DescentBB

agreed?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-AAd2tq2

IMO most of the real racism toward black people is confined to the past. I would call this stooping into racism as a result of some pretty specific political gripes. I.E. He doesn't hate the president and his wife for being black, but he strongly disagrees with their political goals, and in doing so indulges in some racist comments. I think we can all put the torches away and just think less of the man for going there. My question to anyone who's against him would be, "which do you hate him the most for?" I tend to think most people who are against Obama, but also against the racist comments would not be asking for a resignation, while people who are for Obama and against the racist comments would wish him political ruin...

I think it should be treated as an opportunity to make a public point, not an opportunity to publicly pretend this guy isn't one of us...

I might be in favor of some sort of disciplinary action to express the distaste/disapproval of the office for this sort of behavior.

callmeslick wrote:agreed?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-AAd2tq2

It's more unprofessional. I called G.W. Bush a monkey too. They dude looks like a freaking chip. The red head from Shawn of the Dead looks like a marmoset. However, I don't see the monkey-like features in Obama, IMO.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:IMO most of the real racism toward black people is confined to the past. I would call this stooping into racism as a result of some pretty specific political gripes. I.E. He doesn't hate the president and his wife for being black, but he strongly disagrees with their political goals, and in doing so indulges in some racist comments. I think we can all put the torches away and just think less of the man for going there. My question to anyone who's against him would be, "which do you hate him the most for?" I tend to think most people who are against Obama, but also against the racist comments would not be asking for a resignation, while people who are for Obama and against the racist comments would wish him political ruin...

I think it should be treated as an opportunity to make a public point, not an opportunity to publicly pretend this guy isn't one of us...

I might be in favor of some sort of disciplinary action to express the distaste/disapproval of the office for this sort of behavior.

Found this one. Dog whistle politics, what people hear often matters more than what someone actually said. Race baiting, poor baiting, entitlements, gay marriage, socialism, evil unions, you name it, this has a been a coded political attack line all through our history, the sole purpose being to rile up the white Euro American contingent and get them to vote against their own interests, even to the point of destroying the middle class. Trump is using it to against Latinos as well. People are sheep, especially 70% of Republicans right now supporting good old Mexican trashing Trump.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/dog ... ing-to-me/

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...while people who are for Obama and against the racist comments would wish him political ruin...

Political affiliation aside, this man should be fired because of his lack of professionalism. There are clearly better people suited for the job. You wouldn't let an employee in a restaurant or retail store make those comments, and the bar should be set much higher for those in public office.

The end.

Maybe someday people will finally realize that racism is an inherited trait, and start treating it as such, instead of trying to force it underground or bash someone out of it.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending what the guy said, just thinking we as a society could handle the matter much better.

Was watching some recent scientific studies lately that basically say racism is inherited, and the younger generations are just a racist as the older ones, but are better at hiding it, so that is where we are headed, a racist society that hides it and has no real concept on how to deal with it, because the dialogue is always poisoned right from the start.

That's all part of "tribalism". What we need to do is learn how to overcome it with our smart brains, because it's hardwired into every social being or animal as a survival instinct.

Correct, and that is exactly why only active racism should be punished, and passive racism should never be driven underground but instead should be dealt with in an open and honest way.

But, as I said, the dialog in this country is poisoned by politics and other ulterior motives.

Spidey wrote:...vague statements without citations...

Is racism "inherited" or "hereditary?" Religious affiliation is inherited, not genetic, while inclination to be religious has a possible genetic component. If racism is genetic and younger generations find it easier to suppress this, then we are naturally selecting for a better society. In that case, please continue to ostracize bigots as much as possible until the racism gene is benign.

Same thing in this context, but it seems “hereditary” is the preferred term.

(in-her'it-ĕd),
Derived from a preformed genetic code present in the parents. Contrast with acquired.
Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012

Any more hairs you wish to split?

there is no evidence that racism per se is genetically determined. There HAVE been studies suggesting that humans tend to prefer and project favorably onto people who look like them from an early age, but those studies have been muddled and rather inconclusive. Most of what passes for racism, especially when it gets to overt hatred, is TAUGHT, not inherited.

Spidey wrote:Same thing in this context, but it seems “hereditary” is the preferred term.

(in-her'it-ĕd),
Derived from a preformed genetic code present in the parents. Contrast with acquired.
Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012

Any more hairs you wish to split?

By that line of logic, I could teach my nephew to grow a set of boobs.

Spidey wrote:Any more hairs you wish to split?

It's a very important hair to split and is core to understanding what your statements mean. You could clear that up with a citation.

Citation: The entire history of the human race…

No, but seriously I’m not going to do the entire “prove what you say” thing because then we have to play the “that site is BS” game and all of that.

So look…take my word that I have seen shows and read things on this issue or don’t, I’m ok with it either way.

But I will give you one…the Wormhole episode “Are we all Bigots”. Watch it…don’t watch it…don’t care either way, but it is worth it.

Spidey wrote:Was watching some recent scientific studies lately...

This is all I'm asking for. No agenda here. If you have a link to a study, just share it. Skeptical inquiry dictates that a reference to a source is never as reliable as the source itself and what you are claiming isn't obvious by any stretch of the imagination.