Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen
It is a double standard. You response is a typical one that academics hold toward polemics. Your line is only clear because you wish it to be. This student posted findings that you do like. You, therefore, take it upon yourself to credit or discredit the argument as you see fit. Regular folks take this a par for the course. It is, to be honest, a typical "intellectual, nuanced" response that has become a mainstay of left-wing politics over the past 20 years or so. I like you, and I think you are a good guy, so I will beg your pardon if I do not take it seriously. *Quote edited to prove a point*
|
Takeda - we could go back and forth on this all day playing the "well this side always sees the other side like X" game. It won't get us closer to agreement.
The thing is - I don't think its unreasonable to say that 3% of the population is racist enough to consider that as one reason not to vote for Obama. My issue is the basis for the claim is based of incomplete information and makes a number of generalizations that are totally unsupported by the data. To say that race could be a factor for 3-5% is fine - to say that it is THE factor IF Obama losses - by a 3-5% margin is totally off the wall, political and divisive. Given the link between the researcher and the established power on the left, is skepticism and critical thinking somehow uncalled for?
My point was the study appears - to the naked eye - highly political in its intent and usage. We can agree to disagree on it. I am fine with that. But its hardly consistent to call my point of view mental gymnastics when compared to this study.