|
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 06:38 GreenHorizons 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? "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...
It seriously blows my mind. It must be wonderful to never have to experience prejudice and believe that such a thing just doesn't occur to other people if they just change their name or dress like a rich and/ or white person. What a wonderful world that would be.
|
On March 20 2016 06:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:40 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I'm not justifying racism. I'm just saying the only color businesses see, is green; and I sure as fuck don't see no green people walking around.
|
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, and Colbert's name got converted to the french annunciation for his character
"Normalized" roflmao. I just can't with this nonsense.
|
On March 20 2016 06:43 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:40 wei2coolman wrote: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:[quote] 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. I'm not justifying racism. I'm just saying the only color businesses see, is green; and I sure as fuck don't see no green people walking around.
Your comments aren't even implicitly racist anymore- you've graduated to full-blown explicit racism and justifying it by saying that racism = more money (which, true or not, certainly supports the fact that racism exists)- so there's really no point in me continuing this conversation with you. Have a good night.
|
On March 20 2016 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:40 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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 "Normalized" roflmao. I just can't with this nonsense. White = normal, Non-white = non-normal right?
normalized = average.
The average American is white, and the average names also tend to reflect that.
Even my parents realized this, and when they immigrated to America, they changed their names to traditionally "white" names, and gave both my brother and I, "white" Names; oh hey, Guess what about my Uncle and Aunt when they immigrated into America did? Oh yeha, they got "white" names.
Guess why? Cuz they wanted to do business in America. Guess what makes for best first impression when they read your business card? Oh yeah, your name.
WHOA. MIND BLOWN?
|
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?
But why does it have to be about racism? Maybe certain groups prefer hiring those who are most similar to them culturally, and they may see the latino culture as being external to theirs. Its the whole reason, in my mind, why we have such a thing as Chinatown in many cities (for example), or areas which are more or less exclusively populated by black people.
In addition, the language barriers, as well as the perceived stereotypes and cultural norms of certain groups (i.e. perhaps latinos have a negative reputation of being involved with drugs and gang violence, similarly with blacks - particularly in terms of the violent 'thug life' image often promulgated by rap music) can also detract from a person's willingness to hire that person, in which case the issue clearly has nothing to do with race, but culture.
To some extent these issues are unfortunately reflected in the crime statistics, which is again not to say that they are endemic because of a person's skin colour or cultural background, but that they are clearly perceived as being current problems, even though they may be temporary. How many Jose's are viewed with suspicion of being illegal immigrants, or part of gang culture, compared to someone named Joe? There could easily be some negative associations, however unjustified.
The immediate assumption that it is 'racism' is far too simplistic. I wish people would use that term a bit more carefully.
|
On March 20 2016 06:50 radscorpion9 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? But why does it have to be about racism? Maybe certain groups prefer hiring those who are most similar to them culturally, and they may see the latino culture as being external to theirs. Its the whole reason, in my mind, why we have such a thing as Chinatown in many cities (for example), or areas which are more or less exclusively populated by black people. In addition, the language barriers, as well as the perceived stereotypes and cultural norms of certain groups (i.e. perhaps latinos have a negative reputation of being involved with drugs and gang violence, similarly with blacks - particularly in terms of the violent 'thug life' image often promulgated by rap music) can also detract from a person's willingness to hire that person, in which case the issue clearly has nothing to do with race, but culture. To some extent these issues are unfortunately reflected in the crime statistics, which is again not to say that they are endemic because of a person's skin colour or cultural background, but that they are clearly perceived as being current problems, even though they may be temporary. How many Jose's are viewed with suspicion of being illegal immigrants, or part of gang culture, compared to someone named Joe? There could easily be some negative associations, however unjustified. The immediate assumption that it is 'racism' is far too simplistic. I wish people would use that term a bit more carefully.
It's because there's no such thing as nuance when talking about race anymore.
Why do you think every other word about Trump is racist, and bigot?
|
On March 20 2016 06:50 radscorpion9 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? But why does it have to be about racism? Maybe certain groups prefer hiring those who are most similar to them culturally, and they may see the latino culture as being external to theirs. Its the whole reason, in my mind, why we have such a thing as Chinatown in many cities (for example), or areas which are more or less exclusively populated by black people. In addition, the language barriers, as well as the perceived stereotypes and cultural norms of certain groups (i.e. perhaps latinos have a negative reputation of being involved with drugs and gang violence, similarly with blacks - particularly in terms of the violent 'thug life' image often promulgated by rap music) can also detract from a person's willingness to hire that person, in which case the issue clearly has nothing to do with race, but culture. To some extent these issues are unfortunately reflected in the crime statistics, which is again not to say that they are endemic because of a person's skin colour or cultural background, but that they are clearly perceived as being current problems, even though they may be temporary. How many Jose's are viewed with suspicion of being illegal immigrants, or part of gang culture, compared to someone named Joe? There could easily be some negative associations, however unjustified. The immediate assumption that it is 'racism' is far too simplistic. I wish people would use that term a bit more carefully.
"But why does it have to be about racism? Maybe certain groups prefer hiring those who are most similar to them culturally"
What you just said was "But why does it have to be about racism? Maybe some groups of people just feel like being racist/ xenophobic."
...
Maybe they can justify their racism for business, but that doesn't make it not racist.
|
On March 20 2016 06:49 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2016 06:40 wei2coolman wrote: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:[quote] 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 "Normalized" roflmao. I just can't with this nonsense. White = normal, Non-white = non-normal right? normalized = average. The average American is white, and the average names also tend to reflect that. Even my parents realized this, and when they immigrated to America, they changed their names to traditionally "white" names, and gave both my brother and I, "white" Names; oh hey, Guess what about my Uncle and Aunt when they immigrated into America did? Oh yeha, they got "white" names. Guess why? Cuz they wanted to do business in America. Guess what makes for best first impression when they read your business card? Oh yeah, your name. WHOA. MIND BLOWN?
Ah okay so you're finally acknowleding that the motivation is racist, you just expect non white people to change their name so that employers haven no idea that they're going to hire filthy minorities, got it. Maybe everybody should convert to Protestantism also, White Americans seem to love it
|
|
|
On March 20 2016 06:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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?
1. No one said "new" except you. Why would you even think that I said that? I simply say that a car that doesn't look like it belongs to someone who commits crimes (run-down, a few broken lights, dents all over, etc) is less likely to be stopped and searched. Perhaps because it's more likely that someone who bothers to keep a car in good condition is one that is less likely to commit crimes.
2. How did you come to this conclusion, exactly? That's one hell of a strawman, to twist "$3k is affordable if you have even a basic knowledge of finance" (something that can be learned easily if you actually want to put in the effort, BTW) into "either you learn basic finance or you deserve to be attacked." And then you follow up with a loaded question, real classy.
3. White, upper-middle class. I've been poor before, as is common for immigrants who aren't particularly wealthy. I've known more than a fair share of poor, of many different races (white, black, Asian, Hispanic). The pattern seems to be that, regardless of race, those who actually want to improve their socioeconomic status and are willing to work for it (by going to school and making money by legitimate means) tend not to stay poor. Those who aren't, tend to do little and to talk about how no one knows what it's like to be poor or black or whatever else you can think up. I will fully admit that I cannot relate with that attitude towards life. Otherwise, fuck off with that "you don't know what it's like to be poor" BS.
4. There's plenty of data that studies this issue that can be used to support the prevalence of socioeconomic factors over race in various contexts, but I'll pass on posting it because I'm not seeing any real debate. You say that and then your main evidence is an anecdotal video of someone getting tackle, and then the police admitting it was an error (could have happened with a white guy too and it doesn't mean it's a pattern). I have a feeling that anything else I post would just meet with endless denial worthy of a cigarette company denying that cigarettes have a harmful effect on smokers.
Given how much aggressive trash you managed to pack into just four lines, and how badly you decided to twist my words in order to try to make your point, I'm not really interested in debating this with you further. I'll simply leave this as my last post in response to this.
|
On March 20 2016 06:49 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2016 06:40 wei2coolman wrote: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:[quote] 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 "Normalized" roflmao. I just can't with this nonsense. White = normal, Non-white = non-normal right? normalized = average. The average American is white, and the average names also tend to reflect that. Even my parents realized this, and when they immigrated to America, they changed their names to traditionally "white" names, and gave both my brother and I, "white" Names; oh hey, Guess what about my Uncle and Aunt when they immigrated into America did? Oh yeha, they got "white" names. Guess why? Cuz they wanted to do business in America. Guess what makes for best first impression when they read your business card? Oh yeah, your name. WHOA. MIND BLOWN?
I took it out because I knew you were going to say some ridiculously ignorant stuff like this. There is no point to continuing this.
|
On March 20 2016 06:54 farvacola wrote:I'll just leave this here for those actually interested in the prevalence of race-based discrimination in employment. Race-Based Charging Statistics
Psh, come now. You're going to use numbers to support racism? Anyone who's anyone knows odd numbers are inferior to even numbers.
|
On March 20 2016 06:54 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:49 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2016 06:40 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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 "Normalized" roflmao. I just can't with this nonsense. White = normal, Non-white = non-normal right? normalized = average. The average American is white, and the average names also tend to reflect that. Even my parents realized this, and when they immigrated to America, they changed their names to traditionally "white" names, and gave both my brother and I, "white" Names; oh hey, Guess what about my Uncle and Aunt when they immigrated into America did? Oh yeha, they got "white" names. Guess why? Cuz they wanted to do business in America. Guess what makes for best first impression when they read your business card? Oh yeah, your name. WHOA. MIND BLOWN? Ah okay so you're finally acknowleding that the motivation is racist, you just expect non white people to change their name so that employers haven no idea that they're going to hire filthy minorities, got it. Maybe everybody should convert to Protestantism also, White Americans seem to love it
You literally just said "businesses so racist, because they want white sounding names, but have no problems hiring minorities"
Pretty much any semi-intelligent person quickly realizes names play a large part in being able to socializing in a community. Pretty much every single Chinese person I know, even new immigrants have "American" names they go by.
WAT?
|
On March 20 2016 06:57 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:54 Nyxisto wrote:On March 20 2016 06:49 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2016 06:40 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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 "Normalized" roflmao. I just can't with this nonsense. White = normal, Non-white = non-normal right? normalized = average. The average American is white, and the average names also tend to reflect that. Even my parents realized this, and when they immigrated to America, they changed their names to traditionally "white" names, and gave both my brother and I, "white" Names; oh hey, Guess what about my Uncle and Aunt when they immigrated into America did? Oh yeha, they got "white" names. Guess why? Cuz they wanted to do business in America. Guess what makes for best first impression when they read your business card? Oh yeah, your name. WHOA. MIND BLOWN? Ah okay so you're finally acknowleding that the motivation is racist, you just expect non white people to change their name so that employers haven no idea that they're going to hire filthy minorities, got it. Maybe everybody should convert to Protestantism also, White Americans seem to love it You literally just said "businesses so racist, because they want white sounding names, but have no problems hiring minorities" Pretty much any semi-intelligent person quickly realizes names play a large part in being able to socializing in a community. Pretty much every single Chinese person I know, even new immigrants have "American" names they go by. WAT?
Lol, riiiight, and successful white people in Africa have a black name, in China a Chinese name, and so on...
|
On March 20 2016 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:57 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:54 Nyxisto wrote:On March 20 2016 06:49 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2016 06:40 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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 "Normalized" roflmao. I just can't with this nonsense. White = normal, Non-white = non-normal right? normalized = average. The average American is white, and the average names also tend to reflect that. Even my parents realized this, and when they immigrated to America, they changed their names to traditionally "white" names, and gave both my brother and I, "white" Names; oh hey, Guess what about my Uncle and Aunt when they immigrated into America did? Oh yeha, they got "white" names. Guess why? Cuz they wanted to do business in America. Guess what makes for best first impression when they read your business card? Oh yeah, your name. WHOA. MIND BLOWN? Ah okay so you're finally acknowleding that the motivation is racist, you just expect non white people to change their name so that employers haven no idea that they're going to hire filthy minorities, got it. Maybe everybody should convert to Protestantism also, White Americans seem to love it You literally just said "businesses so racist, because they want white sounding names, but have no problems hiring minorities" Pretty much any semi-intelligent person quickly realizes names play a large part in being able to socializing in a community. Pretty much every single Chinese person I know, even new immigrants have "American" names they go by. WAT? Lol, riiiight, and successful white people in Africa have a black name, in China a Chinese name, and so on...
I'm just saying if I moved to Mexico, I'd change my name to the Spanish variant, and if I moved to Germany I'd have a German variant or a brand new German name.
edit: forgot to add, without blaming racism while doing it.
|
On March 20 2016 06:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Psh, come now. You're going to use numbers to support racism? Anyone who's anyone knows odd numbers are inferior to even numbers.
It says lately around 71% of the allegations are found to have no reasonable cause.
|
On March 20 2016 07:09 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2016 06:57 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:54 Nyxisto wrote:On March 20 2016 06:49 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2016 06:40 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:37 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
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 "Normalized" roflmao. I just can't with this nonsense. White = normal, Non-white = non-normal right? normalized = average. The average American is white, and the average names also tend to reflect that. Even my parents realized this, and when they immigrated to America, they changed their names to traditionally "white" names, and gave both my brother and I, "white" Names; oh hey, Guess what about my Uncle and Aunt when they immigrated into America did? Oh yeha, they got "white" names. Guess why? Cuz they wanted to do business in America. Guess what makes for best first impression when they read your business card? Oh yeah, your name. WHOA. MIND BLOWN? Ah okay so you're finally acknowleding that the motivation is racist, you just expect non white people to change their name so that employers haven no idea that they're going to hire filthy minorities, got it. Maybe everybody should convert to Protestantism also, White Americans seem to love it You literally just said "businesses so racist, because they want white sounding names, but have no problems hiring minorities" Pretty much any semi-intelligent person quickly realizes names play a large part in being able to socializing in a community. Pretty much every single Chinese person I know, even new immigrants have "American" names they go by. WAT? Lol, riiiight, and successful white people in Africa have a black name, in China a Chinese name, and so on... I'm just saying if I moved to Mexico, I'd change my name to the Spanish variant, and if I moved to Germany I'd have a German variant or a brand new German name. edit: forgot to add, without blaming racism while doing it.
Maybe that's what you would do in your imagination, but it's not what happens in real life.
|
On March 20 2016 06:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 06:08 DarkPlasmaBall 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. 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? 1. No one said "new" except you. Why would you even think that I said that? I simply say that a car that doesn't look like it belongs to someone who commits crimes (run-down, a few broken lights, dents all over, etc) is less likely to be stopped and searched. Perhaps because it's more likely that someone who bothers to keep a car in good condition is one that is less likely to commit crimes. 2. How did you come to this conclusion, exactly? That's one hell of a strawman, to twist "$3k is affordable if you have even a basic knowledge of finance" (something that can be learned easily if you actually want to put in the effort, BTW) into "either you learn basic finance or you deserve to be attacked." And then you follow up with a loaded question, real classy. 3. White, upper-middle class. I've been poor before, as is common for immigrants who aren't particularly wealthy. I've known more than a fair share of poor, of many different races (white, black, Asian, Hispanic). The pattern seems to be that, regardless of race, those who actually want to improve their socioeconomic status and are willing to work for it (by going to school and making money by legitimate means) tend not to stay poor. Those who aren't, tend to do little and to talk about how no one knows what it's like to be poor or black or whatever else you can think up. I will fully admit that I cannot relate with that attitude towards life. Otherwise, fuck off with that "you don't know what it's like to be poor" BS. 4. There's plenty of data that studies this issue that can be used to support the prevalence of socioeconomic factors over race in various contexts, but I'll pass on posting it because I'm not seeing any real debate. You say that and then your main evidence is an anecdotal video of someone getting tackle, and then the police admitting it was an error (could have happened with a white guy too and it doesn't mean it's a pattern). I have a feeling that anything else I post would just meet with endless denial worthy of a cigarette company denying that cigarettes have a harmful effect on smokers. Given how much aggressive trash you managed to pack into just four lines, and how badly you decided to twist my words in order to try to make your point, I'm not really interested in debating this with you further. I'll simply leave this as my last post in response to this.
1. Or the car of a poor college student? Or a poor person in general? Because, again, poor white people don't have to put up with the same shit that poor black people do, so poor white people can keep crappy cars because they're white, yet poor black people need affluent-looking cars o.O How absurd. Not to mention the fact that it's not just the being pulled over part, but the conversations and frequency of arrests that occur with innocent black drivers as opposed to innocent white drivers after the cop realizes that it's just some guy in a shitty car.
2. It absolutely is victim blaming to say that black people and Mexicans need to buy new things to stop getting pestered by the police. You're saying that they otherwise deserve to be pestered. I just used your own words lol.
3. I think that someone who doesn't have to deal with racism shouldn't be saying that it's not a big deal for the persecuted if they just do X (e.g., buy a nice car) when it's just not true. It's a very stereotypical "check your privilege" comment. And, again, yes there is plenty of other discrimination (based on socioeconomic status, sex, gender identity, religion, etc.), but you're seriously trivializing institutionalized racism with your "I know how victims of racism can stop being discriminated against and it's as easy as understanding basic math" attitude.
4. "There's plenty of data that studies this issue that can be used to support the prevalence of socioeconomic factors over race in various contexts" Again, this doesn't eliminate racism. "You say that and then your main evidence is an anecdotal video of someone getting tackle, and then the police admitting it was an error" Yes, because they found out that this wasn't just a random black guy. It was something newsworthy because he's a celebrity that they couldn't ignore.
|
On March 20 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 07:09 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2016 06:57 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:54 Nyxisto wrote:On March 20 2016 06:49 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 20 2016 06:40 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 06:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 06:37 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
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 "Normalized" roflmao. I just can't with this nonsense. White = normal, Non-white = non-normal right? normalized = average. The average American is white, and the average names also tend to reflect that. Even my parents realized this, and when they immigrated to America, they changed their names to traditionally "white" names, and gave both my brother and I, "white" Names; oh hey, Guess what about my Uncle and Aunt when they immigrated into America did? Oh yeha, they got "white" names. Guess why? Cuz they wanted to do business in America. Guess what makes for best first impression when they read your business card? Oh yeah, your name. WHOA. MIND BLOWN? Ah okay so you're finally acknowleding that the motivation is racist, you just expect non white people to change their name so that employers haven no idea that they're going to hire filthy minorities, got it. Maybe everybody should convert to Protestantism also, White Americans seem to love it You literally just said "businesses so racist, because they want white sounding names, but have no problems hiring minorities" Pretty much any semi-intelligent person quickly realizes names play a large part in being able to socializing in a community. Pretty much every single Chinese person I know, even new immigrants have "American" names they go by. WAT? Lol, riiiight, and successful white people in Africa have a black name, in China a Chinese name, and so on... I'm just saying if I moved to Mexico, I'd change my name to the Spanish variant, and if I moved to Germany I'd have a German variant or a brand new German name. edit: forgot to add, without blaming racism while doing it. Maybe that's what you would do in your imagination, but it's not what happens in real life.
Are you telling me my family never changed their name when they immigrated to America with American names as way to integrate with American society? much less no one has ever done that? (Also, pretty sure my name already has German origins, so I don't think I would actually have to change my name, so you might have a point there).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
