"African-Americans For Obama"

[drblasphlemy.livejournal.com]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/02/obama_announces_2012_launch_of_african-americans_for_obama.html

I got an email this afternoon telling me about this new Obama campaign tactic.

How is this ok in America today?

How is this not racist? What do you supposed would happen if Romney announced a “White Americans for Romney”?

He’d be crucified yet it’s perfectly acceptable for Obama?

Please explain to me why this is ok for a black president but no white in this country could ever do this?

Comments

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Thought experiment: Last week I dropped a hammer, it fell to the ground. Today I dropped a hammer, it fell to the ground.

How would you react to someone who said "Last week, the hammer fell because of magic. Today it fell because of Gravity."?

Unless you can provide a good framework with substantive data that fits reality better, it is rational to presume that yesterday's cause an effect is contiguous with today's cause and effect. '

The analogy doesn't hold because in physics hard rules exist. Universality. In sociology you're dealing with a chaotic system where there can be no exact law. What seem obvious one day may no longer hold the second. You can have rules and theorums but they can be discarded sometimes by new paradigms.

'We can talk about 40's versus 60's black poverty more if you like, but I think you'll be on disturbing ground for a conservative... after all, we'd essentially be arguing "Which was better for Black America economically, Civil rights? Or the New Deal?" ;)'

If only the New Deal was actually responsible for prosperity... ;)

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> The analogy doesn't hold because in physics hard rules exist. Universality. In sociology you're dealing with a chaotic system where there can be no exact law.

Can anyone talk about cause and effect in sociology (as well as other soft disciplines)? Yes,or no?

If no, then it is pointless to attempt to talk rationally about anything we do in a sociological context having any kind of effect. All policies would be equally (in)effective, so no policy can be preferred to another on account of outcome.

If yes, the analogy still holds. While such contexts are more complex, and do have many hidden variables, unless and until those hidden variables are exposed so as to demonstrate why the old effect would arise from some novel cause, it is rational to continue to presume that the earlier cause and effect relationship is still accurate. That's Occam's razor. Efforts to presume a whole new regime of cause and effect are claims which require data and argument. Without such, they are crackpot theories, often motivated by an ideological agenda independent of reality.

> If only the New Deal was actually responsible for prosperity... ;)

Prosperity for WHO, is the relevant question.