|
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. |
ClutZ: research studies show systemic discrimination on all levels of the employment process.
Beyond simple discrimination against African-Americans and Hispanics based on the names on resumes, studies done on hiring differences in phone interviews based on accents show significant disparity in the number of call-backs, as well as with in-person interviews with similar or better credentials.
While yes, socio-economic status also plays a role, when we look at discrimination by employers against, for instance, yes, formerly-incarcerated individuals of all races and ethnicities face significant barriers to employment. However, when you formerly-incarcerated white individuals as opposed to minority individuals, the difference in hiring rate remains staggering. Indeed, former white felons have similar hiring rates with black individuals as a whole, which should highlight that race remains a major factor in hiring rates for even something such as service industry work.
There are literally hundreds of academic sociological studies done on these subjects, and the evidence they've gathered all reach similar conclusions. And that does not include studies done on racism in other areas, for instance on police treatment of different minorities (how likely are they to stop a car driven by different minorities, for instance, and the level of respect shown by both the minority and the police officer, etc.).
|
On business: People get discriminated against for all sorts of stupid reasons. You can be discriminated against for being white, or for not being white. For being female, or for being male. For being good-looking, or for being ugly. For any of many infinite trivial reasons including if you said one little tidbit when talking to them that they didn't like. Guess what? It's their choice how to treat people, and everyone is discriminated against to some extent for some reason or other. Discrimination in the eyes of the law is the only type of discrimination that matters.
On police treatment: is it a bad thing that the police tend to focus more on groups that have criminal tendencies (e.g. those who live in high crime areas, or who dress like prison inmates, or who are of a certain race) when trying to address crime? I have yet to be convinced that it is the case, and on this I find Republicans to be more correct than not in their defense of the police.
|
On March 20 2016 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 07:12 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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).
No, I'm saying your blindness to white privilege, and what it means, suggests that we're not going to have a fruitful dialogue so I should just stop.
|
i don't understand the motivation behind the defense of racism. the argument "i managed to fit in with a racist society, so why can't you?" does ring kind of hollow to me.
what is the endgame here? do you want a monolithic white monoculture? is diversity anathema?
|
On March 20 2016 07:34 puerk wrote:
i don't understand the motivation behind the defense of racism. the argument "i managed to fit in with a racist society, so why can't you?" does ring kind of hollow to me.
what is the endgame here? do you want a monolithic white monoculture? is diversity anathema?
Because it's not racism.
The saying goes "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."; not "When in Rome, don't do as the Romans do because they're racists".
Racism
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
In what way is conforming your name so you can have better relations with your community, "racism"?
|
On March 20 2016 07:31 LegalLord wrote:
On business: People get discriminated against for all sorts of stupid reasons. You can be discriminated against for being white, or for not being white. For being female, or for being male. For being good-looking, or for being ugly. For any of many infinite trivial reasons including if you said one little tidbit when talking to them that they didn't like. Guess what? It's their choice how to treat people, and everyone is discriminated against to some extent for some reason or other. Discrimination in the eyes of the law is the only type of discrimination that matters.
On police treatment: is it a bad thing that the police tend to focus more on groups that have criminal tendencies (e.g. those who live in high crime areas, or who dress like prison inmates, or who are of a certain race) when trying to address crime? I have yet to be convinced that it is the case, and on this I find Republicans to be more correct than not in their defense of the police.
I can understand what you mean in terms of racial profiling, but what bothers me is:
1. The huge disparity between the treatment of innocent minorities after they've been profiled, checked out, and "excused" (and sometimes just taken into custody or attacked by police for no reason whatsoever) vs. the treatment of innocent white people;
2. The fact that guilty minorities consistently get screwed over by the criminal justice system far worse than guilty white people. Longer sentences for the same crime, much more frequent guilty verdicts, etc.
One of many examples is the issue of marijuana:
"According to a new study from the American Civil Liberties Union, which tracked marijuana arrests by race and county in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, black and white Americans use marijuana at about the same rate. However, blacks were nearly four times as likely than whites to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession in 2010.
In Washington D.C., Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois, blacks were 7.5 to 8.5 times more likely than whites to be arrested for possessing pot." ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/racial-disparity-in-marijuana-arrests_n_3381725.html
|
On March 20 2016 07:39 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 07:34 puerk wrote:
i don't understand the motivation behind the defense of racism. the argument "i managed to fit in with a racist society, so why can't you?" does ring kind of hollow to me.
what is the endgame here? do you want a monolithic white monoculture? is diversity anathema? Because it's not racism. The saying goes "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."; not "When in Rome, don't do as the Romans do because they're racists". Racism noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. In what way is conforming your name so you can have better relations with your community, "racism"?
My point was: america is already diverse, the dominant culture you are alluding to is not the sole american culture... its just the one your racist tendencies prefer. You did not adopt a native american name, which would be following your saying, you just decided the white anglocentric culture was the one you wanted to fit in, and deride all the other legitimate parts of the whole US cultural landscape.
|
On March 20 2016 07:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 07:31 LegalLord wrote:
On business: People get discriminated against for all sorts of stupid reasons. You can be discriminated against for being white, or for not being white. For being female, or for being male. For being good-looking, or for being ugly. For any of many infinite trivial reasons including if you said one little tidbit when talking to them that they didn't like. Guess what? It's their choice how to treat people, and everyone is discriminated against to some extent for some reason or other. Discrimination in the eyes of the law is the only type of discrimination that matters.
On police treatment: is it a bad thing that the police tend to focus more on groups that have criminal tendencies (e.g. those who live in high crime areas, or who dress like prison inmates, or who are of a certain race) when trying to address crime? I have yet to be convinced that it is the case, and on this I find Republicans to be more correct than not in their defense of the police. I can understand what you mean in terms of racial profiling, but what bothers me is: 1. The huge disparity between the treatment of innocent minorities after they've been profiled, checked out, and "excused" (and sometimes just taken into custody or attacked by police for no reason whatsoever) vs. the treatment of innocent white people; 2. The fact that guilty minorities consistently get screwed over by the criminal justice system far worse than guilty white people. Longer sentences for the same crime, much more frequent guilty verdicts, etc. One of many examples is the issue of marijuana: "According to a new study from the American Civil Liberties Union, which tracked marijuana arrests by race and county in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, black and white Americans use marijuana at about the same rate. However, blacks were nearly four times as likely than whites to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession in 2010. In Washington D.C., Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois, blacks were 7.5 to 8.5 times more likely than whites to be arrested for possessing pot." ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/racial-disparity-in-marijuana-arrests_n_3381725.html
I definitely agree, the feedback loop of enforcing stereotypes doesn't help anyone. There was actually an NPR radio program talking about how search algorithms learned patterns of it's users, and started associating certain websites with stereotypes for the users, and their search terms
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470427605/can-computers-be-racist-the-human-like-bias-of-algorithms
The problem with the article is the lack of source code analysis of the algorithm (probably because it's proprietary algorithm), and lack of understanding from the writers, as shown by the anthropomorphism of the algorithm without understanding the actual mechanics of the algorithm.
|
On March 20 2016 07:39 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 07:34 puerk wrote:
i don't understand the motivation behind the defense of racism. the argument "i managed to fit in with a racist society, so why can't you?" does ring kind of hollow to me.
what is the endgame here? do you want a monolithic white monoculture? is diversity anathema? Because it's not racism. The saying goes "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."; not "When in Rome, don't do as the Romans do because they're racists". Racism noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. In what way is conforming your name so you can have better relations with your community, "racism"?
Except the people being discriminated against in your analogy would be Romans too. The fact that you think it is a legitimate argument to label minorities as others just shows the bias that makes this discrimination possible.
|
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"
Now do the exact same study in a majority hispanic area with hispanic employers.
|
On March 20 2016 07:47 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 07:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 07:31 LegalLord wrote:
On business: People get discriminated against for all sorts of stupid reasons. You can be discriminated against for being white, or for not being white. For being female, or for being male. For being good-looking, or for being ugly. For any of many infinite trivial reasons including if you said one little tidbit when talking to them that they didn't like. Guess what? It's their choice how to treat people, and everyone is discriminated against to some extent for some reason or other. Discrimination in the eyes of the law is the only type of discrimination that matters.
On police treatment: is it a bad thing that the police tend to focus more on groups that have criminal tendencies (e.g. those who live in high crime areas, or who dress like prison inmates, or who are of a certain race) when trying to address crime? I have yet to be convinced that it is the case, and on this I find Republicans to be more correct than not in their defense of the police. I can understand what you mean in terms of racial profiling, but what bothers me is: 1. The huge disparity between the treatment of innocent minorities after they've been profiled, checked out, and "excused" (and sometimes just taken into custody or attacked by police for no reason whatsoever) vs. the treatment of innocent white people; 2. The fact that guilty minorities consistently get screwed over by the criminal justice system far worse than guilty white people. Longer sentences for the same crime, much more frequent guilty verdicts, etc. One of many examples is the issue of marijuana: "According to a new study from the American Civil Liberties Union, which tracked marijuana arrests by race and county in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, black and white Americans use marijuana at about the same rate. However, blacks were nearly four times as likely than whites to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession in 2010. In Washington D.C., Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois, blacks were 7.5 to 8.5 times more likely than whites to be arrested for possessing pot." ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/racial-disparity-in-marijuana-arrests_n_3381725.html I definitely agree, the feedback loop of enforcing stereotypes doesn't help anyone. There was actually an NPR radio program talking about how search algorithms learned patterns of it's users, and started associating certain websites with stereotypes for the users, and their search terms http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470427605/can-computers-be-racist-the-human-like-bias-of-algorithmsThe problem with the article is the lack of source code analysis of the algorithm (probably because it's proprietary algorithm), and lack of understanding from the writers, as shown by the anthropomorphism of the algorithm without understanding the actual mechanics of the algorithm.
I'm glad we agree  To your point about the Rome quote, that really is a statement about how outsiders are treated poorly and that you need to act differently to fit in or else risk ostracism and prejudice and xenophobia :/
If it were adapted to USA 2016, I think it'd be something like "When in the USA, do as the white-Americans do".
|
On March 20 2016 07:55 iPlaY.NettleS 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" Now do the exact same study in a majority hispanic area with hispanic employers.
I think I'll let you provide your own evidence to support your implication that that reverse racism occurs just as frequently. It's not my job to argue your point for you, and I'd imagine you'd have a tougher time finding that evidence because there are far more white employers/ big businesses than Hispanic ones here in America, but I'm always open to seeing research
|
FLINT, MI -- Mystery still surrounds an unsolved December break-in at an executive office inside City Hall where Flint water files were kept.
As of Friday, March 18, there were still no suspects in the case, and officials say it may never be known what -- other than a TV -- was taken.
But the city's new police chief Tim Johnson says it's too suspicious that there was a break-in where important documents were kept, just as investigations began heating up and decision makers were beginning to be held accountable.
"It was definitely an inside job. The power cord (to the TV) wasn't even taken. The average drug user knows that you'd need the power cord to be able to pawn it," Johnson said.
The office was not assigned to any city employees at the time of the break-in, city officials have said.
"It was somebody that had knowledge of those documents that really wanted to keep them out of the right hands, out of the hands of someone who was going to tell the real story of what's going on with Flint water," he said.
Flint Mayor Karen Weaver said documents were strewn about the room, and it is impossible to know if any of them were taken.
Weaver wasn't so quick to allege it was an inside job, but did say the situation seemed odd and suspicious to her.
"Well sure (it's suspicious) when they go into a room where all the water files were and they take a TV, but not the cord to make it work, yes," she said.
Although, federal criminal investigations regarding the Flint water crisis were not announced until February, and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder did not declare a state emergency until January.
Source
|
i'm beyond depressed that the photo accompanying this thread is now donald trump. we done fucked up, y'all
|
On March 20 2016 08:11 darthfoley wrote:
i'm beyond depressed that the photo accompanying this thread is now donald trump. we done fucked up, y'all
IMO it's oddly appropriate.
|
United States43902 Posts
Holy shit wei2coolman is actually arguing that people preferring to hire John over Jamal, even if Jamal is better qualified, shows that people simply must have a dislike of the name which is completely unrelated to any assumptions they're making about the person with that name. After all, Jamal could be a white female grandma and John could be an illiterate member of a cannibal tribe from deep Papua New Guinea whose non English speaking parents came up with the sound John themselves and decided they liked it. These things could be true so how would any employer instead make the assumption that John is probably a white guy and Jamal is probably a black guy and make their decision based on that assumption. The only thing they can know for sure is the name and because humans only act on certainty and do not make assumptions it would be impossible for anything beyond the name to influence them.
wei2coolman, it's not the sound of the name that they dislike. They're making assumptions about the person based upon the name and the subsequent decision not to interview the person reflects their prejudice against the group they believe the person to be a part of.
|
On March 20 2016 07:46 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 07:39 wei2coolman wrote:On March 20 2016 07:34 puerk wrote:
i don't understand the motivation behind the defense of racism. the argument "i managed to fit in with a racist society, so why can't you?" does ring kind of hollow to me.
what is the endgame here? do you want a monolithic white monoculture? is diversity anathema? Because it's not racism. The saying goes "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."; not "When in Rome, don't do as the Romans do because they're racists". Racism noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. In what way is conforming your name so you can have better relations with your community, "racism"? My point was: america is already diverse, the dominant culture you are alluding to is not the sole american culture... its just the one your racist tendencies prefer. You did not adopt a native american name, which would be following your saying, you just decided the white anglocentric culture was the one you wanted to fit in, and deride all the other legitimate parts of the whole US cultural landscape.
You don't choose the white anglocentric culture because you (or it) are racist. You choose it because it is dominant. If all wealth + power was distributed equally, white anglocentric power would be dominant because they are the majority of the population.
Now racism has been one of many factors that has led to the current culture becoming/staying dominant* (of course that culture has also changed...changing your name to Gertrude probably isn't as smart as it was in the 30s). But that doesn't mean that 'trying to fit in' is racist.
The problem (as pointed out by the computer algorithms in the post above) is that most stereotypes are true. The problem is the balance of judging people by stereotypes (effective+efficient) or by individual judgement (expensive+fair).
*applies to all dominant cultures in all cultural regions of the world.
|
I love how they just pick him up like a surfboard and take him away.
|
Thats pretty normal procedure with protesters that cable themselves to something?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 20 2016 08:16 KwarK wrote:
Holy shit wei2coolman is actually arguing that people preferring to hire John over Jamal, even if Jamal is better qualified, shows that people simply must have a dislike of the name which is completely unrelated to any assumptions they're making about the person with that name. After all, Jamal could be a white female grandma and John could be an illiterate member of a cannibal tribe from deep Papua New Guinea whose non English speaking parents came up with the sound John themselves and decided they liked it. These things could be true so how would any employer instead make the assumption that John is probably a white guy and Jamal is probably a black guy and make their decision based on that assumption. The only thing they can know for sure is the name and because humans only act on certainty and do not make assumptions it would be impossible for anything beyond the name to influence them.
wei2coolman, it's not the sound of the name that they dislike. They're making assumptions about the person based upon the name and the subsequent decision not to interview the person reflects their prejudice against the group they believe the person to be a part of.
you are arguing against cognitive dissonance here. i don't see the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
