Study shows Democrats use simplistic, patronizing words when corresponding to minorities while Conservatives keep their message the same

rolltide · Nov 29, 2018

Yep, Conservatives interact with minorities in the exact same fashion as a Caucasian but a Democrat dumb-down their message when corresponding to people with a stereotypical black name. Example: They will use the word "melancholy" if typing to someone named Emily but dumb it down to the world "sad" if responding to Lakisha

Who's racist?

The researchers found that liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white. No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner.

rolltide · Nov 29, 2018

full Yale study at https://psyarxiv.com/pv2ab/

quick overview:

Yale University recently announced the results of a study concluding that white liberals use fewer “competence-related words” when interacting with minorities.
The study conducted by Yale School of Management assistant professor of organizational behavior Cydney Dupree concludes that white liberals are more likely than other white Americans to “downplay” their own intelligence when engaging with racial minorities.
Dupree says that while there is plenty of research pertaining to the behavior of racially biased individuals in diverse settings, “There’s less work that explores how well-intentioned whites try to get along with racial minorities.”
Because of this, Dupree says she set out to observe “strategies for increasing connections between members of different social groups — and how effective these strategies are.”
Dupree and her co-author, Princeton University professor Susan Fiske, analyzed 74 campaign speeches delivered by white presidential candidates over the past 25 years. Speeches analyzed included those from both Democrat and Republican candidates, and about half of them were delivered to minority-heavy audiences.
The researchers compared speeches given to minority audiences with similar speeches delivered to predominately white audiences. These paired speeches were then compared based on two indicators: “competence-related” words about “ability or status” and words relating to what the researchers call “warmth.” Words categorized as “warmth” had to do with “friendliness,” such as words like “compassionate” or “supportive.”
Their work yielded results that Dupree found “surprising.” While neither side’s use of “warmth” words changed based on audience, the study concluded Democratic candidates speaking to minority audiences actually use fewer “competence-related” words than those speaking to white audiences. Republican speeches, however, showed no such significant difference, indicating that conservative candidates are less likely to alter their vocabulary based on the skin color of their audience.
“It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior,” Dupree said.
After the study did not yield the results researchers expected, they constructed a follow-up study to further test their conclusion. This new study involved a series of experiments wherein white participants were assigned hypothetical interactions. Half of the white participants were given a hypothetical situation where they were to send an email to an individual by a stereotypically white name; the other half was told they would be emailing a person with a more stereotypically black name. Yale offers the names “Emily” and “Lakisha” as examples. These participants also underwent a separate assessment of “how liberal they were,” according to Yale.
Participants were then told to use a pre-determined list of words to compose an email to their hypothetical partner. The findings of this second study were consistent with the first: persons considered to be “liberal” were less likely to use words that indicated high competence when they believed they were emailing a black person. For example, they were more likely to chose the word “sad” over the word “melancholy.”
“It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree said of the results. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”

exploited17 · Nov 29, 2018

Also....interesting. Neuroscientist. 95% accuracy rate that he can determine if someone is conservative or liberal.

Willie99 · Nov 29, 2018

Gee, another study proves something we already know

Conservatives treat all people equally, and consider all people to be our equal.

Liberals think they're superior, they think minorities need special treatment which is the ultimate sign of disrespect. Then when you say you oppose policies that define and divide us, why you're a selfish racist white man that just doesn't understand minorities

You just can't make such ignorance up

rolltide · Nov 29, 2018

article today about this study on https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/white-liberals-patronize-minorities-downplaying-co/ and https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...lves-down-while-speaking-to-minoriti-n2536685

funny to see the libs in comments trying to explain away why they talk down to minorities. one person says it's because liberals are more cognizant and apathetic so they are trying to reach minorities on their level. huh? talking down because you think you need to for a connection is a good thing in your book?

then again perhaps it's working since they pull the DEM lever > 80% of the time.

also funny to read the Yale researcher's comments as she is clearly aghast. No doubt she ran this study simply to confirm her belief that liberals treat minorities more fairly than conservatives.

hno:

as noted in Wash Times:
The study flies in the face of a standard talking point of the political left — that white conservatives are racist — while raising questions about whether liberals are perpetuating racial stereotypes about blacks being less competent than whites.

festeringZit · Nov 29, 2018

Dinesh shows how two dozen inner cities (run by Democrats) are strikingly similar to slave plantations:

festeringZit · Nov 29, 2018

Dsouza: Neither, you know, neither party is involved in racism in the old sense. And so for example a good metaphor of this would be the Klan. The Klan today is essentially defunct. There’s no real effective organization called the Klan. I mean the Klan used to have two to five million members. They could march tens of thousands of people down fifth avenue in the twenties, burning crosses and shouting racist slogans. That Klan does not exist. But I would argue, I was actually reading a book by the historian Kenneth Stampp, and it’s on the old slave plantation. It’s called The Peculiar Institution. And he describes the five features of the slave plantation. I think this is really interesting because all the five features he mentions are present today. But they’re present on the urban plantations that the democrats are running in the inner cities. And so Kenneth Stampp says number one on the typical old slave plantation you have ramshackle dwellings. Houses but they’re in disarray. Second you have the family structure is all broken down, a lot if illegitimacy, whose kids are whose, you don’t really know, that’s the nature of slavery. Third, a lot of the violence that’s necessary to hold the, to keep the place together because slavery is based on coercion, you have to force people, you have to whip them, beat them, etc. Fourth, everybody has a minimum provision. You get food, you get health care, but nobody gets ahead. Nobody gets a good education. No ladders of opportunity. Nihilism, hopelessness, and despair. So you take all these elements and ask, “How’s it really different today in inner city Oakland, or Detroit, or Chicago? I think the main difference is that in the old days the Democrats who ran those slave plantations too, wanted to steal people’s labor. They wanted labor, and they wanted labor for free. Now what they want is votes. They want votes, and they don’t care about these people. And that’s why they remain in misery and the Democrats are perfectly happy to keep ‘em there as long as they keep voting eighty to ninety percent for the party that’s running the plantation.In this graphic each electoral district won by each candidate in the 2004 Presidential election is shown as a column. The red map shows the districts Bush won. The blue map shows the districts Kerry won. The height of each column shows the margin of victory. The blue map seems to corroborate D’Souza’s description of the urban plantation.

The following image of the 2012 Presidential election from Princeton University tells the same story. It seems that if not for the virtually guaranteed votes from the inhabitants trapped in the urban plantations the Democrats have practically no hope of winning a presidential election.