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

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.

My fellow Americans, let me tell you: Some of the names that we give to our dogs can be considered racist. You didn’t even know it!

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. The 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.

But, let’s get back to Social Psychology Quarterly.

Let me be honest. 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 completed. 

In deference to “succinctness,” here are the study’s hypotheses, only:

Hypothesis 1White dogs will be adopted faster than those with more traditional names. Adoption times for dogs with Hispanic or black-sounding names are longer than those with Hispanic names.

Hypothesis 2 The effects of racialized names will be stronger among pit bulls than among other breeds. Pit bulls with white-sounding names are more likely to be adopted than pit bulls whose names aren’t perceived as White. Pit bulls that have Hispanic or Black names will take longer to adopt than pit bulls that don’t seem to be perceived as Hispanic.

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

But, on the contrary:

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. But there was 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:

Amazing research supports both the resilience of racialized name and the pervasiveness antiBlackness. This work is a must-read.

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

This is absurd, however. 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.

About Post Author

Follow Us