American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

[Duvniask]

So, while you are more or less correct here, your earlier claim was in need of some nuance. They simply did not "literally conquer all of Continental Europe" or "have them as satellites". They relied on support from allies such as Italy and could count on the neutrality of nations that would otherwise have been a thorn in their side; not all of the Continent was unilaterally under the German boot, neither through conquest of satellite-status as you said. Were that really the case, the Germans would have been even more overstretched.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

Germany carried it's allies almost the entire time. Especially Italy.

Ah yes, the glorious Übermensch truly did accomplish everything by themselves. Italy was always a drag on Germany. It is known. This is definitely a nuanced interpretation of history and not internet memes.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So 59% had some sort of prejudice and 52% were downright openly angry and hateful?

no
quite literally the other way around
(and those numbers are for the white population at large, the partisanship looks worse)
for the GOP, 69% openly embrace hateful beliefs about black people, while 72% are "only" racially resentful
for the dems, it's 51% and 33% respectively

So 69% of Republicans think blacks are dumber and more violent than whites, while 72% either are explicitly racist or just resent alleged unfair handouts minorities have gotten? Damn why are these numbers so high? I never realized it had gotten so bad. It's like it got even worse.

[The Reformed American Republic]

no
quite literally the other way around
(and those numbers are for the white population at large, the partisanship looks worse)
for the GOP, 69% openly embrace hateful beliefs about black people, while 72% are "only" racially resentful
for the dems, it's 51% and 33% respectively

So 69% of Republicans think blacks are dumber and more violent than whites, while 72% either are explicitly racist or just resent alleged unfair handouts minorities have gotten? Damn why are these numbers so high? I never realized it had gotten so bad. It's like it got even worse.

Probably because Trump says some garbage and they eat it up. Remember the kneeling athletes and how that suddenly became the biggest issue to the GOP. Oh, and people like Tucker Carlson and their fake populism.

[Kowani]

no
quite literally the other way around
(and those numbers are for the white population at large, the partisanship looks worse)
for the GOP, 69% openly embrace hateful beliefs about black people, while 72% are "only" racially resentful
for the dems, it's 51% and 33% respectively

So 69% of Republicans think blacks are dumber and more violent than whites, while 72% either are explicitly racist or just resent alleged unfair handouts minorities have gotten? Damn why are these numbers so high? I never realized it had gotten so bad. It's like it got even worse.

i did tell you at the beginning "hey it's gotten even worse"

[The Reformed American Republic]

This very well be true, but I will not allow myself to feel explicit shame over this, as I doubt other ethnic groups are inherently more progressive. Other whites shouldn't either.

No one is asking you to apologize for what other people do. If you aren't being racist, you got nothing to hide, and I think you've gone above and beyond the call of duty to prove that you don't have a bigoted bone in your your. I will say there's plenty of racists in every so called race. You don't gotta dig that deep to find them. Matter of fact it's worse than there's large amounts of racists in all ethnicities in America, as opposed to it only be white people.

I just needed to make that clear in case someone gets regressive if you know what I mean. It wasn't targeted at people like you. I worded it poorly, sorry for the confusion.

[Drew Durrnil]

no
quite literally the other way around
(and those numbers are for the white population at large, the partisanship looks worse)
for the GOP, 69% openly embrace hateful beliefs about black people, while 72% are "only" racially resentful
for the dems, it's 51% and 33% respectively

So 69% of Republicans think blacks are dumber and more violent than whites, while 72% either are explicitly racist or just resent alleged unfair handouts minorities have gotten? Damn why are these numbers so high? I never realized it had gotten so bad. It's like it got even worse.

I'm more surprised that more than half of democrats are racist.

[Cannot think of a name]

So 59% had some sort of prejudice and 52% were downright openly angry and hateful?

no
quite literally the other way around
(and those numbers are for the white population at large, the partisanship looks worse)
for the GOP, 69% openly embrace hateful beliefs about black people, while 72% are "only" racially resentful
for the dems, it's 51% and 33% respectively

Goddammit white people. We really need to get our shit together.

[Cannot think of a name]

no
quite literally the other way around
(and those numbers are for the white population at large, the partisanship looks worse)
for the GOP, 69% openly embrace hateful beliefs about black people, while 72% are "only" racially resentful
for the dems, it's 51% and 33% respectively

So 69% of Republicans think blacks are dumber and more violent than whites, while 72% either are explicitly racist or just resent alleged unfair handouts minorities have gotten? Damn why are these numbers so high? I never realized it had gotten so bad. It's like it got even worse.

Curated specific 'news' content that creates a false illusion of consent that then manufactures the feeling. Just wait for someone to come along and proudly tell you he only listens to news catered specifically to his world view as a measure of its authenticity rather than a record for factual reporting.

[Salus Maior]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

Germany carried it's allies almost the entire time. Especially Italy.

Ah yes, the glorious Übermensch truly did accomplish everything by themselves. Italy was always a drag on Germany. It is known. This is definitely a nuanced interpretation of history and not internet memes.

It's not really disputable that the German military outclassed its allies in effectiveness.

I'm not a wehraboo, not even close. But the German military is responsible for the vast majority of Axis gains throughout the war on the European front, and were responsible for capitulating nearly every continental European country that fought them.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So 69% of Republicans think blacks are dumber and more violent than whites, while 72% either are explicitly racist or just resent alleged unfair handouts minorities have gotten? Damn why are these numbers so high? I never realized it had gotten so bad. It's like it got even worse.

i did tell you at the beginning "hey it's gotten even worse"

It's gotten way worse. It was already so bad.

[Kowani]

In Somalia, the US wants civilian airstrike victims to file complaints...via an online portal, despite the existence of a very successful leaflet propaganda campaign

THE LEAFLET DEPICTS an airstrike in progress, with militants scattering as a missile streaks toward the ground.

In the foreground, a fighter in a military uniform, holding an assault rifle, tries to flee. He looks terrified. The caption, printed in Somali, reads: “Life is a gift.”

On the other side, the same man is shown sans weapon and wearing civilian clothes, smiling at a grinning child and a woman with outstretched arms. “Don’t play with this gift,” reads the text.

Another leaflet depicts a fierce-looking hyena menacing a goat above the text: “If a hyena becomes the judge, goats will not get justice.” The other side reads, “Be part of eliminating injustice by reporting al-Shabab movements.”

A third flyer shows five women and a girl standing together in front of the Somali flag. “Our security is our responsibility,” reads the front side. The back asks for information about al-Shabab, a Somali militant group.

The three leaflets, obtained by The Intercept via the Freedom of Information Act, were part of a previously unreported and wildly successful U.S. military program designed to gather intelligence from Somali civilians. The propaganda campaign aimed at weakening al-Shabab was so effective and produced so many defectors, according to U.S. Africa Command spokesperson John Manley, that it overwhelmed Somali authorities and had to be suspended. Manley did not provide the exact dates of the leaflet program prior to publication, but records show that it took place sometime between 2017 and 2020. The success of the leaflets, however, underscores the failures of another system ostensibly designed to engage Somalis: an obscure online portal they can now use to report civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes.

“The flyers make clear that the U.S. government knows how to communicate effectively with Somalis in areas controlled by al Shabaab if it wants to,” Daphne Eviatar, director of the Security With Human Rights program at Amnesty International USA, told The Intercept. “That the U.S. has not created an effective means for Somalis harmed by U.S. military actions to communicate their experiences and needs to the U.S. government suggests that learning about and responding constructively to the impact of U.S. actions is not a high priority for U.S. officials.”

FOR MORE THAN a decade after the U.S. began counterterrorism airstrikes in Somalia, there was no mechanism for locals to report civilian casualties directly to Africa Command. Last June, that changed when AFRICOM finally created a web portal to field allegations. But there was a catch — actually, several.

You need a computer or smartphone as well as internet access to communicate with AFRICOM. But Somalia is the least wired country on Earth, with just 2 percent of people regularly using the internet in 2017, the last year for which such statistics are available, according to the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency. Where al-Shabab holds sway, there is almost no online access as the group has “prohibited companies from providing access to the internet and forced telecommunication companies to shut data services in al-Shabaab-controlled areas,” according to the U.S. State Department.

The command added a feature to its website that allows it to be read in the Somali language, but — in addition to accessing the internet — you need to know the English word “translate” and locate it on the tiny toolbar at the top of the webpage.

The results of the initiative have been predictably underwhelming: AFRICOM has received roughly 70 responses over the last year, only seven of which, according to Manley, were related to civilian casualties. “Six were about one incident we were already assessing, and one was about another incident we were already assessing,” he told The Intercept. “Both incidents were assessed unsubstantiated.”

The complexity of AFRICOM’s online civilian casualty reporting process stands in stark contrast to the simpler mechanism used to turn Somalis into government boosters and informants. In recent years, Special Operations Command Africa, or SOCAFRICA, began producing propaganda leaflets meant to induce members of al-Shabab to defect and encourage Somalis to provide information about militants. All are written in Somali and include local telephone numbers to contact authorities.

“These leaflets were produced by SOCAFRICA to inform populations of tip-lines and influence local populations to use the tip-lines,” Manley told The Intercept.

SOCAFRICA produced four to five versions of eight different leaflets, each microtargeted to specific locales and providing local phone numbers for authorities in the cities of Bosaso, Galkayo, Kismayo, Mogadishu, or Wanlaweyn. Some leaflets even provide a second number for people to call or text for “assistance.”

Assessments by AFRICOM and SOCAFRICA found that the flyers “were very effective, but there were too many people defecting, leading to overcrowding at the defection centers,” according to Manley. “The program was eventually placed on hold by the Government of Somalia until the defection centers were able to manage the large number of defectors.”

Manley told The Intercept that the centers will reopen “once fully approved by the Government of Somalia and the U.S. Embassy.” State Department spokesperson Gregory W. Pfleger declined to comment, adding: “The referral to State must have been a mistake THE U.S. MILITARY rarely conducts site visits during investigations of airstrikes or ground raids, and AFRICOM, says Manley, has never even interviewed the family member of a drone strike victim as part of an inquiry into civilian casualties. The military almost never explains its reasons for eschewing site visits either, but when it has, according to a researchers from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute and the Center for Civilians in Conflict, it “most often cited security threats to U.S. forces and local nationals.”
“Witnesses may refuse to cooperate [with investigations] because they are afraid of retribution,” reads one military guide dealing with the protection of civilians. “Individual U.S. and host-nation sources should be protected from possible retaliation.”

Dangers to civilians do not seem to have been a major concern when SOCAFRICA developed the leaflet program asking people to call in tips that could put them at risk of being outed as snitches. “We’ve heard [from the U.S. military] that communicating with civilians about civilian casualties would expose them to security risks, namely the risk of reprisal by al Shabaab,” said Daniel Mahanty, the head of the U.S. program at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, or CIVIC. “And here we have a program that encourages just that.”

While SOCAFRICA produced 39 leaflets that promote loyalty to the Somali government, encourage members of al-Shabab to leave the group, and urge Somali civilians to inform on militants, they apparently failed to produce even one to ease the reporting of civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes. Somali civilians are, instead, left with a cumbersome online portal that, according to Abdullahi Hassan, the Somalia Researcher at Amnesty International, people living in impacted areas are unlikely to know about, let alone use. Amnesty’s Hassan also sees AFRICOM’s online civilian casualty portal as beneficial but noted that most people impacted by AFRICOM operations in Somalia live in al-Shabab-controlled areas, where the group bans smartphones, making it harder for them to use the internet safely.

“This makes the online reporting portal only useful to a small portion of the Somali population,” Hassan said.

The leaflets, by contrast, “are written in Somali language and contain telephone numbers where members of the public can easily contact authorities to report and share information. This is a clear indication that AFRICOM was, from the onset, less interested in setting up safe and accessible civilian casualty reporting mechanisms for families and victims of their operations in Somalia.”

Hassan suggested several additional steps AFRICOM could take to improve civilian casualty reporting, including a secure, toll-free phone number that allows Somalis to provide allegations of civilian casualties directly to the command, as well as a physical location in a government-controlled area — like the capital, Mogadishu — where reports could be submitted. He also urged AFRICOM and the U.S. embassy in Mogadishu to proactively seek out and collect allegations of civilian harm from members of parliament, clan representatives, and government officials, as well as local human rights groups.

[Kowani]

Conservatives sue to prevent Denver from hosting the All-Star game after it was moved out of Georgia in response to their voter suppression law

A conservative business group is suing Major League Baseball over its decision to move the 2021 All-Star Game to Denver, alleging the league conspired with the players’ union to intimidate the state government of Georgia over a new voting law and to harm Georgia businesses.

The Job Creators Network filed a lawsuit in a New York federal court Monday, asking for Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association to pay $100 million to make up for lost business revenues in Georgia. It also seeks $1 billion in punitive damages for their “unprecedented cruelty and hostility” toward Georgia.


“MLB robbed the small businesses of Atlanta — many of them minority-owned — of $100 million,” Job Creators Network CEO Alfredo Ortiz said in a news release. “We want the game back where it belongs.” The organization supports small businesses, including in Colorado and Georgia, and was started in part by the retired cofounder of Home Depot, which is based in Atlanta.

so
the hearing for this was today
this is Rudy Giuliani Trump election lawsuit bad

greatest quote so far

Judge: "You're arguing that baseball has essentially stepped into the shoes of the Department of Justice and is now imposing a preclearance requirement on the Georgia legislature?"

Kleinhendlern (lawyer for the job creators network): Yes.

Judge: "Well, I certainly didn't understand that to be your argument."

(they lost, by the way)

[Borderlands of Rojava]

In Somalia, the US wants civilian airstrike victims to file complaints...via an online portal, despite the existence of a very successful leaflet propaganda campaign

THE LEAFLET DEPICTS an airstrike in progress, with militants scattering as a missile streaks toward the ground.

In the foreground, a fighter in a military uniform, holding an assault rifle, tries to flee. He looks terrified. The caption, printed in Somali, reads: “Life is a gift.”

On the other side, the same man is shown sans weapon and wearing civilian clothes, smiling at a grinning child and a woman with outstretched arms. “Don’t play with this gift,” reads the text.

Another leaflet depicts a fierce-looking hyena menacing a goat above the text: “If a hyena becomes the judge, goats will not get justice.” The other side reads, “Be part of eliminating injustice by reporting al-Shabab movements.”

A third flyer shows five women and a girl standing together in front of the Somali flag. “Our security is our responsibility,” reads the front side. The back asks for information about al-Shabab, a Somali militant group.

The three leaflets, obtained by The Intercept via the Freedom of Information Act, were part of a previously unreported and wildly successful U.S. military program designed to gather intelligence from Somali civilians. The propaganda campaign aimed at weakening al-Shabab was so effective and produced so many defectors, according to U.S. Africa Command spokesperson John Manley, that it overwhelmed Somali authorities and had to be suspended. Manley did not provide the exact dates of the leaflet program prior to publication, but records show that it took place sometime between 2017 and 2020. The success of the leaflets, however, underscores the failures of another system ostensibly designed to engage Somalis: an obscure online portal they can now use to report civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes.

“The flyers make clear that the U.S. government knows how to communicate effectively with Somalis in areas controlled by al Shabaab if it wants to,” Daphne Eviatar, director of the Security With Human Rights program at Amnesty International USA, told The Intercept. “That the U.S. has not created an effective means for Somalis harmed by U.S. military actions to communicate their experiences and needs to the U.S. government suggests that learning about and responding constructively to the impact of U.S. actions is not a high priority for U.S. officials.”

FOR MORE THAN a decade after the U.S. began counterterrorism airstrikes in Somalia, there was no mechanism for locals to report civilian casualties directly to Africa Command. Last June, that changed when AFRICOM finally created a web portal to field allegations. But there was a catch — actually, several.

You need a computer or smartphone as well as internet access to communicate with AFRICOM. But Somalia is the least wired country on Earth, with just 2 percent of people regularly using the internet in 2017, the last year for which such statistics are available, according to the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency. Where al-Shabab holds sway, there is almost no online access as the group has “prohibited companies from providing access to the internet and forced telecommunication companies to shut data services in al-Shabaab-controlled areas,” according to the U.S. State Department.

The command added a feature to its website that allows it to be read in the Somali language, but — in addition to accessing the internet — you need to know the English word “translate” and locate it on the tiny toolbar at the top of the webpage.

The results of the initiative have been predictably underwhelming: AFRICOM has received roughly 70 responses over the last year, only seven of which, according to Manley, were related to civilian casualties. “Six were about one incident we were already assessing, and one was about another incident we were already assessing,” he told The Intercept. “Both incidents were assessed unsubstantiated.”

The complexity of AFRICOM’s online civilian casualty reporting process stands in stark contrast to the simpler mechanism used to turn Somalis into government boosters and informants. In recent years, Special Operations Command Africa, or SOCAFRICA, began producing propaganda leaflets meant to induce members of al-Shabab to defect and encourage Somalis to provide information about militants. All are written in Somali and include local telephone numbers to contact authorities.

“These leaflets were produced by SOCAFRICA to inform populations of tip-lines and influence local populations to use the tip-lines,” Manley told The Intercept.

SOCAFRICA produced four to five versions of eight different leaflets, each microtargeted to specific locales and providing local phone numbers for authorities in the cities of Bosaso, Galkayo, Kismayo, Mogadishu, or Wanlaweyn. Some leaflets even provide a second number for people to call or text for “assistance.”

Assessments by AFRICOM and SOCAFRICA found that the flyers “were very effective, but there were too many people defecting, leading to overcrowding at the defection centers,” according to Manley. “The program was eventually placed on hold by the Government of Somalia until the defection centers were able to manage the large number of defectors.”

Manley told The Intercept that the centers will reopen “once fully approved by the Government of Somalia and the U.S. Embassy.” State Department spokesperson Gregory W. Pfleger declined to comment, adding: “The referral to State must have been a mistake THE U.S. MILITARY rarely conducts site visits during investigations of airstrikes or ground raids, and AFRICOM, says Manley, has never even interviewed the family member of a drone strike victim as part of an inquiry into civilian casualties. The military almost never explains its reasons for eschewing site visits either, but when it has, according to a researchers from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute and the Center for Civilians in Conflict, it “most often cited security threats to U.S. forces and local nationals.”
“Witnesses may refuse to cooperate [with investigations] because they are afraid of retribution,” reads one military guide dealing with the protection of civilians. “Individual U.S. and host-nation sources should be protected from possible retaliation.”

Dangers to civilians do not seem to have been a major concern when SOCAFRICA developed the leaflet program asking people to call in tips that could put them at risk of being outed as snitches. “We’ve heard [from the U.S. military] that communicating with civilians about civilian casualties would expose them to security risks, namely the risk of reprisal by al Shabaab,” said Daniel Mahanty, the head of the U.S. program at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, or CIVIC. “And here we have a program that encourages just that.”

While SOCAFRICA produced 39 leaflets that promote loyalty to the Somali government, encourage members of al-Shabab to leave the group, and urge Somali civilians to inform on militants, they apparently failed to produce even one to ease the reporting of civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes. Somali civilians are, instead, left with a cumbersome online portal that, according to Abdullahi Hassan, the Somalia Researcher at Amnesty International, people living in impacted areas are unlikely to know about, let alone use. Amnesty’s Hassan also sees AFRICOM’s online civilian casualty portal as beneficial but noted that most people impacted by AFRICOM operations in Somalia live in al-Shabab-controlled areas, where the group bans smartphones, making it harder for them to use the internet safely.

“This makes the online reporting portal only useful to a small portion of the Somali population,” Hassan said.

The leaflets, by contrast, “are written in Somali language and contain telephone numbers where members of the public can easily contact authorities to report and share information. This is a clear indication that AFRICOM was, from the onset, less interested in setting up safe and accessible civilian casualty reporting mechanisms for families and victims of their operations in Somalia.”

Hassan suggested several additional steps AFRICOM could take to improve civilian casualty reporting, including a secure, toll-free phone number that allows Somalis to provide allegations of civilian casualties directly to the command, as well as a physical location in a government-controlled area — like the capital, Mogadishu — where reports could be submitted. He also urged AFRICOM and the U.S. embassy in Mogadishu to proactively seek out and collect allegations of civilian harm from members of parliament, clan representatives, and government officials, as well as local human rights groups.

Look at the American war machine trying to act like they're not bad guys just like Al Shabab.

[Gravlen]

You made me remember that there is a story where the moon is actually a dragon egg, which hatches, and I can't remember anything more than that.

Anyway, Louie Gohmert's head looks like it could crack open.

Isn't that an episode of New Doctor Who? Like, Tennant I want to say?

I had to look it up, and Doctor Who has such an episode - with Peter Capaldi. I'm unsure if that's the thing I was thinking of though... But in the episode Kill The Moon, it does hatch into something like a dragon.

[The Emerald Legion]

i did tell you at the beginning "hey it's gotten even worse"

It's gotten way worse. It was already so bad.

It's almost like it's a hack study by idiots.

[San Lumen]

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/congres ... l-rcna1170

Congress votes to make Pulse Nightclub a national memorial. Biden is expected to sign it into law.

Five years ago 49 people were killed in what was then the worst mass shooting in US history.

[Cannot think of a name]

It's gotten way worse. It was already so bad.

It's almost like it's a hack study by idiots.

I'm sure this will be thoughtful and thorough...

[The Emerald Legion]

It's almost like it's a hack study by idiots.

I'm sure this will be thoughtful and thorough...

The study basically comes down to "Do you believe that black people are more or less X." on several different traits and if you come out net negative, you're a virulent hateful racist. No context. No explanation. Then for resentment it's basically 'Do you agree with modern leftists about race?" if not, you're racially resentful.

You can look up the authors twitter and he explains his methods. They're stupid.

[Kowani]

I'm sure this will be thoughtful and thorough...

The study basically comes down to "Do you believe that black people are more or less X." on several different traits and if you come out net negative, you're a virulent hateful racist. No context. No explanation.

as it turns out, the person endorsing the beliefs that black people are less trustworthy, less intelligent, less hard-working, or more violent...yeah that's called racism
especially since the effects of holding those beliefs were confirmed as having an empirical effect on your chance of discriminating in an interpersonal interaction within this very study, this is an extremely dumb point

Then for resentment it's basically 'Do you agree with modern leftists about race?" if not, you're racially resentful.

You can look up the authors twitter and he explains his methods. They're stupid.

this is the same stupid shit conservatives continue to use against RR as a valid measurement of prejudice
this argument has been made for years now, despite the fact that all the evidence points to the idea that it's bullshit
for the clearest explanation, examine this with an issue that isn't racialized (at least not in a negative way), and where traditional conservative ideology gives no reason to oppose it: the paying of college athletes.

Two features of the “pay for play” issue make it an attractive case for disentangling the complicated relationship between the racial prejudice and the ideological conservatism components of racial resentment. First, due to the fact that financial compensation for college athletes is dictated by a private, nongovernmental entity—the NCAA—attitudes toward the federal government should not be activated in the minds of survey respondents. Second, because increased financial compensation from the NCAA benefits college athletes—a group that is seen to be hard working, dedicated, and highly skilled (Branch 2011; Nocera and Strauss 2016)-attitudes toward government redistributive policies should also not be activated. In short, although NCAA compensation policies are similar to welfare, health care, and criminal justice in
their implicitly racialized character, they are unlikely to activate the same confounds associated with the conservative component of racial resentment

The conservative objections that it's just a measure of ideology don't stand up to scrutiny.

The results from our March 2016 MTurk experiment are presented in Table 3 and in Figure 2. As Figure 2
shows, the interaction between racial resentment and exposure to racial cues had a substantively large impact on white’s NCAA policy opinions. The least racially resentful whites in our “mixed faces” condition, for example, were generally supportive of paying college athletes—with a predicted score on the NCAA salary question of .38. By contrast, the most racially resentful opposed to changing the NCAA’s current compensation policies—with a predicted score greater than .85. Increases in racial resentment mattered much less, however, for white respondents in our “all white faces” condition. Specifically, the most racially resentful whites exposed to pictures of only white athletes were predicted to be, on average, only .20 more opposed to paying college athletes than the least racially resentful whites exposed to these images. As Figure 2 also demonstrates, the differences between similarly resentful whites in our two experimental conditions were statistically significant at high levels of racial resentment (i.e., those scoring higher than .6 on our 0 to 1 index of racial resentment)
but not at low levels of racial resentment (i.e., racial resentment index scores less than .6). In other words, our March 2016 MTurk experiment shows strong support for the expectations articulated in H3. (H3: Increases in racial resentment will lead whites to express greater opposition to paying college athletes only when they are primed to think about African Americans.)

The pattern even held with names:

The findings from our April 2016 MTurk experiment closely mirrored the findings from our March 2016 MTurk experiment. Once again, there were substantively large differences between the white respondents primed to think about race based on their level of racial resentment. As Table 4 and Figure 3 show, the most racially resentful whites in our “black names” condition were predicted to be, on average, .47 less supportive of paying college athletes than the least racially resentful whites in the “black names” condition. As Figure 3 also shows, there were significant differences between similarly racially resentful whites based on the treatment condition they were assigned to. Specifically, racially resentful whites (i.e., those scoring higher than .6 on our 0 to 1 index) in the “black names” condition of our April 2016 experiment were .22 less supportive of paying college athletes than similarly resentful whites in the “all white names” condition. At low levels of racial resentment, no such treatment effect emerged. To put all of this differently, we found further support for H3 in the April 2016 MTurk experiment, and there appears to be little difference between priming race by using pictures and priming race by using names.

[The Emerald Legion]

The study basically comes down to "Do you believe that black people are more or less X." on several different traits and if you come out net negative, you're a virulent hateful racist. No context. No explanation.

as it turns out, the person endorsing the beliefs that black people are less trustworthy, less intelligent, less hard-working, or more violent...yeah that's called racism
especially since the effects of holding those beliefs were confirmed as having an empirical effect on your chance of discriminating in an interpersonal interaction within this very study, this is an extremely dumb point

Then for resentment it's basically 'Do you agree with modern leftists about race?" if not, you're racially resentful.

You can look up the authors twitter and he explains his methods. They're stupid.

this is the same stupid shit conservatives continue to use against RR as a valid measurement of prejudice
this argument has been made for years now, despite the fact that all the evidence points to the idea that it's bullshit
for the clearest explanation, examine this with an issue that isn't racialized (at least not in a negative way), and where traditional conservative ideology gives no reason to oppose it: the paying of college athletes.

Two features of the “pay for play” issue make it an attractive case for disentangling the complicated relationship between the racial prejudice and the ideological conservatism components of racial resentment. First, due to the fact that financial compensation for college athletes is dictated by a private, nongovernmental entity—the NCAA—attitudes toward the federal government should not be activated in the minds of survey respondents. Second, because increased financial compensation from the NCAA benefits college athletes—a group that is seen to be hard working, dedicated, and highly skilled (Branch 2011; Nocera and Strauss 2016)-attitudes toward government redistributive policies should also not be activated. In short, although NCAA compensation policies are similar to welfare, health care, and criminal justice in
their implicitly racialized character, they are unlikely to activate the same confounds associated with the conservative component of racial resentment

The conservative objections that it's just a measure of ideology don't stand up to scrutiny.

The results from our March 2016 MTurk experiment are presented in Table 3 and in Figure 2. As Figure 2
shows, the interaction between racial resentment and exposure to racial cues had a substantively large impact on white’s NCAA policy opinions. The least racially resentful whites in our “mixed faces” condition, for example, were generally supportive of paying college athletes—with a predicted score on the NCAA salary question of .38. By contrast, the most racially resentful opposed to changing the NCAA’s current compensation policies—with a predicted score greater than .85. Increases in racial resentment mattered much less, however, for white respondents in our “all white faces” condition. Specifically, the most racially resentful whites exposed to pictures of only white athletes were predicted to be, on average, only .20 more opposed to paying college athletes than the least racially resentful whites exposed to these images. As Figure 2 also demonstrates, the differences between similarly resentful whites in our two experimental conditions were statistically significant at high levels of racial resentment (i.e., those scoring higher than .6 on our 0 to 1 index of racial resentment)
but not at low levels of racial resentment (i.e., racial resentment index scores less than .6). In other words, our March 2016 MTurk experiment shows strong support for the expectations articulated in H3. (H3: Increases in racial resentment will lead whites to express greater opposition to paying college athletes only when they are primed to think about African Americans.)

The pattern even held with names:

The findings from our April 2016 MTurk experiment closely mirrored the findings from our March 2016 MTurk experiment. Once again, there were substantively large differences between the white respondents primed to think about race based on their level of racial resentment. As Table 4 and Figure 3 show, the most racially resentful whites in our “black names” condition were predicted to be, on average, .47 less supportive of paying college athletes than the least racially resentful whites in the “black names” condition. As Figure 3 also shows, there were significant differences between similarly racially resentful whites based on the treatment condition they were assigned to. Specifically, racially resentful whites (i.e., those scoring higher than .6 on our 0 to 1 index) in the “black names” condition of our April 2016 experiment were .22 less supportive of paying college athletes than similarly resentful whites in the “all white names” condition. At low levels of racial resentment, no such treatment effect emerged. To put all of this differently, we found further support for H3 in the April 2016 MTurk experiment, and there appears to be little difference between priming race by using pictures and priming race by using names.

You mean the 'evidence' that is leftists continual destruction of our academia in their quest to hamfist their beliefs into scientific canon? Yeah, I wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

[The Black Forrest]

as it turns out, the person endorsing the beliefs that black people are less trustworthy, less intelligent, less hard-working, or more violent...yeah that's called racism
especially since the effects of holding those beliefs were confirmed as having an empirical effect on your chance of discriminating in an interpersonal interaction within this very study, this is an extremely dumb point

this is the same stupid shit conservatives continue to use against RR as a valid measurement of prejudice
this argument has been made for years now, despite the fact that all the evidence points to the idea that it's bullshit
for the clearest explanation, examine this with an issue that isn't racialized (at least not in a negative way), and where traditional conservative ideology gives no reason to oppose it: the paying of college athletes.

Two features of the “pay for play” issue make it an attractive case for disentangling the complicated relationship between the racial prejudice and the ideological conservatism components of racial resentment. First, due to the fact that financial compensation for college athletes is dictated by a private, nongovernmental entity—the NCAA—attitudes toward the federal government should not be activated in the minds of survey respondents. Second, because increased financial compensation from the NCAA benefits college athletes—a group that is seen to be hard working, dedicated, and highly skilled (Branch 2011; Nocera and Strauss 2016)-attitudes toward government redistributive policies should also not be activated. In short, although NCAA compensation policies are similar to welfare, health care, and criminal justice in
their implicitly racialized character, they are unlikely to activate the same confounds associated with the conservative component of racial resentment

The conservative objections that it's just a measure of ideology don't stand up to scrutiny.

The results from our March 2016 MTurk experiment are presented in Table 3 and in Figure 2. As Figure 2
shows, the interaction between racial resentment and exposure to racial cues had a substantively large impact on white’s NCAA policy opinions. The least racially resentful whites in our “mixed faces” condition, for example, were generally supportive of paying college athletes—with a predicted score on the NCAA salary question of .38. By contrast, the most racially resentful opposed to changing the NCAA’s current compensation policies—with a predicted score greater than .85. Increases in racial resentment mattered much less, however, for white respondents in our “all white faces” condition. Specifically, the most racially resentful whites exposed to pictures of only white athletes were predicted to be, on average, only .20 more opposed to paying college athletes than the least racially resentful whites exposed to these images. As Figure 2 also demonstrates, the differences between similarly resentful whites in our two experimental conditions were statistically significant at high levels of racial resentment (i.e., those scoring higher than .6 on our 0 to 1 index of racial resentment)
but not at low levels of racial resentment (i.e., racial resentment index scores less than .6). In other words, our March 2016 MTurk experiment shows strong support for the expectations articulated in H3. (H3: Increases in racial resentment will lead whites to express greater opposition to paying college athletes only when they are primed to think about African Americans.)

The pattern even held with names:

The findings from our April 2016 MTurk experiment closely mirrored the findings from our March 2016 MTurk experiment. Once again, there were substantively large differences between the white respondents primed to think about race based on their level of racial resentment. As Table 4 and Figure 3 show, the most racially resentful whites in our “black names” condition were predicted to be, on average, .47 less supportive of paying college athletes than the least racially resentful whites in the “black names” condition. As Figure 3 also shows, there were significant differences between similarly racially resentful whites based on the treatment condition they were assigned to. Specifically, racially resentful whites (i.e., those scoring higher than .6 on our 0 to 1 index) in the “black names” condition of our April 2016 experiment were .22 less supportive of paying college athletes than similarly resentful whites in the “all white names” condition. At low levels of racial resentment, no such treatment effect emerged. To put all of this differently, we found further support for H3 in the April 2016 MTurk experiment, and there appears to be little difference between priming race by using pictures and priming race by using names.

You mean the 'evidence' that is leftists continual destruction of our academia in their quest to hamfist their beliefs into scientific canon? Yeah, I wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

Did you read anything?

[Kowani]

lmao
same thing as always
why do things like "research" or "self-examination" when you can just call inconvenient facts part of some ongoing conspiracy
there are methodological critiques to be made of racial resentment and its place in the academy but "it just measures ideology " is not one that's taken seriously

[Cannot think of a name]

as it turns out, the person endorsing the beliefs that black people are less trustworthy, less intelligent, less hard-working, or more violent...yeah that's called racism
especially since the effects of holding those beliefs were confirmed as having an empirical effect on your chance of discriminating in an interpersonal interaction within this very study, this is an extremely dumb point

this is the same stupid shit conservatives continue to use against RR as a valid measurement of prejudice
this argument has been made for years now, despite the fact that all the evidence points to the idea that it's bullshit
for the clearest explanation, examine this with an issue that isn't racialized (at least not in a negative way), and where traditional conservative ideology gives no reason to oppose it: the paying of college athletes.

Two features of the “pay for play” issue make it an attractive case for disentangling the complicated relationship between the racial prejudice and the ideological conservatism components of racial resentment. First, due to the fact that financial compensation for college athletes is dictated by a private, nongovernmental entity—the NCAA—attitudes toward the federal government should not be activated in the minds of survey respondents. Second, because increased financial compensation from the NCAA benefits college athletes—a group that is seen to be hard working, dedicated, and highly skilled (Branch 2011; Nocera and Strauss 2016)-attitudes toward government redistributive policies should also not be activated. In short, although NCAA compensation policies are similar to welfare, health care, and criminal justice in
their implicitly racialized character, they are unlikely to activate the same confounds associated with the conservative component of racial resentment

The conservative objections that it's just a measure of ideology don't stand up to scrutiny.

The results from our March 2016 MTurk experiment are presented in Table 3 and in Figure 2. As Figure 2
shows, the interaction between racial resentment and exposure to racial cues had a substantively large impact on white’s NCAA policy opinions. The least racially resentful whites in our “mixed faces” condition, for example, were generally supportive of paying college athletes—with a predicted score on the NCAA salary question of .38. By contrast, the most racially resentful opposed to changing the NCAA’s current compensation policies—with a predicted score greater than .85. Increases in racial resentment mattered much less, however, for white respondents in our “all white faces” condition. Specifically, the most racially resentful whites exposed to pictures of only white athletes were predicted to be, on average, only .20 more opposed to paying college athletes than the least racially resentful whites exposed to these images. As Figure 2 also demonstrates, the differences between similarly resentful whites in our two experimental conditions were statistically significant at high levels of racial resentment (i.e., those scoring higher than .6 on our 0 to 1 index of racial resentment)
but not at low levels of racial resentment (i.e., racial resentment index scores less than .6). In other words, our March 2016 MTurk experiment shows strong support for the expectations articulated in H3. (H3: Increases in racial resentment will lead whites to express greater opposition to paying college athletes only when they are primed to think about African Americans.)

The pattern even held with names:

The findings from our April 2016 MTurk experiment closely mirrored the findings from our March 2016 MTurk experiment. Once again, there were substantively large differences between the white respondents primed to think about race based on their level of racial resentment. As Table 4 and Figure 3 show, the most racially resentful whites in our “black names” condition were predicted to be, on average, .47 less supportive of paying college athletes than the least racially resentful whites in the “black names” condition. As Figure 3 also shows, there were significant differences between similarly racially resentful whites based on the treatment condition they were assigned to. Specifically, racially resentful whites (i.e., those scoring higher than .6 on our 0 to 1 index) in the “black names” condition of our April 2016 experiment were .22 less supportive of paying college athletes than similarly resentful whites in the “all white names” condition. At low levels of racial resentment, no such treatment effect emerged. To put all of this differently, we found further support for H3 in the April 2016 MTurk experiment, and there appears to be little difference between priming race by using pictures and priming race by using names.

You mean the 'evidence' that is leftists continual destruction of our academia in their quest to hamfist their beliefs into scientific canon? Yeah, I wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

Yeah, there's the "nuh-uh" I was expecting.

[Shrillland]

Another day, another ballot measure.

New York: Amendment number five would increase the jurisdiction of the NYC Civil Court. It would now be able to preside over lawsuits up to $50,000, double the current jurisdictional limit of $25,000.

[Postauthoritarian America]

Peaceful protests aren't disturbances. What happened at Lafayette Square was uncalled for and authoritarian.

Uncalled for maybe, the report would suggest otherwise that it was authoritarian. According to the report, the clearing of the square was warranted to install fencing, it was DCPD that launched the tear gas who was not coordinating with Park Police, even though it was Park Police's jurisdiction. More than anything the report suggests it was the result of incompetent coordination between services, not jackbooting.


Also, once again, what you try to pass off as peaceful protests were, in fact, not:

"The IG investigation took no position on whether the Park Police made a good decision by deciding to clear the park — only that the decision was lawful and consistent with policy.

The report says protests on May 30 and 31 "were mostly peaceful during the day," but that "acts of violence increased in the late afternoon and evenings," and that "officers reported that some protesters threw projectiles, such as bricks, rocks, caustic liquids, frozen water bottles, glass bottles, lit flares, rental scooters, and fireworks, at law enforcement officials."

A total of 49 Park Police officers were injured during the protests from May 29 to May 31, including one who underwent surgery, the report says.

Historic statues in Lafayette Square, were vandalized with graffiti, and on May 31, the park's comfort station was set on fire, the report says. A fire was also set in the basement at St. John's Church on May 31, and nearby stores and businesses were looted, the report adds."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... s-n1270126

Firstly, let's see the whole report including the redactions. Secondly, even unredacted it is a tissue of lies. No one talked to Barr, no one talked to anyone other than the cops on the ground, no one even tried to find out what the White House's involvement in the whole business was, the IG is a Trump appointee and the investigation and its scope were set during the Trump administration. It's like taking Al Capone's accountant's word that he filed his taxes correctly.

We all saw what happened in Lafayette Square. A brutal, unwarranted, authoritarian attack on peaceful protesters so that Trump could stand in front of a church where he was neither invited nor wanted and be photographed holding a Bible upside down as if it were a soiled diaper accompanied by members of his Cabinet and his feckless daughter.

Please stop lying.