McCain a racist?

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Then report it tbqh...

The poster has a right to say what he wants. Just doesn't come across that respectful and intellegent. Let's focus on McCain, not what newspaper it came from and trashing Vietnamese soliders who had a duty to fight in that war just like the Americans did.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by flip

I give you a lineup of three people and we know one is a racist just not which one.

There is a 6 year old girl from BC whose father is a doctor, a 24 year old guy from New York who is in graduate school obtaining his masters in philosophy and a 36 year old mechanic from Mississippi who doesn't have his high school diploma.

Which one of these three would you say has the best chance of being a racist?

I pick the six year old girl. Since her father is a doctor he is probably rich. That is one of the determining characteristics, according to you, indicating an increased likelihood of being a racist.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'll take the graduate student in Philosophy because he probably has no connection to the real world and he's bitter at the world because he's going to be driving a cab for the rest of his life.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Classic Liberal San Francisco BS.

This comes from a paper based in a city that releases illegals so they can murder US CIVILIANS.

Pretty much every US city releases illegals. Your comment is stupid.

MCCAIN had every right to use whatever language he wanted to describe those complete waste of human excrament. Its too bad Vietnam didnt allow abortion, maybe some of those guards would have been casualties of it.

I don't think anyone here is questioning his right to say what he wants. It just doesn't come off as very intelligent to use racially deregatory terms. Just like your post doesn't come off sounding intelligent.

Again, the Liberal based media attempts to shame McCain's character by any and all means necessary. I wont be surprised to see this on MSNBC or ABC Sunday News this weekend as a result.

I would be surprised actually. If you had read the article you would notice it is from 2000. Although there is a book being released called " and the racism of John McCain", so it might get some press.

HA HA HA.

What was funny?

[flip]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I pick the six year old girl. Since her father is a doctor he is probably rich. That is one of the determining characteristics, according to you, indicating an increased likelihood of being a racist.

Anyone who says that there aren't groups of people predisposed to be more likely to be racist is lying or stupid. (just like how there are people predisposed to crime and dozens of other things, including good things)

Just picking one at random while ignoring ALL other traits is pretty ignorant. Don't forget I said who would be most likely to be the racist and the girl is clearly not the answer. I know you're trying to make a point here but that's a swing and a miss on that one.

Like a previous poster said poor people may be just as likely to be racist as rich people based on certain factors. Don't label ALL rich people as racists because I certainly didn't.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by flip

Just picking one at random while ignoring ALL other traits is pretty ignorant.

But isn't that sorta going against your point?

How would you weigh these traits? What ones would carry heavier weight?

e.g. if the 24 year old guy from New York was a mechanic who doesn't have his high school diploma whilst the 36 year old from Mississippi is in graduate school obtaining his masters in philosophy would you call the New Yorker?

[flip]

Originally Posted by Bagor

But isn't that sorta going against your point?

How would you weigh these traits? What ones would carry heavier weight?

e.g. if the 24 year old guy from New York was a mechanic who doesn't have his high school diploma whilst the 36 year old from Mississippi is in graduate school obtaining his masters in philosophy would you call the New Yorker?

NO that isn't my point and I only have some idea how to ideally measure these traits.

In fact your example is perfect I have absolutely no idea who would be more likely to be predisposed to racism.

The greatest factor is probably were either of their parents racist but even then that doesn't guarantee that their kids will be.

Let me say it for about the 200th time this thread:

Like many other things (crime, murder, attending a post secondary institution, graduating high school) there are factors that make one MORE LIKELY, this doesn't mean that all people will become _______, but that they may be predisposed to becoming _______, due to the traits they possess. There may also be people who possess none of the traits but still turn out to be ______. I don't know how some of you guys aren't getting this. I have used could, may, more likely and about 2 dozen other qualifiers but everyone who quotes me keeps saying "so all _____ people are racist then". Stop putting words in my mouth and actually read the posts. It sounds really great to make a snide post but if you're being ignorant of what I'm saying it doesn't have any weight.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by flip

I don't know how some of you guys aren't getting this. I have used could, may, more likely and about 2 dozen other qualifiers but everyone who quotes me keeps saying "so all _____ people are racist then". Stop putting words in my mouth and actually read the posts. It sounds really great to make a snide post but if you're being ignorant of what I'm saying it doesn't have any weight.

Seriously ..... calm down. There was NO INTENT of snideness in my post whatsoever.

It was a simple question.

You "suggested" traits that "might" predispose people for a "tendency" to be racist more than others. Agreed?

All I'm saying is that it would be a mutivariable analysis and was enquiring how you would weigh these "suggested" traits. Would you for example (IYO) put more weight on education than geography?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Seriously ..... calm down. There was NO INTENT of snideness in my post whatsoever.

It was a simple question.

You "suggested" traits that "might" predispose people for a "tendency" to be racist more than others. Agreed?

All I'm saying is that it would be a mutivariable analysis and was enquiring how you would weigh these "suggested" traits. Would you for example (IYO) put more weight on education than geography?

IMO opinion economics is the greatest factor, but than again a part of that is there income level generally reflects education so that might be grouping 2 in 1.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by flip

NO that isn't my point and I only have some idea how to ideally measure these traits.

In fact your example is perfect I have absolutely no idea who would be more likely to be predisposed to racism.

The greatest factor is probably were either of their parents racist but even then that doesn't guarantee that their kids will be.

Let me say it for about the 200th time this thread:

Like many other things (crime, murder, attending a post secondary institution, graduating high school) there are factors that make one MORE LIKELY, this doesn't mean that all people will become _______, but that they may be predisposed to becoming _______, due to the traits they possess. There may also be people who possess none of the traits but still turn out to be ______. I don't know how some of you guys aren't getting this. I have used could, may, more likely and about 2 dozen other qualifiers but everyone who quotes me keeps saying "so all _____ people are racist then". Stop putting words in my mouth and actually read the posts. It sounds really great to make a snide post but if you're being ignorant of what I'm saying it doesn't have any weight.

Sounds like correlation vs. causation to me.

Certain behaviours and beliefs are more prevalent among certain demographics, that is undeniable. It doesn't mean that membership in a demographic causes those beliefs and behaviours, it just means the probability that a randomly selected person from that demographic will exhibit those beliefs and behaviours is heightened..

[flip]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Sounds like correlation vs. causation to me.

Certain behaviours and beliefs are more prevalent among certain demographics, that is undeniable. It doesn't mean that membership in a demographic causes those beliefs and behaviours, it just means the probability that a randomly selected person from that demographic will exhibit those beliefs and behaviours is heightened..

Very well said. Seems I missed the mark before and argued causation, but my general point remains the same.

[Titan]

Using the term does not make you a racist. However, it does make you sound like a racist. Most people are measured in their words, particularly in an interview. Using a word that is generally considered racist makes you sound racist so most people would avoid using that word. That someone would use that word is reason to question their overall judgement.

To go back to an earlier example if I was attacked by a black man I would describe him to the police as a black man, not as a Ni**er because I don't think of him that way. To use a word in a traumatic situation may be understandable but it also indicates that that word is close to the surface anyways, and the trauma lowered the self-censor bar somewhat. That is troubling. That McCain, who has had many years to cogitate on the matter, used a highly derogatory term is scary. To say he only applies it to his captors means he knows and acknowledges its derogatory connotations, being against an entire race.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Flip, the part of your convoluted theories on racism and being able to judge that you have never met as a result that astounds me is your deduction that because Mr. McCain fought in Vietnam that he is likely a racist. Admittedly that was one of a number of factors which you argued, but I think it is appalling that you seem to think that someone even runs the risk of being considered a less moral person based upon their service to their country in a time of war, regardless of your views on the war itself. McCain is as close to a war hero as you are ever going to find based upon everything that we know about his time as a POW and his courageous actions.

Fighting against a minority means nothing as to whether someone is racist or not. Does that mean that our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are bigoted, because they are fighting against what amounts to a religious minority in Canada. I personally can’t see the difference between the two situations and that doesn’t speak well for your argument as it is foolish and quite frankly offensive.

I don’t care if you say that you didn’t say that he was a racist as a result of his service, but to even consider his service to his country to be an indication that he was a racist is abhorrent.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Flip, the part of your convoluted theories on racism and being able to judge that you have never met as a result that astounds me is your deduction that because Mr. McCain fought in Vietnam that he is likely a racist. Admittedly that was one of a number of factors which you argued, but I think it is appalling that you seem to think that someone even runs the risk of being considered a less moral person based upon their service to their country in a time of war, regardless of your views on the war itself. McCain is as close to a war hero as you are ever going to find based upon everything that we know about his time as a POW and his courageous actions.

Fighting against a minority means nothing as to whether someone is racist or not. Does that mean that our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are bigoted, because they are fighting against what amounts to a religious minority in Canada. I personally can’t see the difference between the two situations and that doesn’t speak well for your argument as it is foolish and quite frankly offensive.

I don’t care if you say that you didn’t say that he was a racist as a result of his service, but to even consider his service to his country to be an indication that he was a racist is abhorrent.

I think it could be found that the military actually decreases racism. The US military desegregated far before the rest of the country. You will be surprised how quickly racism fades when you are relying on people of other races to cover your back in a battle.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

My Fiancees Bros is in the US Army Reserves and he just got back from a tour in Kuwait. The US Army teaches racism. They promote the use of 'slurs' when talking about the enemy. This is not a new thing, it is used to de-humanize the enemy. In WW2 they called the Germans 'Krauts', In Nam it was g**k. In Iraq they call them 'Hodgies'. Not sure of the spelling, but that is my phonetic version (wtf, why can't you spell phonetic phonetically?)...

Originally Posted by Sowa

I think it could be found that the military actually decreases racism. The US military desegregated far before the rest of the country. You will be surprised how quickly racism fades when you are relying on people of other races to cover your back in a battle.

It might stop you from being racist against those you serve with but they promote it against the enemy.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

It might stop you from being racist against those you serve with but they promote it against the enemy.

Is the goal then not to racially discriminate but rather to dehumanize the enemy regardless of racial bounderies. Same thing as German's in World War II. They teach you to hate but does that really translate into racism, is all hatred equal is the question.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Is the goal then not to racially discriminate but rather to dehumanize the enemy regardless of racial bounderies. Same thing as German's in World War II. They teach you to hate but does that really translate into racism, is all hatred equal is the question.

It is through racism that you dehumanize the enemy imo. You talk down about them and look on them as on a different level than you are. That is pretty textbook racism tbqh.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

It is through racism that you dehumanize the enemy imo. You talk down about them and look on them as on a different level than you are. That is pretty textbook racism tbqh.

You aren't directing that hatred towards a racial group as much as you are an enemy force though, there is a difference which can not and should not be ignored.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by pepper24

The poster has a right to say what he wants. Just doesn't come across that respectful and intellegent. Let's focus on McCain, not what newspaper it came from and trashing Vietnamese soliders who had a duty to fight in that war just like the Americans did.

I guess they had a duty to torture American POWs as well, right? Long after the war was over.

Otherwise, regarding the thread, and what McCain said. Given what the guy has been through, I'm sure he can think of worse things to call his captors.

[CaramonLS]

Although Flip's generalization is a little harsh, the older you are (in the US/Canada at least), the more likely you are to be a racist.