Mississippi Conservatives - god help us!

[Ayaan]

...that doesn't change the fact that blacks in Mississippi don't share the views of the white, toothless, male, racist/bigoted, jackasses in the OP video...

You would be surprised. In the South it is called "knowing your place" and among older blacks in particular it is still a common attitude. They wouldn't be racist in the same way a white hick is racist, but there still that underlying current of "blacks have their place and whites have theirs" that is shared by both blacks and whites, mostly found in older generations, but you can find it in younger ones too. You can also still find the mentality of "God put you where he wanted you to be and to challenge that is to challenge God" at work.

[PsychoSerenity]

Coito, there were only 8 people interviewed in the video. How statistically representative do you expect it to be?

I don't think it is representative, and I don't expect it to be. It's cherry picked. Plainly. Isn't it?

No. It's entirely probable that it was a small random sample of people who didn't hurry away when they saw someone coming at them with a camera. They said that they were only out in the country. They're not claiming that the video represents every different demographic that Coito ergo sum on rationalia can conceive of in proportion to the entire population of the state. All they're saying is that the footage that was edited out was no different to what was left in.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, there were only 8 people interviewed in the video. How statistically representative do you expect it to be?

I don't think it is representative, and I don't expect it to be. It's cherry picked. Plainly. Isn't it?

No. It's entirely probable that it was a small random sample of people who didn't hurry away when they saw someone coming at them with a camera.

It is entirely possible that a "random" sampling resulted in only white, only male, only Republican, only semi-retarded, mostly toothless and idiotic, persons.

They said that they were only out in the country.

If one were trying to give a sense as to what the thought process and mindset of people in a given Blue state were, then one would not cherry pick by only going into one particular area. Analogous to this video would be to send a group to the almost exclusively black area of Compton in LA, interview a bunch toothless, black, drug-addled, male, welfare recipients and call them "representative." No way would the claim that such a sampling does not constitute "cherry picking" be taken seriously.

They're not claiming that the video represents every different demographic that Coito ergo sum on rationalia can conceive of in proportion to the entire population of the state. All they're saying is that the footage that was edited out was no different to what was left in.

That isn't all they're saying at all. Bill Maher, who sent Pelosi out to get the video, explained to the audience and his panel of guests that the people in the video were not “cherry-picked” and that the intent of the video was not to make fun of anyone. Right. It's not to make fun of anyone, on Bill Maher's show, which is all about making fun of everyone (I like Bill Maher and his show -- but, of course it was to make fun of them -- those people are funny).

[Ronja]

Coito, are you of all people suddenly saying that the context of where that video clip was showed somehow influences how people react to it? And does the effect of context only apply to video / picture material and not text? (just remembering some old discussions about if written words could be understood in various ways depending on their context...)

[Ian]

Coito's arguing logos, and there's some merit to it. But I give more attention to the ethos that Ayaan and FBM are discussing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, are you of all people suddenly saying that the context of where that video clip was showed somehow influences how people react to it? And does the effect of context only apply to video / picture material and not text? (just remembering some old discussions about if written words could be understood in various ways depending on their context...)

I am not clear on what you're asking. Can you clarify that first line -- I am unclear what you mean to ask when you ask me if I am saying "that the context of where the video clip was showed somehow influences how people react to it?"

You used the term "you of all people" and "suddenly" -- I need you to clarify what you're on about here.

I don't know for sure what that other conversation was about, but I am quite sure I would never claim that written words could not be understood in various ways, whether depending on context or otherwise. Words can even be interpreted by different people in completely different ways, even if their reading them in the same context.

[Ronja]

Coito's arguing logos, and there's some merit to it. But I give more attention to the ethos that Ayaan and FBM are discussing.

.

[Coito ergo sum]

I doubt either of you two would suggest the same thing if someone did a video purporting to illustrate Democrat supporters in a blue state, and interviewed only black, male, thuggish, welfare recipients, with no teeth and borderline retardation in an inner city ghetto, and then claimed not to have "cherry picked" because they just happened to be in that neighborhood.

[Seabass]

I doubt either of you two would suggest the same thing if someone did a video purporting to illustrate Democrat supporters in a blue state, and interviewed only black, male, thuggish, welfare recipients, with no teeth and borderline retardation in an inner city ghetto, and then claimed not to have "cherry picked" because they just happened to be in that neighborhood.

[eXcommunicate]

It's possible that the video producer did not "cherry pick" the interviewees, but the interviewees could have been a self-selecting group. They see the camera and volunteer their opinions. "Sure, I'll talk about that Mooslim Obammy!" Whereas the more moderate persons would likely just want to move on with their day.

[Seabass]

So?

So, the people in the OP video do appear to be cherry picked. Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Related data ignored:

Non-white groups, including African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, American Indians, etc., all of whom represent significant data.
Women, representing a majority of the population of Mississippi
Other economic groups, such as the lower middle class, middle class, upper class, and wealthy.
Educated, such as anyone with a four year degree, or a graduate degree (and probably those with high school diplomas, although that is not made clear)
Doctors, lawyers, dentists, scientists.
Democrats
42.8% of the population who voted for Obama in 2008.

42.8% of voters.

But yeah, other than that, you're spot on.

[Ian]

I doubt either of you two would suggest the same thing if someone did a video purporting to illustrate Democrat supporters in a blue state, and interviewed only black, male, thuggish, welfare recipients, with no teeth and borderline retardation in an inner city ghetto, and then claimed not to have "cherry picked" because they just happened to be in that neighborhood.

I would suggest something similar to that, sure. But then; are black, male, thuggish, welfare recipients, with no teeth and borderline retardation in an inner city ghetto a well-known sterotype of a whole state, whichever state they're in? Nope. I don't mind saying that this video played on a certain stereotype, sure it does, but there's are also very good reasons why that stereotype persists and why Ratz' two native Mississippians are here defending it.

I know there are quite a few intelligent people in Mississippi (there would have to be some living there, otherwise I'd have nobody to meet with when I travel to the Naval Oceanographic Office in Bay St. Louis!), but they're not the sort of people most of us tend to think of when we think of people who live in Mississippi. As Ayaan pointed out, they're the exception rather than the rule. (EDIT: come to think of it, the people I know there do not have deep south accents.)

[Coito ergo sum]

It's possible that the video producer did not "cherry pick" the interviewees, but the interviewees could have been a self-selecting group.

Of course, just like how ghetto, toothless, black, male, welfare recipients in an inner city area would "self select."

They see the camera and volunteer their opinions. "Sure, I'll talk about that Mooslim Obammy!" Whereas the more moderate persons would likely just want to move on with their day.

Based on what? Plenty of moderate people, whether pro or anti Obama, respond to interviews all over the country. If there is evidence that they are less likely to respond to questions under circumstances like this, I'd like to see it.

Frankly, this discussion has illustrated wonderfully a massive load of intellectual dishonesty. I mean, come on people, just a little bit of consistency goes a long way. The hoops people are trying to jump through smacks of Apologetics.

And, if a similar video was made - and one could be made - focusing only 8 black males with no teeth and who are borderline retarded -- you all know damn well you wouldn't be suggesting how they were self-selecting, and how nobody was cherry picking. And, you would be right to be critical of it.

[Coito ergo sum]

I doubt either of you two would suggest the same thing if someone did a video purporting to illustrate Democrat supporters in a blue state, and interviewed only black, male, thuggish, welfare recipients, with no teeth and borderline retardation in an inner city ghetto, and then claimed not to have "cherry picked" because they just happened to be in that neighborhood.

I would suggest something similar to that, sure. But then; are black, male, thuggish, welfare recipients, with no teeth and borderline retardation in an inner city ghetto a well-known sterotype of a whole state, whichever state they're in? Nope. I don't mind saying that this video played on a certain stereotype, I sure does, but there's are also very good reasons why that stereotype persists and why Ratz' two native Mississippians are here defending it.

I know there are quite a few intelligent people in Mississippi (there would have to be some living there, otherwise I'd have nobody to meet with when I travel to the Naval Oceanographic Office in Bay St. Louis!), but they're not the sort of people most of us tend to think of when we think of people who live in Mississippi. As Ayaan pointed out, they're the exception rather than the rule.

Key word - "stereotype."

Since blacks don't make up a majority of any state, then you are right, the black, toothless, thug, idiot would not operate to stereotype an entire state. But, stereotypes of that kind have been and are applied to cities which are overwhelmingly black. Detroit, Michigan, and Camden, NJ to name two.

This is where your analysis is going wrong. White racists have been saying for generations that there are "very good reasons why that stereotype persists" when talking about black neighborhoods and black cities, and blacks in general. What you're doing is justifying the same kind of stereotype.

[Ian]

What I'm justifying is a rather large Kernel of Truth. The stereotype you're mentioning exists as well.