I first saw this guy here when he went ballistic when inconvenient statistics were brought up:
And no, there is no criminal gene but people under certain soci0-economic conditions are prone to certain crimes; and then the other police officer puts into better perspective.
But I digress. I found out that the professor has a show and he brings on all sorts of guests, including those who have very different opinions…many contrary to his.
And I watched this one:
Now frankly, the lady, was..well..she did not impress me for a variety or reasons. But move to the very end 13 minutes she asks him if he thinks that all white people are racist. He answers…
And, in my opinion, this tilts the entire political battle toward her, no matter how dreadful her reasoning was in the first 13 minutes.
Yes, it appears that humans tend to reason inductively. Yes, humans tend to pick up their group norms, even on an unconscious level. The religious types might phrase that as part of our sinful nature.
I might phrase that as “well, maybe 50K years ago, it made sense to keep the other humans out of “our territory.” Just look at the violence displayed by our evolutionary cousins:
I’d like to think that we’ve advanced beyond this stage..sort of…but I think prejudice against “the other” is more common than we’d like to admit and we need to make a deliberate effort to combat it.
None of us are perfect.
But just coming out and saying “all white people have some racism in them” is just politically toxic though, I’d see it as “well, of course, NONE of us are prefect…all of us have some prejudice of some sort..” type of thing.
I am not saying that professors should lie to the public but I do think there are ways of saying things that make the message easier to receive.
Woke rules. A couple of decades ago, a female English professor was talking about an all female group who was moving furniture and joked about the dynamic ..saying “we were acting like we had extra testosterone” (a playful insult at men) and I countered “oh, so you were being logical and holding yourselves accountable?” She tried to correct me as I had violated a “woke rule”: someone from an underprivileged class can make fun of the privileged class but not the way around” and while she is white, she is a “she”…I did NOT play the “Latino card.”(being “intersectional” means you belong to several “underprivileged groups” and therefore have extra cards).
But the public doesn’t go by woke rules; in fact, there is an opposite dynamic:
“My suspicion is that this is a weird tic of campus politics that has followed graduates into the professional arena where they unconsciously started deploying it in less appropriate contexts. If you’re in a dorm at a fancy college and you can convince an administrator that something is racist, the administrator will probably put a stop to it. At the same time, “this is bad for poor people” just isn’t going to get you far as a campus argument. After all, these schools more or less openly auction off a number of admissions slots to wealthy donors (while, of course, practicing affirmative action to keep things diverse) so they can hardly take a hard line on class politics.
But electoral politics in a democracy isn’t like that. And to the extent that the US political system isn’t democratic, it’s mostly tilted in favor of over-representing white people with no college degree. So if you actually want to close racial gaps by raising the minimum wage, expanding union membership, expanding Medicaid, and reducing student debt, the last thing you want to do is to sell people on the idea that this is really all about race.”
I’d surf to the link and read more; it is very well reasoned.
So..any academic who wishes to influence the opinion of the public at large would do well to remember this; the rules of persuasion are very different outside of the ivory towers.
“But wait…I am TIRED of making the truth palatable to “the other”” some might say. And that might be true. But do you want to change opinions or not?