Indeed.
So do you now understand that your original claim is unsupported by the stat that you posted it with?
What about a racist person who isn't aware of his or her bigotry, who truly thinks he or she isn't racist?
Exactly. Therefore America is among the nations that either (A) tolerate very little racism or (B) have a significant number of racists below the surface. It could be both, however.
I'm saying that people sometimes lie to people giving surveys, an ironclad fact that I imagine you would not attempt to dispute. Someone's racism does not depend on how they answer a survey question as remember, the point is precisely the opposite. They are racist or not entirely on their own, the only question is if the survey instrument being used is effective at measuring it.
Or maybe saying it carries less of a stigma [in France].
Again, I already spelled out why researchers go about this differently in order to minimize this tendency to lie about racism but you deleted that part of my post and refused to answer. Why did you do that, other than not having an answer?
Indeed.
So do you now understand that your original claim is unsupported by the stat that you posted it with?
You say that, but then you say this:
You don't think that by itself is reflective of racist tendencies in a country?
I didn't answer it because it involved getting into the weeds. I'm not arguing about conservatives tendencies regarding racism - I'm arguing that the US as a whole is one of the least racist countries in the world, and that the survey used in this case, while imperfect, paints a general picture based not just on survey responses, but, as you say, how much racist expression is stigmatized in any particular country.
Well, what about them? You didn't include that category.
Well, which is more likely? A or B?
No, because people are either racist or not racist. If anything it would be refreshing honesty if Americans could own up to it, no?
And I am telling you that you could not even remotely come to that conclusion from the data you presented - the article you cited says as much.
The article said "the survey question is a way of judging racial tolerance but, like many social science metrics, is indirect and imperfect."
It seems to me that the question illuminates racism among countries regardless of an honest answer. If, to the question "Would you tolerate a neighbor of a different race," a respondent honestly answers Yes, then we can conclude he or she is not racist. If he or she dishonestly answers Yes, then we can conclude that the society stigmatizes open expressions of racism (assuming we're dealing with a rational person).
A yes answer, therefore, gives some indication of racial tolerance in a society irrespective of its honesty.
Is that not a reasonable conclusion?
I agree it's an interesting finding that does provide some sort of indication as to how a country views racial intolerance. I think you are taking that conclusion several steps too far from the available data though.
The article said "the survey question is a way of judging racial tolerance but, like many social science metrics, is indirect and imperfect."
It seems to me that the question illuminates racism among countries regardless of an honest answer. If, to the question "Would you tolerate a neighbor of a different race," a respondent honestly answers Yes, then we can conclude he or she is not racist. If he or she dishonestly answers Yes, then we can conclude that the society stigmatizes open expressions of racism (assuming we're dealing with a rational person).
A yes answer, therefore, gives some indication of racial tolerance in a society irrespective of its honesty.
Is that not a reasonable conclusion?
No, because people are either racist or not racist. If anything it would be refreshing honesty if Americans could own up to it, no?
And I am telling you that you could not even remotely come to that conclusion from the data you presented - the article you cited says as much.
I would tend to disagree with the binary you have going on there. Sliding scales may be more appropriate.
I will say that humans are extremely tribal by nature and race may or may not be a factor in each person's tribalism. If you look to the Middle East, you have humans who have a shared ethnic and cultural heritage. These humans (who would be indistinguishable to an average Westerner) are willing to genocide the shit out of each other based on a hairs difference between themselves.
This seems a path that America could go down. I don't think America has been this tribalistic in my lifetime. There is an apparent and genuine hatred growing on the both the right and the left. Along with this hatred is a Mount Everest of righteous indignation and a complete dehumanization of the opposing side. All we really need now is an economic collapse to ignite violence. At least this is the perception I have gleaned from the media I have seen as of late. Hopefully this is just a reflection of my poor grasp on reality.
You clearly didn't read the account of what happened with the bathroom codes in LA.
But go ahead keep justifying giving the codes only to white non-paying customers.
The 26-year-old asked if Weston bought anything, and was told he hadn't but was just about to go to the counter and get food.
I would tend to disagree with the binary you have going on there. Sliding scales may be more appropriate.
I will say that humans are extremely tribal by nature and race may or may not be a factor in each person's tribalism. If you look to the Middle East, you have humans who have a shared ethnic and cultural heritage. These humans (who would be indistinguishable to an average Westerner) are willing to genocide the shit out of each other based on a hairs difference between themselves.
This seems a path that America could go down. I don't think America has been this tribalistic in my lifetime. There is an apparent and genuine hatred growing on the both the right and the left. Along with this hatred is a Mount Everest of righteous indignation and a complete dehumanization of the opposing side. All we really need now is an economic collapse to ignite violence. At least this is the perception I have gleaned from the media I have seen as of late. Hopefully this is just a reflection of my poor grasp on reality.
Какая погода, как в Санкт-Петербурге сегодня?
I will say that humans are extremely tribal by nature and race may or may not be a factor in each person's tribalism. If you look to the Middle East, you have humans who have a shared ethnic and cultural heritage. These humans (who would be indistinguishable to an average Westerner) are willing to genocide the shit out of each other based on a hairs difference between themselves.
I am afraid this is where your lack of knowledge of the world as an average American comes into it. The people in middle east do not have a shared ethnic or cultural heritage. White America, because it lacks history, Americans tend to think just because they look the same they are kind of same.
Every region of the world has a complicated, often painful history. India for example has deep rooted divisions going back ages. In case of America, the painful history is the genocide of natives. But when it comes to white America, there is literally no history. A few hundreds years is nothing, zilch.
I am sure the ceo will be really happy once he find out all the bum start hanging out inside starbuck and unable to kick them out
For anyone who might still think that this wasn't racially motivated, the call was apparently made to the police 2 minutes - yes - 2 whole minutes after the 2 men arrived at Starbucks.
"According to the call (and also surveillance tape) Nelson and Robinson arrived at approximately 4:35 PM—the 911 call was placed at exactly 4:37PM. That means that the manager only waited two whole minutes before she called the police on the two black men who were simply waiting to have a business meeting. TWO MINUTES?! In the call the manager says, 'I have two gentlemen at my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave.'''
https://blackamericaweb.com/2018/04...911-call-reveals-cops-called-after-2-minutes/
I have it on good authority that this happens all the time everywhere to every white person so this isn’t racism. I know racism to because I drove through the south one time.
Did I miss anything?
Ooh good one.Bringing up racism makes you a racist.
It’s not always clear whether sitting in a Starbucks or using a Starbucks restroom without purchasing any items is allowed. A company spokesperson said Starbucks does not have a broad policy prohibiting people from using restrooms or sitting inside for free, allowing individual stores to set their own rules. Populations density plays a part too — it’s a little easier for people to wait unnoticed inside a more crowded Starbucks in a place like New York City without paying and than it is in sparser locations where policies can be enforced more strictly.
The Philadelphia Starbucks store where the arrest occurred has a rule in place that customers can only use restrooms if they purchase something. Such rules would allow Starbucks to ask people to leave — under federal law, businesses like Starbucks can refuse service for reasons other than discrimination. But they can only protect a company to a point, according to Virginia-based attorney Matthew Kreitzer.
“It was certainly a reckless move on their part,” Kreitzer tells TIME in reference to the Starbucks store manager who called the police. “Even if they did not have a discriminatory motive, you’re still going to open yourself up to liability when you do things like that.”
Kreitzer says simply having a store policy that prohibits people from loitering or using the bathroom is useless if that rule is not applied on a consistent basis. For example, if a store is using its policy against only black customers but not applying it to white ones, that’s a basis for a discrimination case.
“If they’re targeting people and just using the rule as a scapegoat they’re still in trouble,” he says.