It wasn't just a claim. One example shown was a math textbook that showed a graph saying that conservatives were more racist than liberals. I'm a staunch liberal but I found that to be pretty shocking. I would love to see more examples from the other textbooks, but for that particular textbook, I myself would have no qualms telling the published to change that graph to something less divisive.
How would you feel if that graph instead showed "56% of all crimes are committed by African Americans"? That statistic is true, but is that appropriate for a math textbook without a deeper conversation about underlying causes?
Is a hard truth indoctrination?
> This isn't a free speech issue, it's a question of appropriateness.
Excellent point. Doesn't this apply to the so-called censorship on Twitter as well? No one is getting arrested, and thus is cannot be a free speech issue. Should Twitter not get to decide what is appropriate on their platform?
> Making an comment about how conservatives are more racist than liberals is not appropriate for a math textbook.
What if the purpose of math textbooks should be to teach how math is applied in the real world? A graph of oranges vs lemons isn't going to be good at that.
This sounds like the same argument used to justify "shielding" kids from homosexuality.
> How would you feel if that graph instead showed "56% of all crimes are committed by African Americans"? That statistic is true, but is that appropriate for a math textbook without a deeper conversation about underlying causes?
This is a great rebuttal. Alone, I would agree it's not appropriate. But if the textbook then proceeded to use math to show why that might be the case, then I would fully support it. In fact, that would be an excellent addition to a statistics lesson for kids.
To me (not from the US, far from conservative), it seems needlessly divisive. I'm all for real-world examples in maths/science instruction, but there'd surely be better alternatives that keep focus on learning the core topic at hand.
Should the government indoctrinate the nation's school children with these "facts", in classes where they're supposed to be learning math?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30843726/
Here's some actual data shows that liberals are more racist than conservatives. Would it be appropriate to go from there to the government indoctrinating the nation's elementary school students into believing that liberals are more racist than conservatives?
What is a fact?
> Those minorities are less competent.
"Those minorities"? You mean the individuals involved in the interaction? I didn't see where the study establishes that those people are less competent. Or do you mean the individuals are being stereotyped based on an assumed racial statistic?
> Liberals recognize that fact and propose how to fix it. Conservatives say it is genetics and ignore the problem, making it worse.
Well that's not what this study demonstrates.
And which conservatives do you believe say this anyway? The ones in this study? The average conservative? Or the imaginary boogyman that your math textbook warned you about?
> Which of these is racist?
Assuming a black individual one is conversing with is less competent due to their skin color and treating them differently because of that, is racist. Making no assumptions about an individual's competence based on their skin color and treating them as you would any other individual is not racist. At least that's my definition of the word and the one I was taught.
I stated the fact in the very next sentence, which you quoted.
> I didn't see where the study establishes that those people are less competent.
That was not the point of the study. Other studies have established this fact.
> Well that's not what this study demonstrates.
I didn't claim it did. You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem.
> And which conservatives do you believe say this anyway?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4567596/?report...
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-mu...
> Assuming a black individual one is conversing with is less competent due to their skin color and treating them differently because of that, is racist
The study didn't show that the liberal whites assumed these groups were less competent and treated them that way but that liberal whites assumed that the audience was less interested in competence-related terms for voting and changed how they campaigned to them, probably around how they would fix the problems unique to these groups, which the conservative politicians ignored.
To be clear, what is racist is assuming the problems that these groups face is due to genetic mental inferiority, which is what conservatives assume, as the study I linked above shows.
I asked a question. "Those minorities" is not specific. If you are claiming it is the people in the study then you are wrong, no such fact was established.
> That was not the point of the study. Other studies have established this fact. This study just says that white liberals acknowledge this when speaking to these groups.
They are not "speaking to a group" or an amorphous blob. They are speaking to individuals in this study. Humans.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4567596/?report...
> https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-mu...
So some people. That does not support any such claim that "conservatives are more racist" unless you establish that's a general view among conservatives. You can say those people with that view are more racist if that's a racist opinion.
> They are on the whole less competent. Pretending that they aren't is ignoring the facts. This can be fixed. This is also a fact.
Treating people the same regardless of skin color is not ignoring the fact there are statistical differences among different "socioeconomic" groups is not ignoring those differences. I'm astounded you're actually trying to claim that is being racist, but then again I'm allegedly a racist old curmudgeon for being against institutional discrimination against asian college applicants so I really should stop being so surprised at today's liberal dogma and just agree to disagree with you.
It's established all over the place. Look at SAT scores, IQ tests, grades, etc. I never claimed that the stidy you linked to established it.
> So some people. That does not support any such claim that "conservatives are more racist" unless you establish that's a general view among conservatives.
Which is exactly what the first link you quoted showed, if you were able to read it.
> Treating people the same regardless of skin color is not ignoring the fact there are statistical differences among different "socioeconomic" groups is not ignoring those differences
The way they were treated differently was by using less competence words to signal that they were a good politician to vote for, since these people are from communities without a highly competent reference. Instead, these white liberals probably talked about the unique problems these groups were facing, which conservatives ignore and blame on genetics. Talking about their problems is not racist, and is in fact why these groups vote for white liberals. Pretending their problems is due to genetics without being able to point to a gene is racist.
> I'm allegedly a racist old curmudgeon for being against institutional discrimination against asian college applicants so I really should stop being so surprised at today's liberal dogma and just agree to disagree with you.
Liberals are also against discrimination against Asians. They try to solve problems where discrimination against Asians hold Asians back, like working to get reparations for interned Japanese Americans. Liberals also recognize that a significant minority of Americans have been systematically discouraged from getting an education and that fixing that will have a far greater impact on economic progress than almost anything else we can do.
Competency is not established for the individuals involved in the study!
Read what I wrote. I never said there aren't statistical differences among racial groups. That's why I asked you to clarify when you said "those minorities" whether you were talking about the individuals in the study or the racial stereotypes.
> Which is exactly what the first link you quoted showed, if you were able to read it.
Using the revised liberal definition of racist that requires one to discriminate against asians and assume black people are incompetent, sure.
> The way they were treated differently was by using less competence words
Yes I know, you don't have to repeat what the study concluded. I just fundamentally disagree on your idea of what racism is. Do you still think it's a good idea to teach this stuff in math class? Using my definition of racism? Or yours?
> Liberals are also against discrimination against Asians.
Not the ones I've talked to who have been trying to repeal constitutional prohibitions against racial discrimination in order to bring about policies of systemic racism and discrimination in their institutions.
They are being talked to in the terms of what the groups they belong to care about. What about that did you fail to understand?
> Using the revised liberal definition of racist that requires one to discriminate against asians and assume black people are incompetent, sure.
No, using the definition that people who think different races are less intelligent due to genetics. You clearly haven't read it, or if you did read it, you didn't understand it. Being a liberal, I won't reach to thinking this is due to your poor genetics but will instead point out that your poor reading ability is something that can be fixed and that society should strive to fix.
> Do you still think it's a good idea to teach this stuff in math class?
Sure, why not? This is real data that they're being asked to fit a polynomial to. The fact that you are offended by what the data shows does not make the data less real or the exercise any less instructive.
> Using my definition of racism?
To be clear, your definition of racism is to speak to people according to the problems that their communities face (whether it be competence of politicians or politicians who ignore their problems) instead of in exactly the same terms. I have heard of nobody else who shares your definition.
> Not the ones I've talked to who have been trying to repeal constitutional prohibitions against racial discrimination in order to bring about policies of systemic racism and discrimination in their institutions
The policies they are pushing for are to reduce crime and poverty, which helps all people. Giving support to groups that need it instead of groups that won't benefit from it necessarily involves discrimination. It is beneficial to debate which policies are likely to have the largest benefit, but sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem (and then justifying it by hypothesizing that no policy will help due to genetics without providing any evidence for genetic difference in intelligence) is the type of lazy thinking that permeates conservative thought.