The relevant information, for those busy with other things:
Male voters for winner Barack Obama had stable levels of testosterone, but the hormone rapidly declined in males who cast ballots for losers John McCain and Robert Barr.
Scientists were unable to explain Sarah Palin.
Please share widely!
By my reading the dip was caused by losing not by being a Republican.
J. Feldman suggests that the reason conservative populists oppose science is that they believe experts, with fancy degrees and using fancy words, are out to hoodwink Americans. Better, such populists believe, to trust common sense.
<
p>This point of view is explicit in Sarah Palin who runs against fanciness as much as against liberalism.
believe that white trailer park trash Sarah Palin.
She is about as anti-intellectual as they get. She has the IQ of a grape and that insults grapes.
Having said that, a thought for your consideration:
<
p>The Republican Party in this matter is no different than the Luddite Left of the early Seventies Democratic Party.
<
p>Example 1: The anti-science culture is no different than William Proxmire’s anti-research actions in the Senate.
<
p>Example 2: While there were serious questions of design and reactor safety, the anti-nuke movement was profoundly physics-illiterate.
<
p>Example 3: “If we can put a man on the Moon why can’t we…” All this ignored the fact that the science behind Apollo was ancient; what mattered was engineering. It was expensive, but not particularly difficult to put a man on the Moon.
<
p>You may want to consider that the Republicans are currently going through a bout of right-wing Lysenkoism.
But I think this was a “racial” remark. I think this is a large problem is society and often occurs here on BMG when someone will make a racial or some “minority”/group remark which may be “insensitive” and will turned into “racism”… Obviously replacing white with many other subgroups of people would raise the ire of many BMGers.
<
p>Racial — of, relating to, or based on a race (a racial minority)
<
p>Racism — a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
We’ll keep that in mind next time you make derogatory remarks about blacks, gays, “immigrants” and Jews.
<
p>Question for you: what’s the difference between disliking black people and disliking “black culture?”
I never noted any anti-Semitism, racism or homophobia in JohnD’s posts, and:
<
p>
<
p>As near as I can tell, John D has never crossed that particular line.
The question about “black culture” comes from a post from JohnD:
<
p>
<
p>There’s also this JohnD diary comparing the floods in Iowa and New Orleans.
<
p>Early on he posted a couple of gay jokes. This one for example:
<
p>
<
p>When called on it his response is that he finds himself interesting and funny. I personally don’t think calling all gay men rapists is funny. Your milage may vary.
<
p>Then there’s this rant about Deval’s daughter coming out:
<
p>
<
p>Here’s an example comment about Jews:
<
p>
<
p>Hope that helps. I can dig up the anti-immigrant stuff, if you like.
I stand corrected.
I couldn’t figure out what PJ was asserting, so I was reluctant to downrate it. I don’t know what to make of the “Republicrat” reference.
Wikipedia suggests that the usage has spread. In any case it means:
<
p>
The class of white people who live in trailer parks are stereotypically perceived as uneducated and anti-intellectual. Categorical thinking is a fallacy every time.
<
p>I don’t see how this is racism any more than fruit-ism. Comparing her intellect to a grape isn’t an insult to grapes or raisins, it’s just to Sarah (and maybe people who think she is smart.)
The only thing “racial” about the remark is that it points out that Palin is white. It in no way suggests anything about whites in general. I suppose it does imply that “Republicrats” don’t trust non-whites, but that seems like a fair enough claim to make.
<
p>However, it is insulting to low-income people who live in trailers, so it would be fair to call it a “classicist” remark.
I suppose “redneck” could have been used, but maybe someone would object to that as well. I’m white, but I know that particular stereotype wasn’t directed at me. I agree that the primary bias in that comment is class/level of education.
racist or anti-gay?
…but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, nor does that mean there is absolute equivalence. Like you pointed out on another thread a white social group might be racially suspect while a black social group would be a source of pride. There is a Congressional Black Caucus and Hispanic Caucus, but not a White Caucus. Sotomayor can make a “wise Latina woman” comment while I’d cringe if someone made the same comment substituting “wise white man”. I know at some level it doesn’t completely make sense, but it is what it is and I for one don’t have too much of a problem with it.
You are genuine and that is rare these days. Keep it up!
<
p>You know my obsession with “equivalence” and this was another example. I take offense to the “white trash” remark and “lilly white suburb” and Congress being for “old white men” mainly because of the sense that people can make these “derogatory” remarks about white people but it is so un-PC to do the same about other groups. I’m not sensitive to the remarks (could actually care less) but more to the ability to make those remarks AND the over sensitivty to those who similarly made remarks about their groups prompt such outrage.
It used to describe my town, though that has changed over the years. I don’t find that offensive at all if it’s true, and some towns are, not to imply unwelcoming to others, just the objective fact that almost 100% of it’s residents happen to be white. “Old white men” may in some cases be objective fact too, but also implies a message about their outlook as the traditionally favored. “White trash” is the most insensitive of the three, but again for the class/education stereotypes more than anything.
but they don’t get a pass by saying them. You seem to want to legitimize statements like the “old white men” in the Senate because for the most part it is true. Can I say something similar about the NBA and blacks. I can guarantee you that remarks about the “young black men” in the NBA would be attacked as racism. If the reality of a situation backs up the saying… do we get a free pass to say it?
<
p>If stereotypic remarks are acceptable then they should be acceptable for all groups. If not, then they should not be acceptable for ANY group. Why are some stereotypes verboten while others are ok? Do the BMG Rotr discriminate between derogatory remarks for one group (blondes, whites, conservatives, Christian Fundamentalists…) but assails remarks about other groups (gays, blacks, morons, Muslims…)? I’m good either way but it would nice to know.
Christopher is white. Commenting on whites may or may not be inappropriate, but it doesn’t make him racist.
<
p>You, on the other hand, appear to have issues with minorities. Your remarks are almost always derogatory.
<
p>It’s all context.
I have to say the addition of “white” is new to me. Same with “park” for that matter.
<
p>People like JohnD are generally just referred to as “no class.” Race and income are irrelevant.
The comment is racist and should be removed.
Sometimes that’s all people can afford. Nothing anti-intellectual about living in a manufactured housing community.
O’REILLY: Let me be very bold and fresh again. Do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world?
<
p>PALIN: I believe that I am because I have common sense, and I have, I believe, the values that are reflective of so many other American values. And I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the kind of a spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite Ivy League education and a fact resume that’s based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership. I’m not saying that has to be me.
It isn’t that Republicans are anti-scientific, it is instead that unscientific people (for whatever the cause) choose to be Republican.
<
p>And that, by the way, does explain Sarah Palin.