several things come to mind while reading the top rec'd diary today.
- broad sweeping generalizations are BAD THINGS. "all gay pple are X" "all black pple are Y" "all republicans are BOO" "all democrats are HISS"
in general, the broader the generalization, the smaller the mind, or at least the thought, behind it. ;)
now, the strongest argument seems to be two pronged. CNN's exit poll says 70% of black people voted for prop 8.
irregardless of the semantics involved (i.e. whether there were or were not enough black voters to make a difference) this either exacerbates,or gives prominence to some individuals personal experiences within the black community.
this then in turn gives rise to statements like "all black people are homophobes" "the black hypocrisy is disgusting" "The black community and its homophobic tendencies""I blame black people " and last, but certainly not least,"Pointing out the homophobic tendencies of the black community, even AFTER they voted 70-30 in favor of Prop 8, is racism?????"
yes, actually, it is. but skip down to number 3 for that one.
lets deal with the numbers first, shall we?
- exit polls are, to quote the man of the hour nate silver,
- Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys.
- Exit polls challenge the definition of a random sample. Although the exit polls have theoretically established procedures to collect a random sample -- essentially, having the interviewer approach every nth person who leaves the polling place -- in practice this is hard to execute at a busy polling place, particularly when the pollster may be standing many yards away from the polling place itself because of electioneering laws.
- A high-turnout election may make demographic weighting difficult. Just as regular, telephone polls are having difficulty this cycle estimating turnout demographics -- will younger voters and minorities show up in greater numbers? -- the same challenges await exit pollsters. Remember, an exit poll is not a definitive record of what happened at the polling place; it is at best a random sampling.
and, if thats doesnt toast your cookies, try this on for size...survey usa had it split, 45% to 45%. the only difference? a 9% of undecided, the highest out of all. but really...the best way to get that 9% on board is to remind them that teh black community as a whole has homophobic tendencies./snark.
now....
3.How is pointing out the homophobic tendencies of the black community racist?
simple.
rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
now, if one is to point to the homophobic tendencies of individuals who happen to be black, and in the process state that "some black pple are homophobes", one would not be racist. if, on the other hand, one was to point to the same homophobic tendencies, and attribute them to being black, i.e. "the black community and its homophobic tendencies", that would be racist.
why?
because you are attributing the negative undesirable trait to someone's race.
personally, i even think its wrong to make a statement attributing homophobia to religion.
why?
because homophobia's root cause is, IMO, one (or several, for that matter, as they are not mutually exclusive)of the these things:
ignorance-either willful or circumstantial.
fear- either of difference, change, the future, one's self...
cowardice- the unwillingness to confront fear or ignorance
lack of exposure (akin to ignorance)
lack of leadership (AKA some pple are sheep, and will follow whomever.)
jealousy of perceived attention/specialness/coolness
anger at past wrongs attributed to a non-individual trait like race or sexual orientation, i.e. "he got that job because he's black" "that fag made me look stupid" or the always entertaining "they/he/she/it took our jobs!"
cruelty/hate- some people just like to hurt things.animals, insects, people, doesn't matter as long as they feel empowered by it.
why does any of this matter?
because, as we all tried to point out to Sarah Palin, you cant decide how to stop it unless you know what caused it.
so, to recap:
some people voted no on 8 because they realize that rights are for everyone, or they are for no one, whether you like it or not.
some people voted no on 8 because they, or someone they love would be intimately affected by it.
some people voted no on 8 because they really don't care, but if it pisses off the church like that, its gotta be good...
and some people even voted no on 8 because it made good business sense to do so.
and those people were out numbered.
not by black people.
not by white people.
not by straight people.
not by religious people.
not by republicans.
not by democrats.
but by angry, scared, ignorant, jealous, cruel, hateful, mindless, insular, insulated, and confused individuals.
they may have other characteristics...big nose, dark skin, light skin, blue eyes, zits, freckles, etc....
but those are not what makes them alike.
those are what makes them different.
what's a better choice....to group them together...making them stronger...by those differences...
or to define them by what they have in common...their fear, which may be assuaged, their ignorance, which may be taught, their insularity, which may be broadened....
you cant change the colour of a person.
but you can change how they THINK.
group them together by colour, and you define them as unchangeable.
and you defeat yourself before you start.