Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AustonT wrote:
In case you missed it the survey was based on some photo and assosiation of the previous photo Mumbo jumbo.

No, that's a complete fail. You don't just get to make up in your own brain grapes that the study included pictures with clear differences other than race in the pictures. Just inventing silly ways to dismiss something you don't want to hear is a really good way to never learn anything.

 sebster wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
In case you missed it the survey was based on some photo and assosiation of the previous photo Mumbo jumbo.

No, that's a complete fail. You don't just get to make up in your own brain grapes that the study included pictures with clear differences other than race in the pictures. Just inventing silly ways to dismiss something you don't want to hear is a really good way to never learn anything.

It comes back when it learns how to read.

The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character. The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-anti-black-attitudes-article-1.1193641?pgno=1#ixzz2AqLH1EJ0

 AustonT wrote:
It comes back when it learns how to read.

The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character. The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-anti-black-attitudes-article-1.1193641?pgno=1#ixzz2AqLH1EJ0

You're certainly very good at cutting and pasting, but in terms of actually reading what's there and not making things up you've still got some work to do. The idea in your head that the pictures of people from different races were chosen to show more dodgy looking black people and more clean cut looking white people is a thing you made up. It's not in the article.

Now, there may well be problems with the survey, but the way you establish that is by actually finding problems with the survey, not just by making up things that might be wrong.

Recently in my hometown we have had an influx of people from the Sudan and they have the darkest most beautiful skin you'll ever see.

Maybe everyone else is just jealous.

Lets try again since you seem to be slow tonight

sebster wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
In case you missed it the survey was based on some photo and assosiation of the previous photo Mumbo jumbo.

No, that's a complete fail.

 AustonT wrote:
It comes back when it learns how to read.

The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character. The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-anti-black-attitudes-article-1.1193641?pgno=1#ixzz2AqLH1EJ0

Yep, my statement is absolutely true and remains so.
It turns out you're a Romney supporter after all sebs.

Here's your ball, run along now.

 AustonT wrote:
Lets try again since you seem to be slow tonight

I'm slow every night. But I'm on dakka so I can get away with it.

Yep, my statement is absolutely true and remains so.

No, because you posted pictures. Those pictures claimed the images in the study were likely to have shown a more negative image of a black person and a more positive image of a white person. As there is nothing anywhere suggesting the study was compromised by picking such obviously misleading pictures, it's clear that actually that's just something you made up inside your brain in order to dismiss this survey. We have absolutely no reason to believe that the images of black and white people weren't equally neutral, apart from their ethnicity.

And take away your implication that the images were negative, and all we're left with is 'they used pictures'. Which means nothing.

Making gak up with in order to dismiss something you don't like to hear is the opposite of thinking.

Here's your ball, run along now.

You didn't even include a picture of a ball. I mean that's just lazy.

 AustonT wrote:
Lets try again since you seem to be slow tonight

sebster wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
In case you missed it the survey was based on some photo and assosiation of the previous photo Mumbo jumbo.

No, that's a complete fail.

 AustonT wrote:
It comes back when it learns how to read.

The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character. The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-anti-black-attitudes-article-1.1193641?pgno=1#ixzz2AqLH1EJ0

Yep, my statement is absolutely true and remains so.
It turns out you're a Romney supporter after all sebs.

Here's your ball, run along now.

If hope and change was a well thought out mantra. I am a Romney supporter. 4 years and I have yet to see any change that provides an iota of hope.
If adding 50% to the deficit is a well thought out design, I am a Romney supporter.
However that Romney doesn't have the balls to point out the bitter pill that he is going to ask us to swallow. I am not a Romney supporter.

This is the conundrum I am left with... Will a proven disappointment be better than a suspected disappointment?

Well, a gambler in that situation would say go for Romney.

If Obama has been a disappointment, and you arn't sure about Romney, you will go with Romney. Because we already know what Obama can/will do.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, a gambler in that situation would say go for Romney.

If Obama has been a disappointment, and you arn't sure about Romney, you will go with Romney. Because we already know what Obama can/will do.

Surely a gambler would stick with Obama because he's bound to be coming up on a winning streak soon?

lol,

Ok, thats what a non-professional gambler who's about to lose his shirt would do.

The professional gambler plays to the odds.


Obama's cards are already on the table, Romney's cards are still in his hand.

 htj wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, a gambler in that situation would say go for Romney.

If Obama has been a disappointment, and you arn't sure about Romney, you will go with Romney. Because we already know what Obama can/will do.

Surely a gambler would stick with Obama because he's bound to be coming up on a winning streak soon?

Er.. no. Past behavior is usually a good indicator of future behavior. I predict lots and lots of golf and not much else. Hey I'm not knocking it. Its what I would do.

I'm pretty sure htj was being sarcastic

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm pretty sure htj was being sarcastic

He was, yes. I was sending up the desperate beliefs of, as Grey Templar said, an unlucky amateur.

Well, when it's all said and done, I'm quite happy to return to America for a holiday, despite what this survey may say.
I stopped worrying about racists a long time ago. There are racists in the UK, but that doesn't stop me getting on with my life.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, a gambler in that situation would say go for Romney.

If Obama has been a disappointment, and you arn't sure about Romney, you will go with Romney. Because we already know what Obama can/will do.

You don't throw away a bad hand for a worse hand. You toss it for something better.

Trying to reduce it to stats, let's say your approval of the incumbent is rated on a scale of 1-10 (lower is worse and 5 is pretty indifferent). So you give Obama a 3 because you are pretty unhappy but don't think he's THE WORST THING EVAH. The question is, whether the second option is better, not just different. So if you think the challenger would basically just do the same things but MOAR (say handing out public funds to big banks and the like while keeping taxes low on the top all while the economy sputters), you stick with the incumbent, because why take a 2 over a 3? Slow road to Hell vs. quick and all that. But, iif you think Romney may be a 2-6, you probably go for it, because odds are he will be better.

So the question is, do you think the untested guy is better than what you have? Opinions (which are just that), will of course differ. Hence the whole "election" thing.

And what does this have to do with the original topic? Oh yeah, we have a black president who also is running for re-election on low numbers and people like to throw politics into EVERYTHING. Literally. Even mashed potatoes.