced. The answer to that question is because they behave as if they believe these four guys:
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." – Confucius
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery; None but ourselves can free our minds." - Bob Marley
"When we are no longer able to challenge a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves." - Viktor Frankl
"Be angry but do not let the sun go down on your anger." - Paul's letter to the Ephesians
Everyone wants improvement, and improvement means change. People that don't agree with these four guys believe that what needs to change is, "anything and/or anyone but me." And then they realize they're not being specific enough so they go to The Prejudice Store and pick out someone or something to blame.
So, now you know the root cause and what action to take, which is: behave as if you believe these four guys.
I know one person doing that won't end racism, but I also know everyone doing that will end every kind of prejudice ... and where to start.
Many years ago, Andrew Young wrote in a newspaper column that you should never trust anyone who says they're not racist. You should say "I'm working on my racism."
The vast majority of these comments just illustrate why almost two thirds of republicans think racism against whites is a problem. Many of you sound like something out of an SNL skit.
[sniff] It's true ... they are oppressed! Viciously! And *I* am an oppressor! [sniffle, choke] Thank you for your courage in pointing this out!
Two thirds of Republicans eh? Because everybody knows it's only what Republicans think/feel/believe that counts.This selfish, self-centered, racist POS doesn't realize how badly he tells on himself.
Who are these “republicans “ of whom you speak? I remember a few years back there was a political party known as “republicans” but that disappeared. Today there are only Democrats and Trumpians. There is no option, you are one or the other.
Thanks for your opinion. However, you are incorrect. I am an example of someone who is a republican. I am not a democrat nor a “Trumpian”. It’s not like I’m unique. There are millions of people like me.
How many Republicans are running in the next election? How many were primaried or will be primaried? Even you voted for Biden. It is possible to be a Democrat but not a liberal. Lots of people who used to identify as Republicans are that. Maybe if Trump is finally defeated Republicans will reemerge and you can once again identify as a Republican. Of course, if Trump wins there won’t be any Democrats either.
Specifically what?
While the claim is common, coming up with specific evidence or causes is always a huge challenge for claimants.
Even here we only see a general whine about 'you people' being the reason.
I long ago gave up caring about what republicans think because there is very little evidence they think at all.
Oh. And here I thought that the best way to not be called racist was to not say or do racist things, and to try not to indulge my cultural biases.
I’m not sure I see the point of these attempts to deconstruct Republicans’ motives. They’re creatures of hierarchy and dominance displays; it’s hardly surprising that race and gender and wealth and all kinds of other cultural markers factor into their assessments of whether they need to kiss up or kick down. And they’re certainly not AFRAID of being accused of racism so much as they’re pre-offended by responses to their entitled assumptions.
The rest is just DARVO.
Got it in one. Old Adam sees women refusing him and fears -- rightly -- that he is being tossed out of the gene pool. And a good thing too.
TIL a new acronym, and pre-offended is definitely something I'll be using in the future. Entirely accurate.
I've always felt that the Ferguson/Michael Brown incident wasn't as clear cut as most people claimed it was. It was clearly a flashpoint for Democrats, but in your chart, Republican opinion doesn't nosedive until Trump becomes front and center. He's the real reason why Republican attitudes changed -- he gave them an excuse to claim reverse-racism.
Wow I was inclined to be a little prickly about the credulity of your take on Republicans here, but after reading through the comments I think you've got a pretty fair account of things. Nice job 'steel-manning' as the kids today might say.
Vignettes from my liberal social group.
me: school desegregation was a great liberal accomplishment. As with reconstruction there was backlash and we backed down from something that was working. Black & White NAEP scores converged, then desegregation was gutted. We know what works, we just aren't willing to do it.
close relative: Standardized tests are racist, the product of a society racist root and branch. Those converging scores mean nothing. Did you know that many Black teachers were fired during mandatory busing?
me: Higher crime rates among Blacks should be understood as a consequence of oppressing a group for hundreds of years. If you undermine and damage people wholesale there will be bad effects.
close friend: I can't believe what I am hearing! How dare you say Black people are more violent! The criminal justice system is utterly corrupt and racist, true Black crime rates are no higher than White, that is mis-reporting. "Violence cannot be quantified."
my son: Assigned Stamped: A Re-mix in his public middle school. Benjamin Rush (notably anti-slavery check Wikipedia) is no good guy Au contraire, you don't understand. Rush was not anti-racist, he was assimilationist by the Kendi definition. From the book: "See how that works, Mr. Rush? Mr. Enlightened? Huh? Yeah. thanks, but no thanks." No joke. The book is shallow, presentist, and written like low-grade teen fiction. Gingerly suggesting maybe the style gets in the way to a teacher in my family got a funny look. "That book is widely taught." she said with a tight smile. If you don't believe me read it. Stamped: A Remix (Kendi book re-written for a younger audience by Jason Reynolds).
This Civiqs poll shows how a lot of people came off the fence about racial matters in June 2020, and even before, apparently in both directions:
https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter?uncertainty=true&annotations=true&zoomIn=true
There are also breakdowns by various groupings, which I have not looked at yet.
I also have not looked at the Civiqs methodology. They get a remarkably continuous response, while major polls only come out at intervals. How do they do that?
Yes, reactions and cultures on the left can be excessive and offensive. But it should always be kept in mind that encouragement of racism has been absolutely essential to Republican politics for over fifty years. Masses of Southerners did not swing over to vote for Reagan because they suddenly started started reading Wolfgang von Mises or Bill Buckley and became convinced of the merits of conservative economics, they did it because Republican stood up for White Supremacy (they always stood for Religiosity). The New Deal - Great Society era came to an end because of this deliberate exploitation of racism. There have been many ebbs and flows of the racial conflict in US history - Trump has added nothing really new.
Exploitation of tribalism is always a possible approach in politics and has happened throughout history, and is continuing throughout the world.
If you lined up every white American from left to right, from the least racist (a deaf and blind person?) to the most racist (a hooded klansman with burning cross), every single one of them would believe that the racist line starts somewhere to his right.
It would be nice if police could simply try to reduce the number of unarmed black people they kill every year. They don’t even have to succeed at killing fewer unarmed black people, just make an effort, any effort, to do so. I believe this was the original impetus behind George Floyd protests. But unfortunately this goal appears to be impossible: if we don’t let police do whatever they want to whomever they want, they will refuse to do their jobs at all and let crime rates soar. And if anybody says anything about it, then a bunch of centrist and center right voters will have no choice but to vote for Trump.
Police do not kill very many unarmed black people per year. WaPo indicated a total of 13 in 2019 for instance. Which is not the wholesale carnage that people imagine.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/23/fact-check-how-many-unarmed-black-men-did-police-kill-2019/5322455002/
Hey, let's get a bunch of white people together to discuss racism like they know more about it than anyone else!
I moved to the Deep South for work over a decade ago. I am white. In my time here, I've heard a few older white men talking about how they need to put up a fence in their neighborhood because "those people" are walking through it during the day. But I've heard a grand total of zero people use the n-word. So I figured things couldn't be that bad here, right?
Then I talked to a few of my Black colleagues at work. Want to know how often they heard a white person in this town using the n-word? At minimum, once a week, including at places like the grocery store.
Sure seems like the genuine racists around these parts are concerned that non-racist white people don't see them as racist, but aren't especially concerned what Black people think. It's like racism is something you direct at the people you don't like, and you're only going to direct anger and hatred at people of your race if you think they're "race traitors" and more concerned with another race over your own.
As for non-racist white people worried about being hauled before HR for insensitive comments? There's lots of resources out there you can read to educate yourself about what your colleagues might find offensive and what they might not. Surely if you're supportive of the fight against racism, that's the least you can do. If spending a few hours a week being "aware" of racism is a huge burden on you, just imagine having to spend every day of your entire life that way.
All of this is, potentially, deeply problematic:
"As for non-racist white people worried about being hauled before HR for insensitive comments? There's lots of resources out there you can read to educate yourself about what your colleagues might find offensive and what they might not. Surely if you're supportive of the fight against racism, that's the least you can do."
Who decides what constitutes an "insensitive comment"?
To what extent, if any, should people be "worried" about what their colleagues "might find offensive"?
And who exactly determines which "resources" properly "educate" the populace on these issues?
The implicit assumption in your statement is that your own sociopolitical tribe is the one that should and, ideally, will be settling all of these questions. But what if it's not?
Once you establish these dangerous ideas as precedents, once you set up businesses, schools, and other important segments of society as partisan advocates for a particular ideology, you essentially open Pandora's box. Because there's no guarantee that they will in fact always wind up promoting the ideology you expect them to.
Essentially, I see your statement as religious in nature. You may see it as secular, but it nevertheless represents a fundamentalist ideology that wants to impose its way of thinking on others.
The implicit end game of your vision for society involves an inevitable loss of free speech, ideological diversity, and open inquiry. And anyone like me who raises these concerns will be hit with your religious admonition: "Surely if you're supportive of the fight against racism, that's the least you can do."
I was at a meeting at work. We were talking about changing tax bases for jurisdictions. I (white) mentioned that gentrification can change things.
The chair of the meeting chewed me out for about 5 minutes about how that was a racist thing to say. (I sat there and said nothing and tried to look apologetic because I am not stupid.)
HOW DARE ANYONE JUDGE MY SPEECH AND ACTIONS! FREE SPEECH MEANS THAT YOU CANNOT JUDGE ME AND THERE MUST BE NO CONSEQUENCES FOR MY ACTIONS!!
This is truly the definition of white privilige.
The ocassional lack of white privilige is now referred to as racism against white by the Leo's of the country.
Nailed it jdubs. Thanks!
Who decides what constitutes an "insensitive comment"?
Here's a hint: Not you.
"A full third of Republicans think racism against whites is a big problem and nearly three quarters think it's at least a moderate problem. This reflects a fear that affirmative action might cost them a job." [and so on]
No, when they say "reverse racism" what they are referring to is the loss of power and privilege. To them, it's all zero-sum and if things are getting better for non-white people then it must be getting worse for them. And with the way authoritarians (and make no mistake, Republicans are all on the authoritarian spectrum) think, that DOES mean it's getting worse for them: because they can no longer exercise as much power over those who have been marginalized and exploited.
This is middle school level stuff. It's no more complex than that. It's rather tired to pretend that it is just so you can paint Republicans as somehow reasonable. That stopped when you were younger than I am now.
“Liberals believe that too many conservatives are just plain racist and won't admit it.”
“Many conservatives are just plain racist and won't admit it” sounds like an unfalifiable proposition, but there is some relevant data.
In 2019, Bob Altemeyer and John Dean commissioned a survey as part of their work on their book Authoritarian Nightmare. The survey included a religious fundamentalism scale. You might guess that this would correlate positively with approval of Trump, and you would be correct; the correlation is 0.594. The survey also includes the RWA scale, which measures the tendency to follow authoritarian leaders. The correlation with approval of Trump was 0.737. But there was one scale that had an even higher correlation. The correlation between the prejudice scale and approval of Trump was 0.812. This doesn't mean that every Trump supporter is highly prejudiced, but it does mean that a lot of them are.
I try to not judge individuals based on the group they are associated with but every openly racist person that I have known has been a Republican.
I do believe that nearly every one is 'racist' because we are tribal at our core, but its a matter of degree and whether they are willing / able to overcome the monkey part of their brain and support efforts to make the world more fair and better.
My mono-causal theory of this divide: differing discount rates for out-group utility. Liberals feel greater benefit to themselves from out-group successes and greater harm to themselves from out-group injuries than conservatives do, so a conservative will see a slight discomfort to themself as equivalent to, as equally motivating to their own behavior as, a great discomfort suffered by someone they don't see as a member of their group. There is a similar imbalance for liberals -- they too care more about themselves and their group -- but relatively speaking it is less.
A mono-causal theory for this difference in discount rates: conservatives believe life is a zero-sum game; liberals believe it is positive-sum. If you believe another's gain is your loss, you're a fool to waste concern on them.
Another mono-causal theory: if you never meet many people different from yourself, it's hard to conceive of their interests as real, so you discount them. Conservatives live in homogenous and/or sparsely populated areas, so they seldom meet people different from themselves.
Another mono-causal theory: fear of the unknown. If you meet other people, they become known, and you fear them less. Liberals have met a greater variety of people, so they don't fear these people, the people conservatives see as their out-groups. But they do fear conservatives. See the next point.
Another theory about conservatives: many of them become so out of fear of being on the wrong side of conservatives and then remain so out of cognitive dissonance and a sense they've burned the bridge they'd need to return to less conservative allegiances. A lot of conservatives' political engagement consists of threats to their enemies, punishing apostates, and ostentatiously girding themselves for war. If your neighbor owns a lot of guns and frequently expresses a desire to kill liberals/reporters/non-believers, you want to make sure they don't see you as a target. You fly the right flag, put up the right yard sign, let it be known which church you go to, etc.
But what do I know. I live in Vermont and work for a company where people see DEI policies as a benefit, an inducement to work there. They feel good about the company because they feel it's made of good people striving to make the world better. And they believe diversity of life experience will lead to more robust decisions.
+1
After 350 years of white preference and slavery, Jim Crow, segregations and lynchings in the U.S., anything else apparently seems like “discrimination” against whites.
How many white have been lynched? Ever?
Surprisingly--quite a few but not as many as black people
http://www.charlieseguin.com/dot_map.html
Now, we know that black people were lynched by whites because they were black. But how many of these white people were lynched by blacks because they were white?
ZERO. Whites were lynched by other whites such as the sad story of Leo Frank or for helping Blacks fight racism but in the American west lynching occurred (remember "frontier justice"?) for cattle theft and other things.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured. Surely these worthies who negelcted the context when citing the number of white people lynched only did so by accident, amirite? Not because they're racist, bad-faith scum 😉
Who decides what constitutes an "insensitive comment"?
Here's a hint: Not you.
Nor you.
Chuckle. You think that's a putdown? Grow up and put your big boy pants on, snowflake.
lol
"Or that a harmless (in their view) joke could get them ostracized."
Yeah, gotta watch out for all those "harmful" jokes. Jeebus.
This is where Kevin is taken in by Conservative propaganda. Well meaning folks who make missteps aren't crucified. Often times the whiny white guy crying about anti-white racism have a body of work demonstrating their ill treatment of others.