> If you are claiming it is the people in the study then you are wrong, no such fact was established.
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.
> 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.
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.
> Competency is not established for the individuals involved in the study!
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.
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.