Take a a look at this swill. You too could be a "symbolic" racist

[mugsy]

Well, to be fair, there was some good work done back in the nineteen-teens and 20s that might have prevented some of the problems we are currently having if we'd followed its advice...

Be careful where you tread on this one...specifically to what research are you referring?

 

[n423]

Couldn't give a sh_t less what Piers or any Brits think...

 

[TedKennedy]

Be careful where you tread on this one...specifically to what research are you referring?

Why be careful? Let the facts speak for themselves.

 

[Old Fart]

My direct ancestry is German Catholic, Indian, & Irish.
I'm not racist, but definitely alcoholic.
Does that count for anything?

 

[TedKennedy]

My direct ancestry is German Catholic, Indian, & Irish.
I'm not racist, but definitely alcoholic.
Does that count for anything?

No. There is absolutely no value to anything European-related. Europe is devoid of culture, and has only offered humanity suffering, racism, and chauvanism. The Indian part of you may offer hope, but if you skin color is pale, you, sir, are a racist.

 

[Glocktogo]

I can't be racist, I have a black president!

 

[mugsy]

Why be careful? Let the facts speak for themselves.

Because he could be referring, for instance, to economic research about the bad effects of Federal legislation to control certain aspects of the banking system or he could be (I doubt) referring to dubious "eugenics" research that was just as biased - and was truly racist - as the crap the OP is, rightly, worked up over in this thread.

I think the former may be good to use while latter is completely discredited and serves no purpose when cited as "research" other than to wave red flags of racism.

 

[ripnbst]

People who score high in symbolic racism also typically favor policies that they perceive as punitive to blacks, such as longer prison sentences and “stop and frisk.”

“We were initially surprised that no one had studied this issue before; however, the US government cut research funding for gun-related research over decade and a half ago, so research in this area has been somewhat suppressed.”

I found the first sentence left me in tears after intense laughter set in.

The reason for the second is they don't want to fund research that could reveal information that doesn't support their plan.

 

[uncle money bags]

Well, to be fair, there was some good work done back in the nineteen-teens and 20s that might have prevented some of the problems we are currently having if we'd followed its advice...

Be careful where you tread on this one...specifically to what research are you referring?

Why be careful? Let the facts speak for themselves.

Because he could be referring, for instance, to economic research about the bad effects of Federal legislation to control certain aspects of the banking system or he could be (I doubt) referring to dubious "eugenics" research that was just as biased - and was truly racist - as the crap the OP is, rightly, worked up over in this thread.

I think the former may be good to use while latter is completely discredited and serves no purpose when cited as "research" other than to wave red flags of racism.

I would like to know more about what is being discussed here.

 

[cjjtulsa]

I would like to know more about what is being discussed here.

Me too, though I'd wager that if it is some sort of study that results in findings that are antithetical to the progressive agenda or aren't PC, they'll be labled as "flawed", "biased", or something similar. Research results are only legit if they don't offend anyone and/or support the progressive agenda.

Sounds like the unmentioned studies above could go either way.