In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: After listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
In the UK I found it's mostly about how you sound. So I suspect there are regional differences, especially in a place as big as the US.
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: After listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
It's an ugly line that made me roll my eyes when I heard it because it's quite clearly against my perception of Sanders and what he tends to be like, by being generally insensitive and short-sighted on an issue in order to pander towards the african american crowd. That's not to say that the subject matter is bad, but he said it much worse way than he could and probably should have.
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
Poor white people are treated the same way as poor minorities. It's not a race thing as much as it is social status discrimination.
A $3000 car is not out of reach for anyone, even if they earn minimum wage. It requires some knowledge of personal finance, but if you don't learn basic math then that's an entirely different problem.
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
Poor white people are treated the same way as poor minorities. It's not a race thing as much as it is social status discrimination.
A $3000 car is not out of reach for anyone, even if they earn minimum wage. It requires some knowledge of personal finance, but if you don't learn basic math then that's an entirely different problem.
Wasn't there an Ivy league black professor who was arrested at his own home cause the cops assumed he was the one breaking in? Yea the poor element is a part of it but the link in people's minds that black = poor = likely criminal is still pretty real.
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
Poor white people are treated the same way as poor minorities. It's not a race thing as much as it is social status discrimination.
A $3000 car is not out of reach for anyone, even if they earn minimum wage. It requires some knowledge of personal finance, but if you don't learn basic math then that's an entirely different problem.
This is demonstrably untrue. Here's a slightly old but still highly relevant piece of research; there are literally hundreds of others that similarly suggest that race still plays an unfairly figurative role in many aspects of society. I've bolded key language for your convenience.
Though racial inequality in the U.S. labor market is understood as a persistent problem even today, it has been difficult to measure how such discrimination works. Do employers actively discriminate against African-American job applicants? Can such discrimination be proven? What is the effect of improved credentials for African-Americans? A new study offers the answers.
For most job applicants, getting called for an interview is the first major step towards getting a job. But what if that call never comes? Can the name listed on a resume and the perceptions of race implied by this name hinder an applicant's chances before even getting his or her foot in the door?
In the study "Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?" Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology use a field experiment to measure the extent of race-based job discrimination in the current labor market.
From July 2001 to May 2002, Bertrand and Mullainathan sent fictitious resumes in response to 1,300 help-wanted ads listed in the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune. They used the callback rate for interviews to measure the success of each resume. Approximately 5,000 resumes were sent for positions in sales, administrative support, clerical services, and customer service. Jobs ranged from a cashier at a store to the manager of sales at a large firm.
The catch was that the authors manipulated the perception of race via the name of each applicant, with comparable credentials for each racial group. Each resume was randomly assigned either a very white-sounding name (Emily Walsh, Brendan Baker) or a very African-American-sounding name (Lakisha Washington, Jamal Jones).
The authors find that applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.
In addition, race greatly affects how much applicants benefit from having more experience and credentials. White job applicants with higher-quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower-quality resumes. Having a higher-quality resume has a much smaller impact on African-American applicants, who experienced only 9 percent more callbacks for the same improvement in their credentials. This disparity suggests that in the current state of the labor market, African-Americans may not have strong individual incentives to build better resumes.
"For us, the most surprising and disheartening result is seeing that applicants with African-American names were not rewarded for having better resumes," says Bertrand. Statistically, the authors found that discrimination levels were consistent across all the occupations and industries covered in the experiment. Even federal contractors (for whom affirmative action is better enforced) and companies that explicitly state that they are an "Equal Opportunity Employer" did not discriminate less.
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
Poor white people are treated the same way as poor minorities. It's not a race thing as much as it is social status discrimination.
A $3000 car is not out of reach for anyone, even if they earn minimum wage. It requires some knowledge of personal finance, but if you don't learn basic math then that's an entirely different problem.
Wasn't there an Ivy league black professor who was arrested at his own home cause the cops assumed he was the one breaking in? Yea the poor element is a part of it but the link in people's minds that black = poor = likely criminal is still pretty real.
James Blake, famous tennis athlete who also went to Harvard, was literally tackled and held down (while casually standing against a wall outside) because he looked like another black guy too, iirc. It happens all the time and it's really annoying when people think that racism doesn't exist. Social discrimination is a thing too, but racism is as well.
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
Poor white people are treated the same way as poor minorities. It's not a race thing as much as it is social status discrimination.
A $3000 car is not out of reach for anyone, even if they earn minimum wage. It requires some knowledge of personal finance, but if you don't learn basic math then that's an entirely different problem.
Wasn't there an Ivy league black professor who was arrested at his own home cause the cops assumed he was the one breaking in? Yea the poor element is a part of it but the link in people's minds that black = poor = likely criminal is still pretty real.
James Blake, famous tennis athlete who also went to Harvard, was literally tackled and held down (while casually standing against a wall outside) because he looked like another black guy too, iirc. It happens all the time and it's really annoying when people think that racism doesn't exist. Social discrimination is a thing too, but racism is as well.
"famous" tennis athlete. Yeah, maybe famous if you're one of the top 1% in the American income scale, who actually follows tennis in America. You'd be hard pressed to find any Americans who knows any top American Men's tennis players in the past 10 years.
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
Poor white people are treated the same way as poor minorities. It's not a race thing as much as it is social status discrimination.
A $3000 car is not out of reach for anyone, even if they earn minimum wage. It requires some knowledge of personal finance, but if you don't learn basic math then that's an entirely different problem.
1. What "new cars" are $3,000? I've never seen a new car for $3,000 before. In fact, a quick Google search tells me that the average new car is somewhere between $15,000 and $25,000.
2. Why do you think that someone who doesn't have an understanding of finances or math deserves to be innocently attacked? And why don't you realize that this is victim blaming?
3. Out of curiosity, what's your socioeconomic status and skin color? I ask this because it doesn't sound like you're able to relate to this.
4. Can you provide any research that defends your positions, or is it all anecdotal and theoretical?
yes yes and when people were biased against Blumenthals and Goldbaums it was clearly also not racist it was just a anti romantic sentiment against whimsical sounding flower related names
On March 20 2016 06:03 wei2coolman wrote: I've always seen that studied quoted and linked, sure sounds like a bias against names, a lot less about bias against race.
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
Poor white people are treated the same way as poor minorities. It's not a race thing as much as it is social status discrimination.
A $3000 car is not out of reach for anyone, even if they earn minimum wage. It requires some knowledge of personal finance, but if you don't learn basic math then that's an entirely different problem.
Wasn't there an Ivy league black professor who was arrested at his own home cause the cops assumed he was the one breaking in? Yea the poor element is a part of it but the link in people's minds that black = poor = likely criminal is still pretty real.
James Blake, famous tennis athlete who also went to Harvard, was literally tackled and held down (while casually standing against a wall outside) because he looked like another black guy too, iirc. It happens all the time and it's really annoying when people think that racism doesn't exist. Social discrimination is a thing too, but racism is as well.
"famous" tennis athlete. Yeah, maybe famous if you're one of the top 1% in the American income scale, who actually follows tennis in America. You'd be hard pressed to find any Americans who knows any top American Men's tennis players in the past 10 years.
Pretty sure that Andy Roddick is still a household name, even though he's retired. And Agassi and Sampras and even McEnroe and others. But even still, the point was that LegalLord said that dressing well and not looking poor means that black people won't be treated poorly, which is patently false. Even if you don't know who James Blake is (he was top five in the world at one point), he still wasn't a slob or doing anything wrong in this video:
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
Poor white people are treated the same way as poor minorities. It's not a race thing as much as it is social status discrimination.
A $3000 car is not out of reach for anyone, even if they earn minimum wage. It requires some knowledge of personal finance, but if you don't learn basic math then that's an entirely different problem.
1. What "new cars" are $3,000? I've never seen a new car for $3,000 before. In fact, a quick Google search tells me that the average new car is somewhere between $15,000 and $25,000.
2. Why do you think that someone who doesn't have an understanding of finances or math deserves to be innocently attacked? And why don't you realize that this is victim blaming?
3. Out of curiosity, what's your socioeconomic status and skin color? I ask this because it doesn't sound like you're able to relate to this.
4. Can you provide any research that defends your positions, or is it all anecdotal and theoretical?
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
Poor white people are treated the same way as poor minorities. It's not a race thing as much as it is social status discrimination.
A $3000 car is not out of reach for anyone, even if they earn minimum wage. It requires some knowledge of personal finance, but if you don't learn basic math then that's an entirely different problem.
1. What "new cars" are $3,000? I've never seen a new car for $3,000 before. In fact, a quick Google search tells me that the average new car is somewhere between $15,000 and $25,000.
2. Why do you think that someone who doesn't have an understanding of finances or math deserves to be innocently attacked? And why don't you realize that this is victim blaming?
3. Out of curiosity, what's your socioeconomic status and skin color? I ask this because it doesn't sound like you're able to relate to this.
4. Can you provide any research that defends your positions, or is it all anecdotal and theoretical?
I can't even tell if this is a parody post lifted off tumblr.It's got that vibe.
Travel through WV and you'll find plenty of dirt poor white communities, especially in regions devastated by Obamas anti-coal agenda.Not saying clean energy is bad just saying nothing replaced coal in these areas and the people are poor as dirt.
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
Poor white people are treated the same way as poor minorities. It's not a race thing as much as it is social status discrimination.
A $3000 car is not out of reach for anyone, even if they earn minimum wage. It requires some knowledge of personal finance, but if you don't learn basic math then that's an entirely different problem.
1. What "new cars" are $3,000? I've never seen a new car for $3,000 before. In fact, a quick Google search tells me that the average new car is somewhere between $15,000 and $25,000.
2. Why do you think that someone who doesn't have an understanding of finances or math deserves to be innocently attacked? And why don't you realize that this is victim blaming?
3. Out of curiosity, what's your socioeconomic status and skin color? I ask this because it doesn't sound like you're able to relate to this.
4. Can you provide any research that defends your positions, or is it all anecdotal and theoretical?
He never said new, he said "nicer".
Really, really not the point. There's no official cost or look of a car (especially one that's a few thousand dollars) that eliminates racism.
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
Poor white people are treated the same way as poor minorities. It's not a race thing as much as it is social status discrimination.
A $3000 car is not out of reach for anyone, even if they earn minimum wage. It requires some knowledge of personal finance, but if you don't learn basic math then that's an entirely different problem.
1. What "new cars" are $3,000? I've never seen a new car for $3,000 before. In fact, a quick Google search tells me that the average new car is somewhere between $15,000 and $25,000.
2. Why do you think that someone who doesn't have an understanding of finances or math deserves to be innocently attacked? And why don't you realize that this is victim blaming?
3. Out of curiosity, what's your socioeconomic status and skin color? I ask this because it doesn't sound like you're able to relate to this.
4. Can you provide any research that defends your positions, or is it all anecdotal and theoretical?
I can't even tell if this is a parody post lifted off tumblr.It's got that vibe.
Travel through WV and you'll find plenty of dirt poor white communities, especially in regions devastated by Obamas anti-coal agenda.Not saying clean energy is bad just saying nothing replaced coal in these areas and the people are poor as dirt.
??? Did you mean to respond to my post? I never said that white people can't be poor, nor did I mention anything having to do with coal or clean energy. What are you talking about?
The fact that there are poor people in West Virginia has literally nothing to do with the fact that minorities face societal hurdles not in the path of white folks, though it bears worth mentioning that "Appalachian" is a minority status in the United States for reasons similar to those you've provided above.
On March 20 2016 06:03 wei2coolman wrote: I've always seen that studied quoted and linked, sure sounds like a bias against names, a lot less about bias against race.
You think it's actually the sound of the name spoken out loud that causes people to discriminate the person?
On March 20 2016 05:41 LegalLord wrote: Even after listening to Sanders' entire comment, I don't think that line is taken out of context even when used standalone. His meaning is pretty clear cut and it's a form of shitty pandering.
Anecdotally, I have found that appearing presentable (not run-down car, dressing normally) is a lot more important than race. I've known quite a few blacks and Mexicans who, once they started driving a nicer car and not modeling their clothing after prison inmates, never had any more unpleasant run-ins with the police.
Unfortunately, that's anecdotal and also requires all minorities to magically obtain enough money for a new car and a new wardrobe, which isn't realistic Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white.
Poor white people are treated the same way as poor minorities. It's not a race thing as much as it is social status discrimination.
A $3000 car is not out of reach for anyone, even if they earn minimum wage. It requires some knowledge of personal finance, but if you don't learn basic math then that's an entirely different problem.
This is demonstrably untrue. Here's a slightly old but still highly relevant piece of research; there are literally hundreds of others that similarly suggest that race still plays an unfairly figurative role in many aspects of society. I've bolded key language for your convenience.
Though racial inequality in the U.S. labor market is understood as a persistent problem even today, it has been difficult to measure how such discrimination works. Do employers actively discriminate against African-American job applicants? Can such discrimination be proven? What is the effect of improved credentials for African-Americans? A new study offers the answers.
For most job applicants, getting called for an interview is the first major step towards getting a job. But what if that call never comes? Can the name listed on a resume and the perceptions of race implied by this name hinder an applicant's chances before even getting his or her foot in the door?
In the study "Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?" Marianne Bertrand, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and Sendhil Mullainathan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology use a field experiment to measure the extent of race-based job discrimination in the current labor market.
From July 2001 to May 2002, Bertrand and Mullainathan sent fictitious resumes in response to 1,300 help-wanted ads listed in the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune. They used the callback rate for interviews to measure the success of each resume. Approximately 5,000 resumes were sent for positions in sales, administrative support, clerical services, and customer service. Jobs ranged from a cashier at a store to the manager of sales at a large firm.
The catch was that the authors manipulated the perception of race via the name of each applicant, with comparable credentials for each racial group. Each resume was randomly assigned either a very white-sounding name (Emily Walsh, Brendan Baker) or a very African-American-sounding name (Lakisha Washington, Jamal Jones).
The authors find that applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.
In addition, race greatly affects how much applicants benefit from having more experience and credentials. White job applicants with higher-quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower-quality resumes. Having a higher-quality resume has a much smaller impact on African-American applicants, who experienced only 9 percent more callbacks for the same improvement in their credentials. This disparity suggests that in the current state of the labor market, African-Americans may not have strong individual incentives to build better resumes.
"For us, the most surprising and disheartening result is seeing that applicants with African-American names were not rewarded for having better resumes," says Bertrand. Statistically, the authors found that discrimination levels were consistent across all the occupations and industries covered in the experiment. Even federal contractors (for whom affirmative action is better enforced) and companies that explicitly state that they are an "Equal Opportunity Employer" did not discriminate less.
All such studies are invalid so long as racial preferences in school admission, and a generally progressive academia exist. Because an objective person knows that the same resumes aren't actually the same.
On March 20 2016 06:19 farvacola wrote: The fact that there are poor people in West Virginia has literally nothing to do with the fact that minorities face societal hurdles not in the path of white folks, though it bears worth mentioning that "Appalachian" is a minority status in the United States for reasons similar to those you've provided above.
You know, except the whole quote was about how white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
On March 20 2016 06:03 wei2coolman wrote: I've always seen that studied quoted and linked, sure sounds like a bias against names, a lot less about bias against race.
You think it's actually the sound of the name spoken out loud that causes people to discriminate the person?
The only conclusion from that study you could reasonably draw without more data, is that NAMES are discriminated against, not race.
Now if there was an attached picture of a black women with the name "Emily", or a black man with the name "John", and we saw the same level of discrimination, then the study would be more conclusive regarding the conclusion of race discrimination.
On March 20 2016 06:03 wei2coolman wrote: I've always seen that studied quoted and linked, sure sounds like a bias against names, a lot less about bias against race.
You think it's actually the sound of the name that causes people to discriminate the person?
People discriminate both on looks and on name. Name associate with something you discriminate against isn't seen favourably.
EPT
Plus, it'd just be a lot better overall if they didn't have to worry about being discriminated against simply because they're poor and not white. 
