because the world changed quite a lot since the 60s. People who deny that there has been incredible progress are the race-baiters who continue bashing and slandering those who don't support their affirmative action policies and other insidious stuff.

The "call me" ad had very little to do with race, regardless of volume of your accusations. Ford liked to party it up with the girls and that was used in the ad. I couldn't care less about the Southern history with black men and white women, I would've still made that ad because it was true. You don't subordinate the truth to people's sensitivities. And I am saying all that even though I liked the man (Ford is one of my favorite dems).

Just because racism still lives in the USA, doesn't mean it's on the same level as before and there was no progress. Enough is enough with this victim crap.

Black men were burned and hanged for even looking at a white woman, and in terms of time scale 50 years ago isn't that long. Even the white men who came to help register blacks to vote (from the elitist Northeast, a phrase we still hear used today) the Freedom Fighters were murdered.

This is the bar set by Miss Liberties in her response to me. Thus, I am asking for some examples of lynchings of Black Men for looking at White Women who are acquitted by All White Juries and were committed BY KNOWN REPUBLICANS.

I am not arguing that racism has disappeared or never even existed, although I would argue that it has been significantly reduced from the times when the example above was the "norm".

What I AM arguing against the stereotype that Democrats like to promote that this is what most Republicans, and especially the Republican Party Leadership, want still today. They imply this every time they play this race card.

As for the study you point to, I thought about this over night because I thought it deserved a serious response. My initial reaction was that this is merely more liberal pseudo-science which was designed from the outset to have an outcome meant to embarrass conservatives. I believe that serveral elements within the story you reference are clear markers of liberal bias, but I did not want to just give you an off the cuff flippant answer.

Without more information on the details of the one (out of three?) studies that actually claim to support the bias you suggest, I cannot give you a detailed response as to whether this finding is credible or not.

I will say this, however, I believe the "science" behind this study has about as much credibility as the "science" behind the past studies which have shown that Blacks have lower IQs than Whites. In other words, not much. Please excuse me if I don't just accept these findings on face value without any independent corroboration (i.e. by people who do not donate to Democratic candidates).

The outcome of this study could have been controlled just as easily as the outcome of a poll can by wording the questions in a biased manner. At this point in time I have no reason to believe that this has not occurred, and at least some anecdotal evidence to suggest that the researchers would be so inclined.

While the study claims to demonstrate a correlation between racial bias and political affiliation, it says nothing about the source of that apparant bias. One explanation might be the one that you suggest which is that Republicans truly are more biased than Democrats.

An alternative explanation (which does not seem to have been considered here, isn't that curious?) is that Republicans are actually more self-aware of their biases than Democrats. Since the results are based on self acknowledged views, this could easily explain a correlation like the one being described, and it is consistent with the sensitization programs which Whites have been subjected to over the past 50 years or so.

In fact, this result could actually be viewed as a confirmation that the various Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Programs conducted by most US businesses are actually having a positive effect on the White population with respect to recognizing racial bias, right?

Which part of the White population was most likely targetted by these programs, upper middle class white collar whites or lower-income blue-collar and welfare whites? Since the intent of these programs is to break down barriers to entry into the upper middle class for minorities it seems reasonable to assume that these courses would be applied most widely within the upper middle class white population, right? Now, what political party does that group most likely align with? The Republicans. Kinda makes you say hmmm, doesn't it?

This latter explanation is also consistent with my posts here which suggest that Democrats are actually the ones demonstrating racist tendencies without even realizing it (which my Affirmative Action training has shown me is a common problem among racists).

Let's review:

1) I made the point that the Democrats are the ones that are calling into question whether a Black Man can be elected president, and that I think that this is evidence of racism on their part. (See this ).

2) You said that (some) Republicans are racists and cited as evidence the "call me" ad. (See this ).

3) I said that the ad was not racist. (See this. ).

After that things spiraled out of control. Lots of things were said and countered ad nauseum.

So, strictly speaking, what I actually tried to say was that Democrats are racists because they keep focusing on and bringing up race, NOT because of the "call me" ad.

You are the one that brought the "call me" ad into the conversation and I simply reacted to your assertion that it was racist AND paid for by the RNC (which I interpretted as implying that you were calling Republicans racists).

Bottom line: I don't think Democrats are racists for saying that the "call me" ad is racist. I think that they are racists because they constantly call other people racists when it is unfounded (IMHO) with the "call me" ad being a case in point.

I will give you this much on the "call me" ad:

1. I understand the period in history which you believe the ad was trying to allude to and acknowledge that the types of events you are raising actually occured.

2. I also understand that you feel that by using this type of reference the RNC was trying to inflame those racists that exist out there against voting for Harold Ford.

3. In addition, I further understand that you consider using such a technique to be evidence of racism on the part of the RNC itself.

I simply disagree with this last point.

Exploiting racism may be in bad taste, but it does not make you a racist, at least IMHO. I guess the distinction comes down to this: I can exploit the racist tendencies of others to my benefit without actually holding those same racist views or beliefs.

Anyway I think it's time to move on to something else for a while. I understand and respect your position even though I don't completely agree with it.

Of course both could be pursued in parallel. I don't think that I said they couldn't. I was merely trying to illustrate the difference between "the language of racism" and "the underlying causes".

The point is that the term "Political Correctness", as I understand and use it, ONLY refers to Option 1 which ONLY focuses on stamping out mean words. It does NOT focus on changing the underlying thoughts and attitudes of the racists themselves.

Option 2 is NOT part of PC, IMHO.

In this thread we are have ONLY been discussing the effectiveness of PC (i.e. Option 1). I only presented the story as a means of helping to clarify what I meant by "the underlying causes of racism" vs. "the langauge that grows out of those causes (i.e. the thoughts, attitudes, and actions)."

Let me try yet again to highlight the distinction.

Way back when, a bunch of racists got together and decided to devise a new way to oppress the blacks. They decided that they were going to go out, pick some random black person, and string them up to a tree and hang them for no good reason. They even decided to make a party out of it by getting a whole bunch of their buddies together to join in.

These "parties" were a great success among the racists. They tried to hold them whenever they could. But soon it became obvious that they needed a name for this particular type of party (to distinguish it from say, their Sunday go to meetin' parties).

They finally settled on the name "Lynching". They could have just as easily called them "Fazbots" or "Hoozywangers", but for whatever reason they choose "Lynchings".

Now what is more important in terms of being a racist? A) The fact that these people go around hanging black people for fun, or B) the fact that they settled on the name "Lynching".

I claim that A) is where the racism actually resides, not B). If the racists had used the word "Fazbots" instead, then the "Fazbots" parties would be exactly as bad as the "Lynchings" parties were, right?

"Fazbots" and "Lynchings" are just arbitrary linguistic artifacts that are used to name an idea or concept, but they are in no way the same thing as the underlying idea or concept that they are assigned to reference.

Again, to quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Translated to this context, "A lynching by any other name would be as reprehensible."

It is not the linguistic label that we attach to an idea or activity that matters, it is the idea or activity itself that is the problem (i.e. the underlying cause).

By my understanding of the current common use of the term "Politically Correct", people would be forbidden from using the word "Lynching" in polite society and the workplace because it can be offensive to some people (i.e. the blacks). If the racists just switch to using "Fazbot" to mean the same exact thing and then continue in their current practices unabated then nothing has been solved. People will still be getting hanged for no good reason.

In fact, I would argue that by focusing solely on the words associated with racism (as prescribed by PC) our efforts to help the blacks are actually undermined because time spent chiding people over words is time NOT time spent changing the ideas, attitudes, and activities of the racists.

Let's shift any further discussion to the Politically Correct open thread instead.