In this episode of “You Don't Have the Ability to Make This Stuff up, because Left-Wing Loons Did “…
In light of the left's relentless determination to label almost everything in and around America as “racist,” this nutjob tale should not come as an unexpected surprise for anyone. Lemme say it again: this nutjob tale comes as no shock to anyone who hasn't put your head in (white) sandy sand since the time of Barack Obama.
In addition, “better,” left-wing radicals today make Obama appear like an opportunist in the race-hustling field.
For example, my fellow Americans, some terms we use for our dogs are considered racist. Who would have thought?
According to a Social Psychology Quarterly study, there is a gap in the time to adopt for dogs that can be attributed to “racial associations” with the names we use to describe America's most beloved pet. The bottom conclusion? Doggy breeds who have “white-sounding” names are more quickly adopted than dogs that have Hispanic or black-sounding names.
Shocked? Me, neither.
“But to what extent do racialized names continue to matter when they do not belong to people?”, Social Psychology Quarterly asks, “almost” as if the leftist “study” was conducted with an end-point already in mind in order that the study could be presented as additional “proof” that that in “racist” America, nothing is inviolable, even the names we choose to give our pets.
As reported by Campus Reform, correlations were mostly focused on pitbulls. They are “a breed that is stereotyped as dangerous and racialized as Black,” according to the study. In reality, pit bulls aren't for me mostly due to their inclination to tear into pieces random people, or their owners, but they seem to receive a fair amount of negative media however, I'm digressing.
But, let's get back for the Social Psychology Quarterly study.
I'm going to be fair in this case. But this ridiculous “study” is insane in its depth, breadth, graphs, charts, mathematical equations, myriad of footnotes, and whatever else the authors apparently assumed they needed to “prove” their race-obsessed assumptions about “racially-associated” dog names — a conclusion I have no doubt was reached before the study was conducted.
In the spirit of “succinctness,” here are the study's hypotheses:
Hypothesis One: Dogs that have white-sounding names will have shorter wait times for adoption, as compared to dogs whose names aren't perceived as White. Dogs who have Black or Hispanic-sounding names will take longer to adopt, as compared to dogs whose names do not appear to be Black or Hispanic.
Hypothesis 2: effects of racialized names are more severe for pit bulls than in other breeds. Pitbulls with names that sound white will have a shorter time until adoption, in comparison with pit bulls that have names which aren't considered to be White. Pitbulls with Black or Hispanic-sounding names will take longer for adoption, in comparison to pit bulls that have names that aren't perceived to be Black or Hispanic.
Hypothesis 3a: Nonhuman names will become linked to shorter periods for adoption, in comparison those dogs who have names considered to be human.
However:
Hypothesis 3b: Nonhuman nomenclatures will be associated with longer times for adoption, as compared to dogs with names considered to be human.
And off to the analytical-to-the-max races, the study's authors went. Only one problem.
Try as I might — and I might have missed a table or two along the way after my eyes glazed over — but I didn't see a single example of a “white-sounding” or “racially-associated” dog name example. Maybe those “brilliant” academicians are suggesting that it's similar to the traditional definition of porn: difficult to identify, but you'll know it when you notice it.
“Dr. Nefertiti A. Walker, Ph.D., Professor and Vice-Chancellor of UMass Amherst, a University of UMass Amherst, who ponders issues such as “critical” issues as culture exclusion, diversity, as well as equity is part of the discussion:
“Amazing research that confirms the resilience of racialized terms and the widespreadness of anti-Blackness. It is a must read piece.”
“Fascinating research” and “must-read work.” Yes but it's not.
However, this absurd science-based “study” within the no-longer famous halls of academia is yet another attempt to racialize all aspects of America which race-conscious, useless idiots are eager to spit on America.
The sole “racialization” demonstrated by this academic pile of dog poop is dog poop itself.
