|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 06:20 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 05:57 farvacola wrote:On March 20 2016 05:48 LegalLord wrote:On March 20 2016 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?
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.
Countless research articles and historical racism vs. the equivalent of "Your argument is invalid because all those experts are biased unlike a *truly* objective person".
|
On March 20 2016 06:20 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 05:57 farvacola wrote:On March 20 2016 05:48 LegalLord wrote:On March 20 2016 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?
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.
can you construct any logical argument that same ≠ same?
or are you saying everyone agreeing with you is objektive and everyone disagreeing is clearly biased?
|
On March 20 2016 05:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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 false.
Stop and frisk is another example of why. Or we could look at Ferguson or a multitude of other places/issues.
|
On March 20 2016 06:20 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:19 Nyxisto wrote: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.
Yep, except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person. And we have tons of evidence on that front as well.
|
On March 20 2016 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:20 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2016 06:19 Nyxisto wrote: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. Except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person.
I'm saying the study showed bias against names, in the specific case of call backs. Please don't misrepresent what I've said.
|
On March 20 2016 06:20 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:19 Nyxisto wrote: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.
It's because people from different backgrounds have different names, do you think names are randomly distributed at birth? The hate black guys so they hate black names
|
On March 20 2016 06:25 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:20 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2016 06:19 Nyxisto wrote: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. Except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person. I'm saying the study showed bias against names, in the specific case of call backs. Please don't misrepresent what I've said.
I know you said that about the study. You said the study's conclusions inferred bias against names rather than race, and everyone else (including myself) is pointing out that the obvious reason why those names are favored are unfavored is due to the racial implications of some of those names. Obviously. Some of those names are stereotypically black, while others are seen as white names. That's the whole point of the study.
Here's another one: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/blog/2014/september/jose-vs-joe-a-case-of-resume-racism
"Jose vs. Joe: A case of resume racism"
|
On March 20 2016 06:23 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:20 cLutZ wrote:On March 20 2016 05:57 farvacola wrote:On March 20 2016 05:48 LegalLord wrote:On March 20 2016 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?
All such studies are invalid so long as racial preferences in school admission, and a generally progresonve academia exist. Because an objective person knows that the same resumes aren't actually the same. can you construct any logical argument that same ≠ same? or are you saying everyone agreeing with you is objektive and everyone disagreeing is clearly biased?
Yup.
Racial preferences in admissions means its likely that two students of different races at the same school were admitted based on very different credentials. Since university education is mostly valuable because of how it signals that you have the admittance credentials, not the learning you did, like is not like (for what employers care about).
|
On March 20 2016 06:25 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:20 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2016 06:19 Nyxisto wrote: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. Except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person. I'm saying the study showed bias against names, in the specific case of call backs. Please don't misrepresent what I've said.
I'm not understanding why pettifogging like this is supposed to be treated as honest discourse and not trolling?
or this
On March 20 2016 06:29 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:23 puerk wrote:On March 20 2016 06:20 cLutZ wrote:On March 20 2016 05:57 farvacola wrote:On March 20 2016 05:48 LegalLord wrote:On March 20 2016 05:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?
All such studies are invalid so long as racial preferences in school admission, and a generally progresonve academia exist. Because an objective person knows that the same resumes aren't actually the same. can you construct any logical argument that same ≠ same? or are you saying everyone agreeing with you is objektive and everyone disagreeing is clearly biased? Yup. Racial preferences in admissions means its likely that two students of different races at the same school were admitted based on very different credentials. Since university education is mostly valuable because of how it signals that you have the admittance credentials, not the learning you did, like is not like (for what employers care about).
I'm sure you could ask every participant and not one of them would give that as their reason. It's not bad as far as retroactive explaining goes, but it's just a fantasy.
|
Half of America believes Donald Trump’s campaign exhibits fascist undertones, with only 30 percent disagreeing, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. The sentiment isn’t contained to Democrats, who unsurprisingly are willing to agree with a negative statement about their political rivals. Forty-five percent of independents also say Trump’s campaign has echoes of fascism, as do a full 28 percent of Republicans.
About half the country believes Trump encourages violence at his campaign events, with just 34 percent saying he doesn’t. The rest aren’t sure. Meanwhile, 27 percent of Republicans say it’s acceptable to “rough up” protesters at political events.
The survey comes in the wake of dozens of arrests and physical altercations tied to Trump’s campaign rallies, including clashes after an event was canceled in Chicago.
Trump, who once offered to pay his supporters’ legal fees if they “knock the crap out of” potential tomato-throwers, has since sought to downplay the frequency of such problems.
“The press is now going, they’re saying, ‘Oh, but there’s such violence.’ No violence. You know how many people have been hurt at our rallies? I think, like, basically none except maybe somebody got hit once,” the businessman said last week in North Carolina.
Most Americans, though, have a very different impression. Two-thirds say there’s more violence at Trump’s events than at those for other candidates, with 62 percent saying the clashes are part of a broader pattern rather than isolated incidents.
Source
|
On March 20 2016 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:25 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:20 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2016 06:19 Nyxisto wrote: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. Except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person. I'm saying the study showed bias against names, in the specific case of call backs. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I know you said that about the study. You said the study's conclusions inferred bias against names rather than race, and everyone else (including myself) is pointing out that the obvious reason why those names are favored are unfavored is due to the racial implications of some of those names. Obviously. Some of those names are stereotypically black, while others are seen as white names. That's the whole point of the study. Here's another one: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/blog/2014/september/jose-vs-joe-a-case-of-resume-racism "Jose vs. Joe: A case of resume racism"
If anything that study proves my point >.>
The last name is still the same, the first name is now different. Thus allowing more callbacks strictly based on first name; not on his actual RACE.
|
On March 20 2016 06:31 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:25 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:20 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2016 06:19 Nyxisto wrote: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. Except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person. I'm saying the study showed bias against names, in the specific case of call backs. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I know you said that about the study. You said the study's conclusions inferred bias against names rather than race, and everyone else (including myself) is pointing out that the obvious reason why those names are favored are unfavored is due to the racial implications of some of those names. Obviously. Some of those names are stereotypically black, while others are seen as white names. That's the whole point of the study. Here's another one: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/blog/2014/september/jose-vs-joe-a-case-of-resume-racism "Jose vs. Joe: A case of resume racism" If anything that study proves my point >.> The last name is still the same, the first name is now different. Thus allowing more callbacks strictly based on first name; not on his actual RACE.
And you think that the names Joe and Jose have no stereotypically racial/ skin color/ majority vs. minority preferences, when Jose is literally Spanish for Joseph?
You really think that employers are racist against the letter S? What the hell?
|
On March 20 2016 06:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:25 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:20 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2016 06:19 Nyxisto wrote: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. Except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person. I'm saying the study showed bias against names, in the specific case of call backs. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I know you said that about the study. You said the study's conclusions inferred bias against names rather than race, and everyone else (including myself) is pointing out that the obvious reason why those names are favored are unfavored is due to the racial implications of some of those names. Obviously. Some of those names are stereotypically black, while others are seen as white names. That's the whole point of the study. Here's another one: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/blog/2014/september/jose-vs-joe-a-case-of-resume-racism "Jose vs. Joe: A case of resume racism" If anything that study proves my point >.> The last name is still the same, the first name is now different. Thus allowing more callbacks strictly based on first name; not on his actual RACE. And you think that the names Joe and Jose have no stereotypically racial/ skin color/ majority vs. minority preferences, when Jose is literally Spanish for Joseph? You really think that employers are racist against the letter S? What the hell?
S isn't a fucking race.
|
On March 20 2016 06:35 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:25 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:20 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2016 06:19 Nyxisto wrote: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. Except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person. I'm saying the study showed bias against names, in the specific case of call backs. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I know you said that about the study. You said the study's conclusions inferred bias against names rather than race, and everyone else (including myself) is pointing out that the obvious reason why those names are favored are unfavored is due to the racial implications of some of those names. Obviously. Some of those names are stereotypically black, while others are seen as white names. That's the whole point of the study. Here's another one: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/blog/2014/september/jose-vs-joe-a-case-of-resume-racism "Jose vs. Joe: A case of resume racism" If anything that study proves my point >.> The last name is still the same, the first name is now different. Thus allowing more callbacks strictly based on first name; not on his actual RACE. And you think that the names Joe and Jose have no stereotypically racial/ skin color/ majority vs. minority preferences, when Jose is literally Spanish for Joseph? You really think that employers are racist against the letter S? What the hell? S isn't a fucking race.
No shit.
|
Canada2764 Posts
On March 20 2016 06:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Half of America believes Donald Trump’s campaign exhibits fascist undertones, with only 30 percent disagreeing, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. The sentiment isn’t contained to Democrats, who unsurprisingly are willing to agree with a negative statement about their political rivals. Forty-five percent of independents also say Trump’s campaign has echoes of fascism, as do a full 28 percent of Republicans.
About half the country believes Trump encourages violence at his campaign events, with just 34 percent saying he doesn’t. The rest aren’t sure. Meanwhile, 27 percent of Republicans say it’s acceptable to “rough up” protesters at political events.
The survey comes in the wake of dozens of arrests and physical altercations tied to Trump’s campaign rallies, including clashes after an event was canceled in Chicago.
Trump, who once offered to pay his supporters’ legal fees if they “knock the crap out of” potential tomato-throwers, has since sought to downplay the frequency of such problems.
“The press is now going, they’re saying, ‘Oh, but there’s such violence.’ No violence. You know how many people have been hurt at our rallies? I think, like, basically none except maybe somebody got hit once,” the businessman said last week in North Carolina.
Most Americans, though, have a very different impression. Two-thirds say there’s more violence at Trump’s events than at those for other candidates, with 62 percent saying the clashes are part of a broader pattern rather than isolated incidents. Source
These type of polls are the reason why the only way Donald Trump wins the General is by swapping the conversation off of himself and onto how awful Hillary is. Pretty damning stuff.
|
On March 20 2016 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:35 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:25 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:20 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2016 06:19 Nyxisto wrote: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. Except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person. I'm saying the study showed bias against names, in the specific case of call backs. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I know you said that about the study. You said the study's conclusions inferred bias against names rather than race, and everyone else (including myself) is pointing out that the obvious reason why those names are favored are unfavored is due to the racial implications of some of those names. Obviously. Some of those names are stereotypically black, while others are seen as white names. That's the whole point of the study. Here's another one: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/blog/2014/september/jose-vs-joe-a-case-of-resume-racism "Jose vs. Joe: A case of resume racism" If anything that study proves my point >.> The last name is still the same, the first name is now different. Thus allowing more callbacks strictly based on first name; not on his actual RACE. And you think that the names Joe and Jose have no stereotypically racial/ skin color/ majority vs. minority preferences, when Jose is literally Spanish for Joseph? You really think that employers are racist against the letter S? What the hell? S isn't a fucking race. No shit.
Then you can't fucking be racist against the letter S, if S isn't a fucking race.
Jesus (I actually mean HEY-ZUES, Cuz you know, I wouldn't want you to get triggered if I used the normalized annunciation of JESUS, instead of the Spanish variation.)
Also, people need to know the difference between racism, racial discrimination, and biases.
|
On March 20 2016 06:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:25 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:20 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2016 06:19 Nyxisto wrote: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. Except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person. I'm saying the study showed bias against names, in the specific case of call backs. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I know you said that about the study. You said the study's conclusions inferred bias against names rather than race, and everyone else (including myself) is pointing out that the obvious reason why those names are favored are unfavored is due to the racial implications of some of those names. Obviously. Some of those names are stereotypically black, while others are seen as white names. That's the whole point of the study. Here's another one: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/blog/2014/september/jose-vs-joe-a-case-of-resume-racism "Jose vs. Joe: A case of resume racism" If anything that study proves my point >.> The last name is still the same, the first name is now different. Thus allowing more callbacks strictly based on first name; not on his actual RACE. And you think that the names Joe and Jose have no stereotypically racial/ skin color/ majority vs. minority preferences, when Jose is literally Spanish for Joseph? You really think that employers are racist against the letter S? What the hell?
"White people can see Big Foot, The Loch Ness Monster, aliens, Jesus in toast... But can't see racism or white privilege."
It's supposed to be a joke, but some folks in this thread, I swear...
|
On March 20 2016 06:37 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:35 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:25 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:20 Yurie wrote:On March 20 2016 06:19 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
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. Except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person. I'm saying the study showed bias against names, in the specific case of call backs. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I know you said that about the study. You said the study's conclusions inferred bias against names rather than race, and everyone else (including myself) is pointing out that the obvious reason why those names are favored are unfavored is due to the racial implications of some of those names. Obviously. Some of those names are stereotypically black, while others are seen as white names. That's the whole point of the study. Here's another one: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/blog/2014/september/jose-vs-joe-a-case-of-resume-racism "Jose vs. Joe: A case of resume racism" If anything that study proves my point >.> The last name is still the same, the first name is now different. Thus allowing more callbacks strictly based on first name; not on his actual RACE. And you think that the names Joe and Jose have no stereotypically racial/ skin color/ majority vs. minority preferences, when Jose is literally Spanish for Joseph? You really think that employers are racist against the letter S? What the hell? S isn't a fucking race. No shit. Then you can't fucking be racist against the letter S, if S isn't a fucking race. Jesus (I actually mean HEY-ZUES, Cuz you know, I wouldn't want you to get triggered if I used the normalized annunciation of JESUS, instead of the Spanish variation.)
Whoooosh.
You can't be serious. You can't possibly think that employers discriminate against employees who have the letter S in their name, and not because the names clearly represent different races/ skin colors.
|
On March 20 2016 06:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:37 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:35 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:25 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:20 Yurie wrote:
[quote]
People discriminate both on looks and on name. Name associate with something you discriminate against isn't seen favourably. Except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person. I'm saying the study showed bias against names, in the specific case of call backs. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I know you said that about the study. You said the study's conclusions inferred bias against names rather than race, and everyone else (including myself) is pointing out that the obvious reason why those names are favored are unfavored is due to the racial implications of some of those names. Obviously. Some of those names are stereotypically black, while others are seen as white names. That's the whole point of the study. Here's another one: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/blog/2014/september/jose-vs-joe-a-case-of-resume-racism "Jose vs. Joe: A case of resume racism" If anything that study proves my point >.> The last name is still the same, the first name is now different. Thus allowing more callbacks strictly based on first name; not on his actual RACE. And you think that the names Joe and Jose have no stereotypically racial/ skin color/ majority vs. minority preferences, when Jose is literally Spanish for Joseph? You really think that employers are racist against the letter S? What the hell? S isn't a fucking race. No shit. Then you can't fucking be racist against the letter S, if S isn't a fucking race. Jesus (I actually mean HEY-ZUES, Cuz you know, I wouldn't want you to get triggered if I used the normalized annunciation of JESUS, instead of the Spanish variation.) Whoooosh. You can't be serious. You can't possibly think that employers discriminate against employees who have the letter S in their name, and not because the names clearly represent different races/ skin colors.
I think they clearly prefer names that are more normalized, because guess what? Their workers serve the general public, so they prefer names that mirror their customer base.
It's almost as if that's why Drumpf ended up turning into Trump, and Colbert's name got converted to the french annunciation for his character
|
On March 20 2016 06:40 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:37 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:35 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:31 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:25 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Except wei2coolman was saying that the bias was against names and not about race. Obviously, people frequently discriminate based on skin color before they even find out the name of that person. I'm saying the study showed bias against names, in the specific case of call backs. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. I know you said that about the study. You said the study's conclusions inferred bias against names rather than race, and everyone else (including myself) is pointing out that the obvious reason why those names are favored are unfavored is due to the racial implications of some of those names. Obviously. Some of those names are stereotypically black, while others are seen as white names. That's the whole point of the study. Here's another one: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/blog/2014/september/jose-vs-joe-a-case-of-resume-racism "Jose vs. Joe: A case of resume racism" If anything that study proves my point >.> The last name is still the same, the first name is now different. Thus allowing more callbacks strictly based on first name; not on his actual RACE. And you think that the names Joe and Jose have no stereotypically racial/ skin color/ majority vs. minority preferences, when Jose is literally Spanish for Joseph? You really think that employers are racist against the letter S? What the hell? S isn't a fucking race. No shit. Then you can't fucking be racist against the letter S, if S isn't a fucking race. Jesus (I actually mean HEY-ZUES, Cuz you know, I wouldn't want you to get triggered if I used the normalized annunciation of JESUS, instead of the Spanish variation.) Whoooosh. You can't be serious. You can't possibly think that employers discriminate against employees who have the letter S in their name, and not because the names clearly represent different races/ skin colors. I think they clearly prefer names that are more normalized, because guess what? Their workers serve the general public, so they prefer names that mirror their customer base. It's almost as if that's why Drumpf ended up turning into Trump.
It's almost as if you're justifying racism instead of denying it. Almost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
