PDA

View Full Version : The Political Disadvantages of Race-Baiting



Cedric
11-18-2012, 01:31 PM
[I'm reposting this after changing the title. I hadn't fully realized that I'd previously placed it in the wrong area of the forums]

Full disclosure -- racists bore me and race-baiters amuse me. We know what a racist is, except that some folk believe two wrong things about the label; first, that it automatically means that a White Republican has entered the room and, second, that no minority can be racist. If you cannot grasp why those two premise are logic faults then you are probably a race-baiter.

So, what's a race-baiter? Someone who's inclined to label all White Republicans racists and who seems to believe that no minority can be racist. Don't you love it when a definition is so easy to present?

Thanks to the inevitable results of decades of political propaganda endorsed by the leadership of the Democratic Party most race-baiters belong to the Left of Center category. Furthermore the most blindly ardent race-baiters tend to be Black Democrats. This is why the United States Congressional Black Caucus has until recently been nothing but an organization of dedicated race-baiters and has now fully returned to that traditional designation with the political defeat of their only current Republican member, Allen West.

Coincidentally with his ouster as a U.S. Senator the first thing the CBC members did was to appoint a rabid race-baiter as their new incoming chair, Rep. Marcia Fudge, a Democrat from Cleveland -- and what is the first thing she has done? She accused Senator John McCain of both sexism and racism for: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...ism-and-racism (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/11/18/incoming-black-caucus-chair-accuses-mccain-sexism-and-racism)

" . . . criticizing [Black] U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice for going on five Sunday talk shows and claiming the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a video posted on Youtube."


Had McCain ever been either a racist or a misogynist it would long ago have become national headlines and so the result is to make this Congresswoman, and head of the Black Congressional Caucus, look like both a race-baiter and an idiot. Unfortunately, politically speaking, this is indicative of Left of Center Black perspectives and activities in general. I lay it at the feet of a cynical Democratic Party leadership who keeps the vast majority of Black voters in their pocket through the simple expediency of cynically reinforcing stereotyping of White Republicans as racists. But we live in an information age and there's no longer any excuse for ignorance -- willful or otherwise -- where such things are concerned.

It actually is possible for John McCain to be against Ambassador Susan Rice for his stated reasons and therefore those statements are what need to be addressed. If they are wrong in nature then prove them wrong. If you can't then live with the results. It's called personal growth and political maturity.

Well, isn't it political maturity to cynically claim faults in your opponent that do not in fact exist? Yes and then again . . . no. Anything can be taken one step too far and after that the public begins to detect the distinct odor of ripe manure in the air. John McCain is many things -- some good and some bad -- but he's no racist and the kneejerk cry of "Racism!" from these Left of Center Black leaders is not only drearily predictable as a cynical political tactic at this point but it's become a farce and has turned into its own stereotype of what it means to be a leader of any type in the Black community. It's making the Black leadership in this nation look bad . . . because it implies that they can't come up with any effective, logic-based tactics or arguments for advancing their goals.

It's times for leaders of the Black community to politically mature and cease using race-baiting as a political crutch for everything under the sun. If you cannot devise logical arguments then put some serious study into it, because you've now reached the point of being a nationwide laughing stock.

Carygrant
11-18-2012, 01:41 PM
Get back on your medication before your self love eats you up in one big bum hug .
You should only patronise when you have something more to offer than verbosity.
Look at those last two sentences -- pretentious . You haven't even got an audience of Blacks .
Good job . They would rightly sliver you on the spot .

Chris
11-18-2012, 01:45 PM
Get back on your medication before your self love eats you up in one big bum hug .
You should only patronise when you have something more to offer than verbosity.
Look at those last two sentences -- pretentious . You haven't even got an audience of Blacks .
Good job . They would rightly sliver you on the spot .

carygrant, you've been warned enough about posting off-topic inflammatory personal attacks under Other Discussions. You know the rules stated here (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/8250-Changes-to-The-Political-Forums). Back to the Hole.

Chris
11-18-2012, 01:51 PM
I don't know, cedric, sure, there are black racists and race-baiters, but to me the worst are the whites, who took the bait of blacks, because of white man's guilt, just being liberals prone to emotional pleas, or whatever.

Cedric
11-18-2012, 05:05 PM
I don't know, cedric, sure, there are black racists and race-baiters, but to me the worst are the whites, who took the bait of blacks, because of white man's guilt, just being liberals prone to emotional pleas, or whatever.
Absolutely correct Chris. Those White leftwing race-baiters break down into people who legitimately believe all of the propaganda generated by the Democratic Party leadership and outright cynics whom know better but who find it convenient to auto-label all White Republicans as racists.

So yes the Left is rife with race-baiters of all skin hues but this noxious habit particularly hurts the Black population because they end up holding themselves back by embracing the label of permanent, perpetual victimhood. Among other problems they cannot be taken seriously as a political force in this nation if they refuse to accept the fact that criticism is not automatically race-based. Unfortunately for them they have to fix the problem on their own and self-declare that they reject race-baiting as a political tool.

Chris
11-18-2012, 05:49 PM
Victimhood and dependency, ever voting for Democrats who promise the sky but give nothing. Modern liberals tends to harm those it pretends to help.

Mister D
11-18-2012, 06:09 PM
Cedric, what exactly are the political disadvantages? It seems to work quite well.

Deadwood
11-18-2012, 06:34 PM
Like the claims of sexism, homophobia, 'racist' is not a mere accusation, but too often a conviction.

If you think about it too, how do you prove you are not something?

I agree in this case it's disgraceful, degenerate and deceitful.

I fear though, that a good percentage of the population will believe it. See below:

Cigar
11-19-2012, 08:22 AM
Full disclosure -- racists bore me and race-baiters amuse me. We know what a racist is, except that some folk believe two wrong things about the label; first, that it automatically means that a White Republican has entered the room and, second, that no minority can be racist. If you cannot grasp why those two premise are logic faults then you are probably a race-baiter.

So, what's a race-baiter? Someone who's inclined to label all White Republicans racists and who seems to believe that no minority can be racist. Don't you love it when a definition is so easy to present?

Thanks to the inevitable results of decades of political propaganda endorsed by the leadership of the Democratic Party most race-baiters belong to the Left of Center category. Furthermore the most blindly ardent race-baiters tend to be Black Democrats. This is why the United States Congressional Black Caucus has until recently been nothing but an organization of dedicated race-baiters and has now fully returned to that traditional designation with the political defeat of their only current Republican member, Allen West.

Coincidentally with his ouster as a U.S. Senator the first thing the CBC members did was to appoint a rabid race-baiter as their new incoming chair, Rep. Marcia Fudge, a Democrat from Cleveland -- and what is the first thing she has done? She accused Senator John McCain of both sexism and racism for: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...ism-and-racism (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/11/18/incoming-black-caucus-chair-accuses-mccain-sexism-and-racism)

" . . . criticizing U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice for going on five Sunday talk shows and claiming the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a video posted on Youtube."


Had McCain ever been either a racist or a misogynist it would long ago have become national headlines and so the result is to make this Congresswoman, and head of the Black Congressional Caucus, look like both a race-baiter and an idiot. Unfortunately, politically speaking, this is indicative of Left of Center Black perspectives and activities in general. I lay it at the feet of a cynical Democratic Party leadership who keeps the vast majority of Black voters in their pocket through the simple expediency of cynically reinforcing stereotyping of White Republicans as racists. But we live in an information age and there's no longer any excuse for ignorance -- willful or otherwise -- where such things are concerned.

It actually is possible for John McCain to be against Ambassador Susan Rice for his stated reasons and therefore those statements are what need to be addressed. If they are wrong in nature then prove them wrong. If you can't then live with the results. It's called personal growth and political maturity.

Well, isn't it political maturity to cynically claim faults in your opponent that do not in fact exist? Yes and then again . . . no. Anything can be taken one step too far and after that the public begins to detect the distinct odor of ripe manure in the air. John McCain is many things -- some good and some bad -- but he's no racist and the kneejerk cry of "Racism!" from these Left of Center Black leaders is not only drearily predictable as a cynical political tactic at this point but it's become a farce and has turned into its own stereotype of what it means to be a leader of any type in the Black community. It's making the Black leadership in this nation look bad . . . because it implies that they can't come up with any effective, logic-based tactics or arguments for advancing their goals.

It's times for leaders of the Black community to politically mature and cease using race-baiting as a political crutch for everything under the sun. If you cannot devise logical arguments then put some serious study into it, because you've now reached the point of being a nationwide laughing stock.



[I][B]Can I get back to you ... say around 400 years from now in the year 2412?

Cigar
11-19-2012, 08:46 AM
I don't know, cedric, sure, there are black racists and race-baiters, but to me the worst are the whites, who took the bait of blacks, because of white man's guilt, just being liberals prone to emotional pleas, or whatever.

Try to rationalize this away as anything but Racist ...

Gun store refuses to sell to Barack Obama voters

A gun store has stated that it will refuse to sell to anyone who voted for Barack Obama at this year's presidential election.

The Southwest Shooting Authority in Pinetop, Arizona posted the warning in an newspaper advertisement.

The notice in the White Mountain Independent read: "If you voted for Barack Obama, your business is NOT WELCOME at the Southwest Shooting Authority.

"You have proven you are not responsible enough to own a firearm."

Owner Cope Reynolds revealed to The Huffington Post: "It is about the direction that this country is going and the direction it's been going for the last four years."

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/odd/news/a438967/gun-store-refuses-to-sell-to-barack-obama-voters.html

Mister D
11-19-2012, 08:50 AM
Try to rationalize this away as anything but Racist ...

Gun store refuses to sell to Barack Obama voters

A gun store has stated that it will refuse to sell to anyone who voted for Barack Obama at this year's presidential election.

The Southwest Shooting Authority in Pinetop, Arizona posted the warning in an newspaper advertisement.

The notice in the White Mountain Independent read: "If you voted for Barack Obama, your business is NOT WELCOME at the Southwest Shooting Authority.

"You have proven you are not responsible enough to own a firearm."

Owner Cope Reynolds revealed to The Huffington Post: "It is about the direction that this country is going and the direction it's been going for the last four years."

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/odd/news/a438967/gun-store-refuses-to-sell-to-barack-obama-voters.html

Weird sure but what makes it racist? This means they would refuse sales to a large number of whites.

hanger4
11-19-2012, 08:51 AM
Try to rationalize this away as anything but Racist ...

Gun store refuses to sell to Barack Obama voters

A gun store has stated that it will refuse to sell to anyone who voted for Barack Obama at this year's presidential election.

The Southwest Shooting Authority in Pinetop, Arizona posted the warning in an newspaper advertisement.

The notice in the White Mountain Independent read: "If you voted for Barack Obama, your business is NOT WELCOME at the Southwest Shooting Authority.

"You have proven you are not responsible enough to own a firearm."

Owner Cope Reynolds revealed to The Huffington Post: "It is about the direction that this country is going and the direction it's been going for the last four years."

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/odd/news/a438967/gun-store-refuses-to-sell-to-barack-obama-voters.html

It's partisan stupid, not racist.

Mister D
11-19-2012, 08:53 AM
This is a good example of what Cedric is talking about, actually. You've been trained to see race at the root of virtually everything.

Cigar
11-19-2012, 09:01 AM
Another couple decades and we'll see who will be the ones crying Racism :grin:

Mister D
11-19-2012, 09:02 AM
Another couple decades and we'll see who will be the ones crying Racism :grin:

The US Government already allows discrimination against whites and Asians in favor of less capable Negroes and Mestizos.

Cigar
11-19-2012, 09:09 AM
The US Government already allows discrimination against whites and Asians in favor of less capable Negroes and Mestizos.

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4527978685270153&pid=1.7&w=168&h=154&c=7&rs=1

Mister D
11-19-2012, 09:14 AM
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4527978685270153&pid=1.7&w=168&h=154&c=7&rs=1

Discrimination is OK then. Thank you. :smiley:

Chris
11-19-2012, 09:51 AM
This is a good example of what Cedric is talking about, actually. You've been trained to see race at the root of virtually everything.

Damn, you found something redeeming in his posts.


Cigar, stay on topic.

Cigar
11-19-2012, 09:58 AM
If The OP is concerned with the Political Disadvantages of Race Baiting; maybe you should ask the these morons how'd it work out for them!

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/gop-cost-of-stupid.jpg

Mister D
11-19-2012, 10:00 AM
What is it about "on topic" that escapes you?

Chris
11-19-2012, 10:03 AM
If The OP is concerned with the Political Disadvantages of Race Baiting; maybe you should ask the these morons how'd it work out for them!...

Cigar, thread banned.

Cedric
11-19-2012, 04:24 PM
Cedric, what exactly are the political disadvantages? It seems to work quite well.


Well Mister D, it's a winning the battles while losing the war sort of thing. Crying "Racism!" all the time at a drop of an excuse gets one things ranging from attention to unearned forgiveness but it does not gain one respect. As it stands the Democratic leadership patronizes Blacks without respecting them. The population tends to walk on eggshells around them lest the hue and cry of "Racist!" gets shrieked in one's ear . . . but that's not the same as earned respect.

Once Blacks as a community cease to use the cry of "Racism!" as a crutch then -- and especially as a political crutch -- then they will be viewed differently by the entire nation. It's a growth step and sooner or later they are going to have to take that step.

Mister D
11-19-2012, 04:28 PM
Well Mister D, it's a winning the battles while losing the war sort of thing. Crying "Racism!" all the time at a drop of an excuse gets one things ranging from attention to unearned forgiveness but it does not gain one respect. As it stands the Democratic leadership patronizes Blacks without respecting them. The population tends to walk on eggshells around them lest the hue and cry of "Racist!" gets shrieked in one's ear . . . but that's not the same as earned respect.

Once Blacks as a community cease to use the cry of "Racism!" as a crutch then -- and especially as a political crutch -- then they will be viewed differently by the entire nation. It's a growth step and sooner or later they are going to have to take that step.

Until whites learn to act in their own interests and not for "America" (whatever that is supposed to mean) we will continue to lose. Blacks and Hispanics vote in their own perceived interests. I know a lot of whites don't think it proper to have such a mentality but get used to world the way it really is.

Dr. Who
01-08-2013, 12:10 AM
Until whites learn to act in their own interests and not for "America" (whatever that is supposed to mean) we will continue to lose. Blacks and Hispanics vote in their own perceived interests. I know a lot of whites don't think it proper to have such a mentality but get used to world the way it really is.

The sooner people with your viewpoint see themselves as members of the human race first last and only, the better off all people will be. There is no white race and there is no black race or brown race. These are artificial constructs created to separate people. All people have generations of genetic donors from all parts of the world. You only see the latest contributors.

Mister D
01-08-2013, 08:54 AM
The sooner people with your viewpoint see themselves as members of the human race first last and only, the better off all people will be. There is no white race and there is no black race or brown race. These are artificial constructs created to separate people. All people have generations of genetic donors from all parts of the world. You only see the latest contributors.

There is no human race, son. That is a meaningless abstraction (an artificial construct to unite people, if you will) that blacks and browns do not generally acknowledge. They vote, for example, in the interest of their racial group. Obviously, they have not been swayed by your insistence that their racial groups do not exist. Maybe you should be a missionary to them? Again, whites must learn to act in their own interests and get used to the way the world really is. Race matters. Always has and it likely always will. Stomping your feet in indignation won't change anything.

nic34
01-08-2013, 09:29 AM
Weird sure but what makes it racist? This means they would refuse sales to a large number of whites.


"It is about the direction that this country is going and the direction it's been going for the last four years, and I feel like the people that voted for him are by and large the ones that are on the many entitlements and free stuff that they've been getting," Reynolds said.

That comment is clearly aimed at minority people of color. And if you have ever been to that Pinetop gun store on White Mountain Blvd., you'd say the same thing after hearing the racist comments spoken there by so called "customers", ALL THE TIME.

There are SOME of us gun owners that take offense at that still.

PS If you saw fit to ban cigar from this thread, then you better ban me too.

Mister D
01-08-2013, 09:32 AM
That comment is clearly aimed at minority people of color. And if you have ever been to that Pinetop gun store on White Mountain Blvd., you'd say the same thing after hearing the racist comments spoken there by so called "customers", ALL THE TIME.

There are SOME of us gun owners that take offense at that still.

PS If you saw fit to ban cigar from this thread, then you better ban me too.

I didn't ban anyone from this thread, tough guy. Anyway, so only blacks and browns seek handouts? That's clear, right? Gotcha. Racist.

Chris
01-08-2013, 10:13 AM
Odd, nic, you thank Who for saying "There is no white race and there is no black race or brown race" and then you contradict that with "That comment is clearly aimed at minority people of color."

Chris
01-08-2013, 10:14 AM
Odd, nic, you thank Who for saying "There is no white race and there is no black race or brown race" and then you contradict that with "That comment is clearly aimed at minority people of color." That I think is the epitome of the disadvantages of race-baiting.

Dr. Who
01-08-2013, 11:23 PM
I choose to be enigmatic. I hail from the Tardis.

Dr. Who
01-08-2013, 11:26 PM
If one were to accept people's uninformed belief systems as the absolute truth, we would still believe the sun revolves around the earth.

Mister D
01-09-2013, 09:12 AM
I choose to be enigmatic. I hail from the Tardis.

You mean you choose to be silly for lack of a serious response. Understood.

Trinnity
01-09-2013, 11:08 AM
The sooner people with your viewpoint see themselves as members of the human race first last and only, the better off all people will be. There is no white race and there is no black race or brown race. These are artificial constructs created to separate people. All people have generations of genetic donors from all parts of the world. You only see the latest contributors.Good luck with that dream. People are always gonna follow the path of self interest for the most part. You can't change that. It's comes from the survival instinct.

Dr. Who
01-09-2013, 09:44 PM
Good luck with that dream. People are always gonna follow the path of self interest for the most part. You can't change that. It's comes from the survival instinct.

First generation immigrants do tend to stick together, usually because of linguistic/cultural issues. Second generation immigrants are not so uniform. Depending on the society in which they live, they either continue to stick together because the society is discriminatory, or in an open society they generally become completely socially integrated into the general population. Domestic minority populations who have faced historical discrimination are wary of the majority population. That can be changed. Children do not naturally fear each other, irrespective of race or culture. These things are learned. Anything that can be learned, can be unlearned if society makes the effort to change.

Mister D
01-09-2013, 10:02 PM
First generation immigrants do tend to stick together, usually because of linguistic/cultural issues. Second generation immigrants are not so uniform. Depending on the society in which they live, they either continue to stick together because the society is discriminatory, or in an open society they generally become completely socially integrated into the general population. Domestic minority populations who have faced historical discrimination are wary of the majority population. That can be changed. Children do not naturally fear each other, irrespective of race or culture. These things are learned. Anything that can be learned, can be unlearned if society makes the effort to change.

No one suggested anything about fear.

An awareness of race develops early.


White babies aged just nine-months-old show signs of racial bias, according to a study in facial recognition.
Researchers at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst found that by the young age the babies were already discriminating against those of different races in their ability to recognise faces and emotional expressions.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139735/Babies-develop-racist-traits-aged-months-coming-contact-races.html

Dr. Who
01-10-2013, 12:58 AM
Just because people believe something, makes it neither right nor true. There are countless examples in history. I am finding some of the "conservative" posters on this site to be quite obtuse and insulting. You expect others to write essays to prove their arguments and you respond with trite and rude comments. If you have a rational response, please articulate it or don't bother responding.

Dr. Who
01-10-2013, 01:12 AM
No one suggested anything about fear.

An awareness of race develops early.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139735/Babies-develop-racist-traits-aged-months-coming-contact-races.html






from their immediate family. They may also cry when they see a man with a beard or a moustache. Does this mean that all babies automatically discriminate against facial hair. This proves nothing. Put a group of four year olds together and they will play. Honestly, ridiculous studies are conducted all of the time, generally to support a predetermined agenda.

Trinnity
01-10-2013, 07:04 AM
Just because people believe something, makes it neither right nor true. There are countless examples in history. I am finding some of the "conservative" posters on this site to be quite obtuse and insulting. You expect others to write essays to prove their arguments and you respond with trite and rude comments. If you have a rational response, please articulate it or don't bother responding.I think you're naive and idealistic. As for people being rude, this forum is pretty darn civil compared to most. Political message boards aren't for the thin skinned, sir.

nic34
01-10-2013, 09:14 AM
Just because people believe something, makes it neither right nor true. There are countless examples in history. I am finding some of the "conservative" posters on this site to be quite obtuse and insulting. You expect others to write essays to prove their arguments and you respond with trite and rude comments. If you have a rational response, please articulate it or don't bother responding.

You're on to them, look out.

Mister D
01-10-2013, 09:58 AM
Just because people believe something, makes it neither right nor true. There are countless examples in history. I am finding some of the "conservative" posters on this site to be quite obtuse and insulting. You expect others to write essays to prove their arguments and you respond with trite and rude comments. If you have a rational response, please articulate it or don't bother responding.

I've been waiting for a counter argument of some kind. Let us know when you have one. Do try to include why "it" is neither right nor true.

Mister D
01-10-2013, 10:03 AM
from their immediate family. They may also cry when they see a man with a beard or a moustache. Does this mean that all babies automatically discriminate against facial hair. This proves nothing. Put a group of four year olds together and they will play. Honestly, ridiculous studies are conducted all of the time, generally to support a predetermined agenda.

What about their immediate family? Did you even read the article?

Actually, the researchers at the university in question weren't exactly pleased with the results. Anyway, what is their agenda? Why was the study ridiculous? Or is ad hominem all you bring to the table here?

Mister D
01-10-2013, 10:04 AM
You're on to them, look out.

Jump in any time, cheerleader.

1224

nic34
01-10-2013, 10:10 AM
Sorry, didn't know cheerleading was reserved for conservatives.

Mister D
01-10-2013, 10:24 AM
Sorry, didn't know cheerleading was reserved for conservatives.

Jump in any time, cheerleader.

Chris
01-10-2013, 10:56 AM
Just because people believe something, makes it neither right nor true. There are countless examples in history. I am finding some of the "conservative" posters on this site to be quite obtuse and insulting. You expect others to write essays to prove their arguments and you respond with trite and rude comments. If you have a rational response, please articulate it or don't bother responding.

No one expects essays or proofs, just some effort at backing beliefs with a few facts and a little logic, because, well, "Just because people believe something, makes it neither right nor true."

Dr. Who
01-10-2013, 08:56 PM
No one expects essays or proofs, just some effort at backing beliefs with a few facts and a little logic, because, well, "Just because people believe something, makes it neither right nor true."

Why, because you're so proficient at inserting other people's work into your posts. That may be fine for an OP to stimulate discussion, but in your replies you rarely write more than one sentence. Just because you have a particular POV, it does not necessarily follow that everyone else must agree with it, irrespective of the plethora of compatible opinions that you affix to your post. Unless you can articulate your own opinion, I for one have no idea whether you even have any understanding of the material that you are inserting between minimal comments. You are a very prolific poster of other people's ideas - let's hear you articulate your own opinion for a change.

Dr. Who
01-11-2013, 12:00 AM
Attributing the fact that babies acknowledge that they are seeing something unfamiliar is not the same as racial awareness. A nine month old baby has no idea what race it is. Were that same baby adopted and of an alternative race from the parents, it would similarly notice anything different from what it is normally accustomed. I reiterate that I believe that the study is rubbish and reaches a false conclusion.

Dr. Who
01-11-2013, 12:40 AM
I choose not to be rude and insulting, even when provoked, and find people who provide churlish and trite responses as exemplars of people who have neither learned debating skills nor manners. They are simply time wasters.

Mister D
01-11-2013, 09:24 AM
Attributing the fact that babies acknowledge that they are seeing something unfamiliar is not the same as racial awareness. A nine month old baby has no idea what race it is. Were that same baby adopted and of an alternative race from the parents, it would similarly notice anything different from what it is normally accustomed. I reiterate that I believe that the study is rubbish and reaches a false conclusion.

That 9 month olds do not know what race is was sort of the point. :smiley:


Researchers found that the processing of facial emotions moved from the front of the brain to regions in the back of the brain in the older age group.
‘These results suggest that biases in face recognition and perception begin in preverbal infants, well before concepts about race are formed,’ said study leader Lisa Scott in a statement.



Were that same baby adopted and of an alternative race from the parents...

The study suggests otherwise...

Brain-activity measurements showed the nine-month-olds processed emotional expressions among Caucasian faces differently than those of African-American faces, while the 5-month-olds did not.

The biases in question are not taught. Do you understand now? You are being "rude and insulting" when you are dismissive of ideas etc. that you simply do not understand and fear. Remember your remarks about agendas and so forth? You have neither debating skills nor manners. Remove the plank from your own eye.

Mister D
01-11-2013, 09:27 AM
BTW, I wouldn't call that "racism" either but I'm not a progressive loon.

nic34
01-11-2013, 09:31 AM
Jump in any time, cheerleader.

No problem!

Mister D
01-11-2013, 09:37 AM
No problem!

Don't shake those pompoms too hard!

Dr. Who
01-11-2013, 08:53 PM
http://www.umass.edu/family/sites/default/files/imagecache/NewsLarge/news/l._scott.jpgFormer CRF Scholar, Lisa Scott (’09-’10) says her recent study of babies doesn’t mean the infants are racist, as has been reported in some media accounts. Her study confirms that although infants are born with equal abilities to tell apart people within multiple races, by age 9 months they are better at recognizing faces and emotional expressions of people within groups they interact with most.

Chris
01-11-2013, 09:16 PM
Why, because you're so proficient at inserting other people's work into your posts. That may be fine for an OP to stimulate discussion, but in your replies you rarely write more than one sentence. Just because you have a particular POV, it does not necessarily follow that everyone else must agree with it, irrespective of the plethora of compatible opinions that you affix to your post. Unless you can articulate your own opinion, I for one have no idea whether you even have any understanding of the material that you are inserting between minimal comments. You are a very prolific poster of other people's ideas - let's hear you articulate your own opinion for a change.

Is that the best you got? You don't like the way I post. Aw, gee. At least I back up what I say. Why don't you try it some time.

Chris
01-11-2013, 09:22 PM
I choose not to be rude and insulting, even when provoked, and find people who provide churlish and trite responses as exemplars of people who have neither learned debating skills nor manners. They are simply time wasters.

Nice self contradiction. You choose not to insult then you do. What debate tactic is that?

Chris
01-11-2013, 09:25 PM
http://www.umass.edu/family/sites/default/files/imagecache/NewsLarge/news/l._scott.jpgFormer CRF Scholar, Lisa Scott (’09-’10) says her recent study of babies doesn’t mean the infants are racist, as has been reported in some media accounts. Her study confirms that although infants are born with equal abilities to tell apart people within multiple races, by age 9 months they are better at recognizing faces and emotional expressions of people within groups they interact with most.

Another contradiction. You just criticized me for referencing others, then you do it yourself. What debate tactic is that?

Dr. Who
01-11-2013, 11:02 PM
The point is you don't say very much at all, other than to disparage or dismiss other people's comments. I have yet to hear you express a point of view on anything.

Chris
01-11-2013, 11:21 PM
The point is you don't say very much at all, other than to disparage or dismiss other people's comments. I have yet to hear you express a point of view on anything.

Doesn't that instead describe you?

Consider this discussion, or lack thereof by you: 15.1% Poverty Rate -- But Why? (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/9942-15-1-Poverty-Rate-But-Why). You jumped into that with your walls of words, borrowed ideas all that you couldn't begin to answer the simplest questions about. Again and again and again you failed to. Forums are for dialog, discussion, not walls of words.

And it is you there and here disparaging and dismissing other people's comments.

You want to discuss? Then do so.

Dr. Who
01-12-2013, 12:31 AM
I am not disparaging your opinion, but rather your reluctance to convey your own words. I have tried many times to answer your question, but you provide no insight into what you are looking for in a response. The least answer that I can provide to your persistent question about corporations, is that they, like individual citizens, are required to pay taxes by the US government. Whether that requirement is in dispute, is another question. If corporations do not want to pay the full freight on taxes, they need to provide employment, which is both tax deductible and subject to tax incentives. If you happen to subscribe to tea party/libertarian ideals and wish to debate the merits of big vs small government, be my guest. As to my "wall of words", at least I don't simply appropriate other people's opinions (yes, even if they are published, they are still opinions, not incontrovertible facts), nor am I too lazy to express my own. Not all opinions can be expressed in a sound bite or dismissive remark.

Carygrant
01-12-2013, 06:36 AM
What debate tactic is that?


Is it called stamping hard on a pompous and patronising prig ?
He summed you very quickly . Or are we all ganging up on you?

Mister D
01-12-2013, 09:35 AM
http://www.umass.edu/family/sites/default/files/imagecache/NewsLarge/news/l._scott.jpgFormer CRF Scholar, Lisa Scott (’09-’10) says her recent study of babies doesn’t mean the infants are racist, as has been reported in some media accounts. Her study confirms that although infants are born with equal abilities to tell apart people within multiple races, by age 9 months they are better at recognizing faces and emotional expressions of people within groups they interact with most.

Yes, I was saying that I don't think babies are racist either. :laugh:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/8868-The-Political-Disadvantages-of-Race-Baiting?p=213876&viewfull=1#post213876

You have yet to actually respond to anything I've said. right now, you're battling your emotions. Now it's quite clear why you didn't bother to link us to your source. She is quoted yet again...


The results of the study have implications for the design of early education to reduce racial stereotyping and prejudice in adults. Scott states, "These results suggest that biases in face recognition and perception begin in preverbal infants, well before concepts about race are formed. It is important for us to understand the nature of these biases in order to reduce or eliminate them."



http://www.umass.edu/family/news/crf-scholar-lisa-scott-s-new-study-infant-perception-receives-widespread-attention

Now lets try this again...

The biases in question are not taught. Do you understand now? You are being "rude and insulting" when you are dismissive of ideas etc. that you simply do not understand and fear. Remember your remarks about agendas and so forth? You have neither debating skills nor manners. Remove the plank from your own eye.

Mister D
01-12-2013, 09:38 AM
Is that the best you got? You don't like the way I post. Aw, gee. At least I back up what I say. Why don't you try it some time.

I love this. Here he is criticizing the way you post while he proceeds to rely on the very researcher he accused of having an agenda the day before. lol

Chris
01-12-2013, 09:48 AM
I am not disparaging your opinion, but rather your reluctance to convey your own words. I have tried many times to answer your question, but you provide no insight into what you are looking for in a response. The least answer that I can provide to your persistent question about corporations, is that they, like individual citizens, are required to pay taxes by the US government. Whether that requirement is in dispute, is another question. If corporations do not want to pay the full freight on taxes, they need to provide employment, which is both tax deductible and subject to tax incentives. If you happen to subscribe to tea party/libertarian ideals and wish to debate the merits of big vs small government, be my guest. As to my "wall of words", at least I don't simply appropriate other people's opinions (yes, even if they are published, they are still opinions, not incontrovertible facts), nor am I too lazy to express my own. Not all opinions can be expressed in a sound bite or dismissive remark.

It would be good if you "disparaged" my opinion rather than constantly engage in ad hom.

You never tried to answer my question, but posted lectures on other topics.


you provide no insight into what you are looking for in a response

I'm looking for your response.

Here again is your claim:


Companies who profit from the people, either need to pay much higher taxes or provide employment in exchange for their vast profits.

Here again is my question:


Why do companies that profit have to pay more taxes or provide employment? Justify your claim.

Nothing difficult there, in fact very simple, just that you don't have a prepared lecture to answer it with. You're left on your own to come up with an answer.




The least answer that I can provide to your persistent question about corporations, is that they, like individual citizens, are required to pay taxes by the US government.

That wasn't the question. I didn't ask why they pay taxes, I asked why if they make profits they should pay much higher taxes as you claimed.



If corporations do not want to pay the full freight on taxes, they need to provide employment

Here you're merely repeating your claim, not answering why this should be so.



If you happen to subscribe to tea party/libertarian ideals and wish to debate the merits of big vs small government, be my guest.

A common tactic you use, try and change the topic.




As to my "wall of words", at least I don't simply appropriate other people's opinions

You most certainly do. Your claim is common among liberals. You later rephrased your claim as companies who profit must pay their fair share. I hear it all the time from liberals. You hear it from politicians, you hear it from pundits, you hear it from the press. You're merely repeating what you've heard without, apparently, by your inability to answer a simple question, understanding the words.


Not all opinions can be expressed in a sound bite or dismissive remark.

It's a forum for discussion, not school for lectures.

Chris
01-12-2013, 09:54 AM
Is it called stamping hard on a pompous and patronising prig ?
He summed you very quickly . Or are we all ganging up on you?

IOW, as I said, ad hom. Something you're well-practiced in. Ad hom is like waving a white flag you've run out of arguments but want to hide the fact. Ganging up on me? LOL, ad hom is self-defeating.

Mister D
01-12-2013, 10:35 AM
It only gets worse as they develop. Granted, it's amazing to see the need for such research and the hand wringing over the obvious results.


Within the past decade or so, developmental psychologists have begun a handful of longitudinal studies to determine exactly when children develop bias. Phyllis Katz, then a professor at the University of Colorado, led one such study—following 100 black children and 100 white children for their first six years. She tested these children and their parents nine times during those six years, with the first test at 6 months old.

How do researchers test a 6-month-old? They show babies photographs of faces. Katz found that babies will stare significantly longer at photographs of faces that are a different race from their parents, indicating they find the face out of the ordinary. Race itself has no ethnic meaning per se—but children's brains are noticing skin-color differences and trying to understand their meaning.
When the kids turned 3, Katz showed them photographs of other children and asked them to choose whom they'd like to have as friends. Of the white children, 86 percent picked children of their own race. When the kids were 5 and 6, Katz gave these children a small deck of cards, with drawings of people on them. Katz told the children to sort the cards into two piles any way they wanted. Only 16 percent of the kids used gender to split the piles. But 68 percent of the kids used race to split the cards, without any prompting. In reporting her findings, Katz concluded: "I think it is fair to say that at no point in the study did the children exhibit the Rousseau type of color-blindness that many adults expect."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/09/04/see-baby-discriminate.html

Dr. Who
01-12-2013, 10:37 AM
Another contradiction. You just criticized me for referencing others, then you do it yourself. What debate tactic is that?
It's a matter of degree. You're posts are 95% quotations, 5% you. In this case the quote was to reference the person whose study was in dispute. Since the actual study paper was not available, I questioned the popular conclusion that infants were showing incipient racist tendencies.

Chris
01-12-2013, 10:41 AM
It's a matter of degree. You're posts are 95% quotations, 5% you. In this case the quote was to reference the person whose study was in dispute. Since the actual study paper was not available, I questioned the popular conclusion that infants were showing incipient racist tendencies.

That doesn't address your self-contradiction, criticizing another (not me, btw) for what you then turned around and did yourself. Or does the hypocrisy of doing that escape you?


Take note, who, no quotes, since you seem to be calculating such nonsense.

Mister D
01-12-2013, 10:42 AM
It's a matter of degree. You're posts are 95% quotations, 5% you. In this case the quote was to reference the person whose study was in dispute. Since the actual study paper was not available, I questioned the popular conclusion that infants were showing incipient racist tendencies.

It was evident that you reacted to a headline.