What Took so Long? Now, They Claim Dog Names Are ‘Racist’

In this episode of “You Can’t Make This Stuff up Because Left-Wing Loons Already Did”...

Given the left’s hellbent drive to label virtually everything in — and about —America as “racist,” this nutjob story should come as no surprise to anyone. Lemme rephrase that: This nutjob story comes as zero surprise to anyone who hasn’t had their head in the (white) sand since the reign of Barack Obama.

Even “better,” today’s left-wing radicals make Obama look like a piker in the race-hustling industry.

Case in point, my fellow Americans: some of the names we give our dogs are racist. Who knew?

According to a Social Psychology Quarterly study, a disparity in adoption times for dogs exists based on “racial associations” with the names we give America’s favorite pets. Bottom line? Dogs with “white-sounding” names are more quickly adopted than dogs with black- or Hispanic-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 a conclusion already in mind, simply so the study could then be presented as further “proof” that that in “racist” America, nothing is untouchable — including the names we give our furry friends.

As noted by Campus Reform, correlations were largely concentrated around pit bulls, “a breed that is stereotyped as dangerous and racialized as Black,” according to the study. Incidentally, pit bulls aren’t my thing, based primarily on their sometimes affinity for ripping to shreds random innocents or even their owners, but they do seem to get their share of negative press, but I digress.

Anyway, back to the Social Psychology Quarterly study.

I want to be fair, here. 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 deference to “succinctness,” here are the study’s hypotheses, only:

Hypothesis 1: Dogs with White-sounding names will have shorter times to adoption, compared to dogs with names that are not perceived as White. Dogs with Black- and Hispanic-sounding names will have longer times to adoption, compared to dogs with names that are not perceived as Black or Hispanic.

Hypothesis 2: The effects of racialized names will be stronger among pit bulls than among other breeds. Pit bulls with White-sounding names will have shorter times to adoption, compared to pit bulls with names that are not perceived as White. Pit bulls with Black- and Hispanic-sounding names will have longer times to adoption, compared to pit bulls with names that are not perceived as Black or Hispanic.

Hypothesis 3a: Nonhuman names will be associated with shorter times to adoption, compared to dogs with names that are perceived as human.

On the other hand:

Hypothesis 3b: Nonhuman names will be associated with longer times to adoption, compared to dogs with names that are perceived as human.

And off to the analytical-to-the-max races, the study’s authors went. Just 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. Perhaps these “brilliant” academicians are suggesting it’s similar to the old definition of porn: hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

Dr. Nefertiti A. Walker, Ph.D., Professor and Vice-Chancellor at the University of UMass Amherst, who muses about such “critical” issues as culture, exclusion, inclusion, and equity, was eagerly all in:

Fascinating research that supports the resiliency of racialized names and the pervasiveness of antiBlackness. Must read work.

“Fascinating research” and “must-read work.” Sure, it isn’t.

Fascinating research that supports the resiliency of racialized names and the pervasiveness of antiBlackness. Must read work. https://t.co/5me6YhsbYh

— Dr. Nef (@NefWalker) June 7, 2022

Regardless, this ridiculous, scientific-y “study” within the no-longer hallowed halls of academia is just one more effort to racialize every aspect of America that race-obsessed useful idiots eagerly vomit on America.

The only “racialization” demonstrated by this academic pile of dog poop is the dog poop itself.

Read More

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *