Florida professor leaves job following claim he faked data on racism studies
nypost.com
nypost.com
yesterday someone submitted an opinion piece to HN, from an American black female lawyer, who decried the focus on "institutional racism" that her children were being taught at school, because, in her view, her children were being taught that, by virtue of being black, they were something of a permanent underclass. the article was [flagged] and [dead] within thirty minutes. some of the few comments before the post was [dead] implied that, since the author of the piece had become a lawyer, she was seemingly only capable of looking at racial issues through a legalistic lens, which was blinding her to The Real Issues About Race At Play Here. literally explaining how a black woman somehow wasn't aware of all of the societal factors at play that were supposed to keep her down… even though she seems to be doing fine as both a lawyer and mother—surely she had personally encountered whatever implicit institutional racism that was supposed to keep her from finding success, such that she felt it unnecessary to mention them in her piece? surely her views are more valid than whatever performative platitudes someone who wasn't in her shoes had to say about her and her children's situation?
but, no. [flagged] and [dead] within 30 minutes, because we can't discuss any perspective on this situation other than the mainstream progressive orthodoxy, apparently.
and how do you square all this with the hatred for his white successor, which was, objectively, several orders of magnitude greater?
also, how do you square your thesis with the existence of black Republican politicians—surely anyone who was racially critical of Obama would also be equally racially critical of black elected officials in their own party?
You picked an awfully disingenuous way of framing your question. Just because you can find someone who dislikes Obama because of some random reason that does not reject or refute the pervasiveness of racism as a factor in the vitriolic hatred directed at him.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/28/politics/carl-paladino-re...
to paraphrase you: just because you can find someone who dislikes Obama because of some racial reason, that does not prove the pervasiveness of racism as a factor in the vitriolic hatred directed at him.
I thought by 2023 we could all be mature about this and agree that, sure, there was a nonzero amount of racist hate for President Obama during his presidency, yet the idea that, in general, negative sentiment toward him can be exclusively attributed to racism, is absurd.
do you really believe that anything other than a tiny, statistically-insignificant minority of Americans in 2008–16 disapproved of their President based upon the color of his skin? do you really believe that anything other than a tiny, statistically-insignificant minority of Americans today, in 2023, are overtly racist toward black people based upon the color of their skin?
(I also note that you chose to not respond to my assertion that Obama did not really do anything for black Americans specifically, during his two-term presidency. he was elected on the promise of Hope and Change, and while he gave plenty of the former, he utterly failed in executing on the latter. ditto for my assertion about Obama's successor.)
Very much agree with you though that saying any/all dislike for Obama was because of race is absurd. Conspiracy-theory, flat-earth, not-worth-arguing absurd.
That's how it is in lower income areas, whatever country. I grew up in a small village with lower income folks and that's how it was, you need to learn not being vehement about this.
You cannot benchmark a policy based on stuff like this. I believe it is the exact same thing with folks "victims" of racism: they can say hideous stuff too, e.g antisemitism within Muslim community.
This. If you really wanna overhear some casual racism in the US learn to speak Spanish.
And for the most part the people of all races that say these things aren't racist in that they believe in inherent superiority or anything. They're more critiquing culture that just so happens to follow (loosely, obviously we're using a broad brush here) race but in a way that isn't articulate and narrowly scoped enough to pass muster with the white collar crowd. They're basically shitting on other race groups in the same way that all the trades on a job site shit on each other.
This kind of bring us full circle to the whole classism thing...
of McCain's ~59.9M, some small number `x` is racists, who voted against Obama, because they didn't want a black President. after the end of Obama's first term (again, for simplicity), some number `y` is people who voted for McCain who were vocally displeased with Obama's presidency (presumably this number includes most if not all of `x`), and some number `z` is people who voted for Obama who were vocally displeased with Obama's presidency.
everyone (racists, Obama-likers, Obama-dislikers) who did not exercise their Constitutional right to vote are irrelevant.
`x` is a much smaller number than `y` plus `z`, so as to be insignificant.
All I’m saying is that I disagree with your inclination to downplay racism in America.
I'm not sure you read any of the links I posted, or that you had any intention of informing yourself before trying to dismiss facts you find inconvenient.
The fact that Obama was repeatedly subjected to racist attacks, even from high-ranking members of the republican party in very public statements , can't be brushed under the rug. This was not "one guy", or even an isolated incident. The two links I posted correspond to remarks from multiple high ranking people in separate incidents. These racist attacks were made repeatedly throughout Obama's tenure, and were never criticised or stopped by the republican party, which clearly were leveraging those to mobilize their base.
How can you even start to attempt to hide that fact? In what world do you live where blatant, real-world, and very public racism doesn't exist.
…a guy whose dad bought him through college at a school conveniently of the same name as a famous business school (Wharton) to make people believe he went to the famous one when he really went to the far less prestigious undergraduate. Professors on record calling him the dumbest student they've ever had. Born into wealth and every advantage. Cheated on every woman he married, including with a porn star he paid to have sex with when his youngest child was born. (The hush money came later.) Who took little to no part in raising any of his children. Ran Miss Teen USA pageant to (by his own admission) look at scantily clad underage girls including in the dressing room. Will throw anyone under the bus if it suits him. Bankrupted multiple casinos even while his dad was buying chips to keep him afloat. Siphoned money from multiple charities to the point that both he and his children are now legally forbidden to ever run a charity again. Multiple indictments and subsequent convictions in his administration including members of his cabinet. Mueller even wrote in so many words that the ONLY reason Trump wasn't indicted by the DOJ was because he was a sitting president. Faked his way through every hymn whenever he had a photo op in a church. And on and on.
-----
You're asserting their main substantive differences and the relative hatred for them were their political parties? If Obama had done even a tenth of the stuff we can prove (not speculate) Trump had done, Obama would never have been elected as a senator let alone president. Hell, he'd be in prison.
The ONLY reason Trump could get away with half the stuff he did was because he's white and rich. Black and rich would not have shielded him so effectively nor raised him to the highest levels of the GOP.
Is it not self evident? They're entirely different.
Systemic discrimination happens on top of all of the other problems that people have just for being human. We should devote some resources to those issues. That doesn't mean dismissing the guy dying of opioids, but it does feel awfully uncomfortable for people to be saying "Let's stop looking at the racism that has afflicted this country for centuries because now I've identified a problem that affects mostly white people."
That is sociology and that particular experiment seems scientific as far as I can tell.
This then morphed into identity politics which prioritises these more individual experiences. And before we know it no one talks about class or socioeconomics anymore.
"Hard" sciences are more fun, because they get to work with simple things and form rigid rules about them. But social sciences are arguably more important, because they inform the decisions we make every day about how to live in groups. You can't just say, "Well, it's hard to model people with differential equations, so let's just take guesses about how people are doing."
Dismissing soft sciences doesn't reflect well on the hard sciences. It says "We scientists can't do difficult things, so we're just going to punt on it and pretend it's not worth thinking about."
Dismissing soft “sciences” only says they aren't sciences. Want to do Sociology, ok, go ahead, just don't call it a “science”. By now it's very clear these disciplines only call themselves sciences, to try and get some veneer of authority for what they are actually doing: ideological studies.
Also, let's always remember that the departments of sociology in the USA, were the main proponents and spreaders of the theories of white racial superiority in the beginning of the XX century. All in the guise of science.