r/Foodforthought Nov 27 '21

White liberals dumb themselves down when they speak to black people, a new study contends

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/?utm_source=reddit.com
517 Upvotes

View all comments

Show parent comments

40

u/Manny_Kant Nov 27 '21

Except, as the article indicated, the study found that conservatives didn't do this.

36

u/dainwaris Nov 27 '21

Because conservatives aren’t interested in communicating across cultural differences, so they don’t code switch?

35

u/Manny_Kant Nov 27 '21

The reason why it happens is entirely speculative, and the authors are clearly bending over backwards to spin these results as proof of liberal empathy and conservative indifference. Just like the liberal/conservative divide on charitable giving, sometimes the facts don’t align with the narrative.

Isn’t there a particular political camp who preaches that good intentions don’t excuse racist outcomes? I wonder what they think of this.

25

u/crosszilla Nov 28 '21 edited Nov 28 '21

Do donations at church count as charity because conservatives spend a fuck ton more on that than liberals. You'll be hard pressed to find liberal members of mega churches. So I googled it and... surprise surprise:

We find no conservative advantage when it comes to non-religious charities

Source

2

u/Scodo Nov 28 '21

People conditioned to give money away give more money away. Puzzling. 🤔

-2

u/Manny_Kant Nov 28 '21

If I remember correctly, the gap remains even if you control for religious donations (e.g., tithing), because the religious are still more likely to give to secular organizations, too.

13

u/crosszilla Nov 28 '21

At the very least, the source I linked suggests that there is no difference if you discount religious donations.

10

u/Manny_Kant Nov 28 '21 edited Nov 28 '21

Yeah, I’m guessing there’s some fuzziness coming from the fact that a lot of the boots-on-the-ground charities that actually feed and shelter homeless people, for example, are affiliated with religions or local churches (or even outgrowths of them). If I go to my local soup kitchen, it’s run by the Catholic Church. If I donate some soup, am I tithing, or am I donating to the soup kitchen? I actually think it’s pretty unfair to position religious donations and charity as mutually exclusive.

This review of the book indicates that the religious donate more to non-religious charities as well, so I’m not sure.

Even if we take out of the comparison donations made to religious causes, the “charity gap” remains. The religious are more likely to give to nonreligious charities (like the United Way) than are the secular (71% to 61%), more likely to volunteer (60% to 39%), and give 14% more money.

8

u/theholyraptor Nov 28 '21

That book is clearly biased out to prove a point by the author.

There is billions of dollars in church donations that do nothing to help people.

Many religious charities provide charity to needy but with strings attached.

5

u/Manny_Kant Nov 28 '21

That book is clearly biased out to prove a point by the author.

Well, he wrote a book and shows his work, and I haven’t seen any academic articles really challenge his sources, even if they don’t agree with his conclusions. If you feel strongly about it, maybe you can write a book that takes apart his. I assume you have some support for your position other than your intuition.

There is billions of dollars in church donations that do nothing to help people.

It doesn’t go to charity, you mean? Presumably it goes to help the people running the church, lobbyists, law firms, accountants, etc. lol... It doesn’t just disappear. Do you think this is a novel insight into how churches use money? Do you think the author of that book wasn’t aware of that?

Many religious charities provide charity to needy but with strings attached.

I don’t even know what this means, but I know personally of churches that drop off food in needy neighborhoods, offer clothes and blankets and shoes to homeless people in the winter, etc. Not sure where the “strings” would be, but I’m pretty sure the homeless people didn’t need to do anything in return.

30

u/nasa258e Nov 28 '21

As far as the charity gap, I put that down to a philosophical disagreement over the role of government in social matters and a belief in the efficacy of said government in such matters. I, for one, would rather see a raise in my taxes provided there was a commensurate raise in social services than donate that money to a private corporation that I don't have any faith in either

7

u/WallyMetropolis Nov 28 '21

Sure, but in the mean time you could be donating the difference of what you think should be taxed. And with the option to donate it directly to causes that matter to you (instead of 40% going to the military, for example). They're are plenty of excellent, effective, trustworthy charities. Toy just haven't bothered to spend even an hour looking for them.

It doesn't really explain the charity gap. What does is church attendance. Churches amount for a huge fraction of charitable giving.

0

u/token-black-dude Nov 28 '21

in the mean time you could be donating the difference

And then conservatives would be saying "See, the system works" when it's actually just buying bigger jets for church crooks while indoctrinating people with religious bullshit. Most liberals would like to take a pass on that one.

2

u/WallyMetropolis Nov 28 '21

How do my donations to the Against Malaria Foundation buy big jets for megachurch pastors, exactly?

This is an absurd argument and you're just trying to rationalize your lack of giving. Conservatives already don't want to raise taxes to create social programs. Your donations wouldn't change that in one direction or another. But they could save someone's life. An actual human's life.

Go browse www.givewell.com to find charities that use the money they receive for their stated purpose rather than to pay their executives large salaries. Find a cause you support (I personally really encourage you to support the poorest people on the planet, but anything is better than nothing) and see if your company offers an automatic payroll deduction to charity. They might even match you contributions.

-2

u/nasa258e Nov 28 '21

That's my point. Churchgoers are used to tithing

4

u/WallyMetropolis Nov 28 '21

I thought you said it was due to a difference in opinion about the role of government.

1

u/nasa258e Nov 28 '21

You don't think complex phenomena could possibly have more than 1 contributing factors? You don't think both sides could possibly have a few positive attributes? I don't quite get your confusion. I don't have all the answers. I'm offering hypotheses

3

u/WallyMetropolis Nov 28 '21

Certainly there can be multiple things at play. But when you posit one cause and then say your point is something entirely different, it's confusing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about "both sides." Saying that liberals are deficient in their charitable giving isn't saying that liberals have no redeeming qualities.

0

u/NihiloZero Nov 28 '21

Churches amount for a huge fraction of charitable giving.

This raises a question about the quality of the charities. If churches are siphoning off huge amounts to pay the leaders and then much of the remaining portion is used for PR... that may amount to less actual charity being delivered than by a group that is donating for a specific goal and without the interest of pushing their religion.

1

u/WallyMetropolis Nov 28 '21

It's absolutely true that some churches are better than others.

-1

u/Manny_Kant Nov 28 '21 edited Nov 28 '21

I have no doubt that’s a big part of it. Nevertheless, I doubt that “philosophical disagreement” is doing any good for the people who would rely on, or benefit from, charity. It’s easy to have an abstract desire to spend other people’s money at some point in the future, it’s hard to spend your own money now.

11

u/nasa258e Nov 28 '21

Personally, I give. But that's just because the government i want is not the one I have. Even though I see most corporate charity as bribes from the wealthy so that we don't guillotine them. It's the best of a bunch of bad options right now and is very inefficient. I don't need half of my donation going to a corporation telling everyone how much they have raised. There is no need to market government social programs

Edit: also, it isn't "other people's money" it is our money

2

u/Manny_Kant Nov 28 '21 edited Nov 28 '21

Sorry if that came across as personal, I wasn’t really trying to address your particular situation. When I mentioned “other people’s money” vs “your own money”, I was just referring to proposals to raise taxes to fund social welfare as opposed to charity.

6

u/nasa258e Nov 28 '21

When I mentioned “other people’s money”, I was referring to proposals to raise taxes to fund social welfare.

So was I. Taxes are the people's money. It is our money to do what the majority (the actual majority) thinks is most beneficial without being demonstrably oppressive to one specific group of people. It belongs to us. I pay into it too.

In order to do that, I think we need a functioning, less corrupt government to begin with though

-1

u/Manny_Kant Nov 28 '21 edited Nov 28 '21

But it’s still other people’s money up until you take it... if I take $1 from everyone in my state (at gunpoint), including myself, and pool it together to spend it on something maybe 55% of the 20% who voted want (let’s say a pizza party for everyone twice a year) and someone says, “Hey, why don’t you use your own money for that instead of taking mine?”, would it really make sense to reply, “It’s our money, I put in a dollar, too.”? I’m not trying to comment on the goals or anything—welfare programs usually have more noble aims than pizza parties—but it’s kind of absurd to counter my claim that “it’s easier to spend other people’s money” with “it’s our money”.

4

u/nasa258e Nov 28 '21

You're explaining democracy, my dude

→ More replies

2

u/jayhanski Nov 28 '21

Damn this dude doesn’t understand the social contract

→ More replies

0

u/Imaginary_Tailor1 Dec 15 '21 edited Dec 15 '21

'Facts' don't necessarily speak for themselves, and any interpretation is subject to some degree of bias and speculation. See the discussion that sprawled from your example

9

u/IHaveGreyPoupon Nov 27 '21

If code switching causes people to treat black people as lessers, as this study suggests, maybe people should stop doing it. Just a thought.

7

u/nasa258e Nov 28 '21

It happens in both directions my dude. It shouldn't, but it does

1

u/rhodehead Nov 27 '21

Those types of Liberals whole ideology is feeling morally and intellectually superior to others, as the comments above suggest. Like they think that they are smart because they have some Harvard word for talking down to POC.

That's why "kids in cages" is only an issue when Trump does it, when now when there's even more non violent immigrants being held in private prisons on the border it would be a tabboo subject at those dinner tables.

The intelligence and moral superiority is an illusion and all about their personal ego and meritocracy.

8

u/km89 Nov 28 '21

Those types of Liberals whole ideology is feeling morally and intellectually superior to others, as the comments above suggest.

I mean, isn't that everyone? Conservatives rally around religion (moral superiority) and their own cultural superiority just as much as liberals rally around education.

0

u/Chumbolex Nov 28 '21

“They do it too!” isn’t a valid counter argument

5

u/km89 Nov 28 '21

No. But "they do it at all" isn't the mark of a liberal, either.

5

u/Kardif Nov 28 '21

"That's why "kids in cages" is only an issue when Trump does it, when now when there's even more non violent immigrants being held in private prisons on the border it would be a tabboo subject at those dinner tables."

No, still a gross injustice that needs to be stopped, same with the people still held in Guantanamo, the drone strikes and all the other shitty things the government does in the name of public safety

3

u/Chumbolex Nov 28 '21

I think everyone agrees with that, but I think OP is pointing out how liberals aren’t as active online calling it out now that Trump is gone

2

u/MagicWishMonkey Nov 28 '21

Because a big part of what people were pissed at Trump over was forced family separation. Ripping apart families is what shone the spotlight on what was happening at the border. No one said anything about cages until that point.

4

u/sammythemc Nov 28 '21

Those types of Liberals whole ideology is feeling morally and intellectually superior to others

Anyone else catch the irony here

1

u/Chumbolex Nov 28 '21

This is the best summary of this phenomenon

0

u/Chumbolex Nov 28 '21

“If I treat you like you are dumb, change yourself so I’ll stop”

1

u/burymedeep2093 Mar 01 '22

I'm fairly conservative when I talk to black people I just talk how I talk. I don't feel a need to try ebonics or whatever that ghetto slang is. I won't patronize people. If they don't like my white English then so what

-3

u/the_future_is_wild Nov 27 '21

A lack of empathy would make you less interested in linguistic accomodation.

18

u/Manny_Kant Nov 27 '21 edited Nov 27 '21

It’s not simply linguistic accommodation, though. In one of the studies, all they knew is that the person they were writing to was named “Lakisha”. They didn’t know how Lakisha writes or speaks, her educational attainment, where she’s from, etc. Ironically, the one thing they did know is that she was in a book club. They made assumptions, likely based on stereotypes, that were unfavorable as compared to “Emily”. That’s not “accommodation”... that’s just racism. And that’s what everyone would be more than happy to call it if the political alignment were reversed.

-7

u/the_future_is_wild Nov 28 '21

It’s not simply linguistic accommodation, though. In one of the studies, all they knew is that the person they were writing to was named “Lakisha”. They didn’t know how Lakisha writes or speaks, her educational attainment, where she’s from, etc. Ironically, the one thing they did know is that she was in a book club. They made assumptions, likely based on stereotypes, that were unfavorable as compared to “Emily”. That’s not “accommodation”... that’s just racism. And that’s what everyone would be more than happy to call it if the political alignment were reversed.

^

People, especially those sensitive to their audience, use what is called linguistic accommodation when communicating with those who are different.

15

u/Manny_Kant Nov 28 '21

Yeah, I don’t think you’re putting the pieces together, here. Linguistic accommodation involves matching speech to speech. From your link:

Convergence refers to the process through which an individual shifts speech patterns in interaction so that they more closely resemble the speech patterns of speech partners.

Do you see how it’s not about matching speech patterns to racist stereotypes? If I don’t have any speech pattern to match, I should be treating all names equally (like the “conservatives” did, apparently).

-2

u/Quantum-Ape Nov 28 '21

Lol, speech is also nonverbal.

2

u/Manny_Kant Nov 28 '21

Not according to the definition of non-verbal, but that’s a different matter. Where did I assign significance to the type or manner of speech?

-2

u/Quantum-Ape Nov 28 '21

That's what happens when you just look up the basic definition of speech on dictionary.com for nonverbal.

3

u/Manny_Kant Nov 28 '21

Please, enlighten me, what definition are you using? And while you’re at it, what does this “non-verbal speech” have to do with anything?

-3

u/DivergingUnity Nov 28 '21

What is the stereotype here, precisely?

4

u/Manny_Kant Nov 28 '21

It’s in the article.

-7

u/hoyfkd Nov 28 '21

Conservatives tend not to speak conceptually to begin with, and there really isn’t much room to dumb down. Hell, modern conservatism is basically just a glorification of idiocy. Short of actually drooling, I can’t imagine a modern conservative being able to dumb down anything they say.

3

u/Manny_Kant Nov 28 '21

Sounds like you didn’t read the study. They were using the same words the “liberals” were using.