|
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 08:22 Velr wrote:
Thats pretty normal procedure with protesters that cable themselves to something?
define "normal", yeah it happens in protests, but only a few people in protests take it that far.
That being said, the protest is blocking the road into a Trump Ralley, preventing supporters from getting to the rally.
|
I dunno, on protests against castor transports in germany picutres like this aren't exactly rare (not that i'm an expert, but i saw stuff like this basically everytime the protesters acted like this).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this irrationality of conduct in the course of the protest is really not that unusual in the context of the irrationality of protesting a rally. it seems like a purely expressive event that can also be done on twitter. there may be some effects such as associating trump with fraying social cohesion but i don't know if this is intentional.
if it is then there would be a serious question about whether it is going a bit too far. still, it is still true that the only way black people problems receive sustained coverage is if there is some protesters acting badly. but acting badly also hugely disrupts your message. the knot is not easily cut because given the current level of tension the natural course of emotions is towards the confrontational. the boring answer is that this is a problem resolvable by leadership, both by individuals and by institutions.
in the short term though, it is important for protesters to always always take the position of a weak party. display weakness rather than anger is how these western movements gain success, by appealing to the elite while not presenting costs. this is pretty unlikely to be adapted by the current group of protesters though.
this also applies to the palestine stuff.
|
On March 20 2016 07:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 07:55 iPlaY.NettleS 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" 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 
There is no such thing as reverse racism, only racism.I'm sure if you live in California there are plenty of jobs advertised only in Spanish.I'm sure in Mexico employers would rather hire a Jose over a Joe.What exactly is the big deal.
|
On March 20 2016 08:24 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 08:22 Velr wrote:
Thats pretty normal procedure with protesters that cable themselves to something? define "normal", yeah it happens in protests, but only a few people in protests take it that far. That being said, the protest is blocking the road into a Trump Ralley, preventing supporters from getting to the rally.
The protesters must be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Every time they do something dumb like this Trumps numbers go up.
But sure, keep fighting for "democracy" by blocking people going to a speech.....
|
On March 20 2016 09:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 07:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 07:55 iPlaY.NettleS 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" 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 There is no such thing as reverse racism, only racism.I'm sure if you live in California there are plenty of jobs advertised only in Spanish.I'm sure in Mexico employers would rather hire a Jose over a Joe.What exactly is the big deal.
That's an intentionally misleading definition of racism. Racism comes from a place of power and institutions. There really is no such thing as 'minority racism' in any meaningful way because the minorities usually don't have the power to take control of institutions and public discourse in the first place. In this case the tendency of Mexicans to predominantly hire Mexicans is simply a reaction to the fact that these people have trouble getting hired by the majority of employers.
The segregationism here is facilitated by the majority population who keeps Mexicans out of many jobs. So that they have to form closed communities is simply an economic necessity.
|
When Obama walks off Air Force One onto the red carpet at Jose Marti airport in Havana Sunday, he'll be taking another big step towards normal relations with the island, and kicking another hole in the wall of isolation that the U.S. spent decades trying to build around Cuba.
"The Cold War has been over for a long time," Obama said, before his historic handshake with Cuban President Raul Castro in Panama last year. "I'm not interested in having battles that, frankly, started before I was born."
Obama will be the first American president to visit Cuba since Calvin Coolidge arrived on a battleship in 1928. (Harry Truman dropped by during a Caribbean cruise 20 years later, but didn't go beyond the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay.)
The president hopes to cement the new U.S. policy of engagement with Cuba that he first announced 15 months ago.
"We very much want to make the process of normalization irreversible," said Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, who played a key role in secret talks that led up to the opening.
During his two-day trip to Cuba, the president will meet with Castro as well as Cuban dissidents. He'll deliver a televised address to the Cuban people. And he'll take in an exhibition baseball game between the Cuban national team and the Tampa Bay Rays. First Lady Michelle Obama is joining her husband on the trip, along with their daughters, Sasha and Malia.
While polls show a majority of Americans including Cuban Americans support renewed diplomatic ties with Cuba, the president's policy still draws criticism from some Republicans.
Source
|
On March 20 2016 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 09:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 20 2016 07:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 07:55 iPlaY.NettleS 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" 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 There is no such thing as reverse racism, only racism.I'm sure if you live in California there are plenty of jobs advertised only in Spanish.I'm sure in Mexico employers would rather hire a Jose over a Joe.What exactly is the big deal. That's an intentionally misleading definition of racism. Racism comes from a place of power and institutions. There really is no such thing as 'minority racism' in any meaningful way because the minorities usually don't have the power to take control of institutions and public discourse in the first place. In this case the tendency of Mexicans to predominantly hire Mexicans is simply a reaction to the fact that these people have trouble getting hired by the majority of employers. The segregationism here is facilitated by the majority population who keeps Mexicans out of many jobs. So that they have to form closed communities is simply an economic necessity.
Explain why Asian Americans have both lower unemployment rates and higher average salaries than white Americans.They aren't a minority now? Please stop with the victim complex.
|
On March 20 2016 09:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:On March 20 2016 09:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 20 2016 07:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 07:55 iPlaY.NettleS 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" 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 There is no such thing as reverse racism, only racism.I'm sure if you live in California there are plenty of jobs advertised only in Spanish.I'm sure in Mexico employers would rather hire a Jose over a Joe.What exactly is the big deal. That's an intentionally misleading definition of racism. Racism comes from a place of power and institutions. There really is no such thing as 'minority racism' in any meaningful way because the minorities usually don't have the power to take control of institutions and public discourse in the first place. In this case the tendency of Mexicans to predominantly hire Mexicans is simply a reaction to the fact that these people have trouble getting hired by the majority of employers. The segregationism here is facilitated by the majority population who keeps Mexicans out of many jobs. So that they have to form closed communities is simply an economic necessity. So explain why Asian Americans have both lower unemployment rates and higher average salaries than white Americans.They aren't a minority now? Please stop with the victim complex.
thats highly different for different waves of imigration, just because the hightechboom brought many highly educated asians in the last 20-30 years doesnt mean that there are still problems for the old immigrant communities
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if the argument is that aggression/confrontation is no good as a strategy of development vs taking advantage of existing opportunities, it would be true.
but this does not make the negative reactions to the black protests correct.
|
On March 20 2016 10:01 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 09:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 20 2016 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:On March 20 2016 09:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 20 2016 07:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 07:55 iPlaY.NettleS 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" 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 There is no such thing as reverse racism, only racism.I'm sure if you live in California there are plenty of jobs advertised only in Spanish.I'm sure in Mexico employers would rather hire a Jose over a Joe.What exactly is the big deal. That's an intentionally misleading definition of racism. Racism comes from a place of power and institutions. There really is no such thing as 'minority racism' in any meaningful way because the minorities usually don't have the power to take control of institutions and public discourse in the first place. In this case the tendency of Mexicans to predominantly hire Mexicans is simply a reaction to the fact that these people have trouble getting hired by the majority of employers. The segregationism here is facilitated by the majority population who keeps Mexicans out of many jobs. So that they have to form closed communities is simply an economic necessity. So explain why Asian Americans have both lower unemployment rates and higher average salaries than white Americans.They aren't a minority now? Please stop with the victim complex. thats highly different for different waves of imigration, just because the hightechboom brought many highly educated asians in the last 20-30 years doesnt mean that there are still problems for the old immigrant communities
I think you'll find plenty of problems in low education white communities too, why bring identity politics into this? Why does the modern left make absolutely every topic into a debate on race, gender and sexuality?
Regardless, if you let in 12 million undocumented immigrants, many who are low skilled and with low education you can't then be surprised that there is both a shortage of low skilled work and a reduction in wages (living standards) as supply of labour outstrips demand by such a huge amount.
|
On March 20 2016 10:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 10:01 puerk wrote:On March 20 2016 09:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 20 2016 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:On March 20 2016 09:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 20 2016 07:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 07:55 iPlaY.NettleS 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" 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 There is no such thing as reverse racism, only racism.I'm sure if you live in California there are plenty of jobs advertised only in Spanish.I'm sure in Mexico employers would rather hire a Jose over a Joe.What exactly is the big deal. That's an intentionally misleading definition of racism. Racism comes from a place of power and institutions. There really is no such thing as 'minority racism' in any meaningful way because the minorities usually don't have the power to take control of institutions and public discourse in the first place. In this case the tendency of Mexicans to predominantly hire Mexicans is simply a reaction to the fact that these people have trouble getting hired by the majority of employers. The segregationism here is facilitated by the majority population who keeps Mexicans out of many jobs. So that they have to form closed communities is simply an economic necessity. So explain why Asian Americans have both lower unemployment rates and higher average salaries than white Americans.They aren't a minority now? Please stop with the victim complex. thats highly different for different waves of imigration, just because the hightechboom brought many highly educated asians in the last 20-30 years doesnt mean that there are still problems for the old immigrant communities I think you'll find plenty of problems in low education white communities too, why bring identity politics into this? Why does the modern left make absolutely every topic into a debate on race, gender and sexuality? Regardless, if you let in 12 million undocumented immigrants, many who are low skilled and with low education you can't then be surprised that there is both a shortage of low skilled work and a reduction in wages (living standards) as supply of labour outstrips demand by such a huge amount.
The same reason you feel a need to dump the ENTIRE LEFT into a single bin.
|
On March 20 2016 10:15 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 10:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 20 2016 10:01 puerk wrote:On March 20 2016 09:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 20 2016 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:On March 20 2016 09:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 20 2016 07:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 20 2016 07:55 iPlaY.NettleS 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" 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 There is no such thing as reverse racism, only racism.I'm sure if you live in California there are plenty of jobs advertised only in Spanish.I'm sure in Mexico employers would rather hire a Jose over a Joe.What exactly is the big deal. That's an intentionally misleading definition of racism. Racism comes from a place of power and institutions. There really is no such thing as 'minority racism' in any meaningful way because the minorities usually don't have the power to take control of institutions and public discourse in the first place. In this case the tendency of Mexicans to predominantly hire Mexicans is simply a reaction to the fact that these people have trouble getting hired by the majority of employers. The segregationism here is facilitated by the majority population who keeps Mexicans out of many jobs. So that they have to form closed communities is simply an economic necessity. So explain why Asian Americans have both lower unemployment rates and higher average salaries than white Americans.They aren't a minority now? Please stop with the victim complex. thats highly different for different waves of imigration, just because the hightechboom brought many highly educated asians in the last 20-30 years doesnt mean that there are still problems for the old immigrant communities I think you'll find plenty of problems in low education white communities too, why bring identity politics into this? Why does the modern left make absolutely every topic into a debate on race, gender and sexuality? Regardless, if you let in 12 million undocumented immigrants, many who are low skilled and with low education you can't then be surprised that there is both a shortage of low skilled work and a reduction in wages (living standards) as supply of labour outstrips demand by such a huge amount. The same reason you feel a need to dump the ENTIRE LEFT into a single bin.
The irony of NettleS whining about how the "modern left" always brings up debates on race, is... well, look who brought up the subject 11 hours ago that sparked the conversation over the past 7 pages, in an effort to change the subject from Trump:
On March 19 2016 22:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2016 20:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Agreed, him saying 'very' and 'totally' in front of his adjectives rather than use more advanced descriptive words is irrelevant. The problems are a) he constantly lies, b) his message is one of hatred and division and c) he presents simplistic solutions to complex problems.
Attacking him for speaking on a 'low' (and easily understandable) level is not just petty and condescending, it's also very counter-productive in that it establishes part of his anti-elitist narrative as true. I mean, the 'I have the best words' line is hilarious and hard not to smile at, but if you want to stump the trump, telling his supporters that they are dumb is not the way to do it... While you might argue that american education is a partial failure showcased by how you have to speak at a 4th grade level to reach out to the disenfranchised masses, that actually isn't Trump's fault. When you've got Sanders saying stuff like "White people don't know what it's like being poor" it's pretty clear which party is being more divisive.The same one as always.
And that's how the arguments were revived again.
And NettleS, maybe we wouldn't need to have this conversation so frequently if you actually learned what the definition of racism is. For someone who complains about seeing it all over the place, you sure haven't bother to look it up in the dictionary or listen to anyone who's been trying to explain it to you. Maybe there's a reason why it's ubiquitous. Maybe it's important.
|
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"
Was interested in the methodology of this, and from what I can tell, all three are almost picture perfect examples of bad research and designing a study to match an ideology (this was the only one with freely available research papers, but all 3 showed the names used).
Not to say that the point is entirely wrong, because they show that there is a bias toward certain kinds of names (namely, White American names). But all three of them started with the assumption of a dichotomy: White American name vs Black (or Hispanic) American names. Never more than two supposed divides, and always the assumption that the obvious divide would be along race (which, to be fair, is probably where the cognitive divide is, but you certainly can't just start with that assumption).
Even having a control test of, say, Giorgi vs George or Sam vs Sergei would show if the bias is towards race, or something else entirely (like bias against all foreign sounding names, bias against unfamiliar names, etc).
If you know studies that use a much larger and wider sampling of names, that would be far more revealing and far more meaningful.
|
On March 20 2016 08:32 Velr wrote:
I dunno, on protests against castor transports in germany picutres like this aren't exactly rare (not that i'm an expert, but i saw stuff like this basically everytime the protesters acted like this).
From what I understand "legitimate" protesters have a very specific way of dealing with police to ensure 1) the police feel comfortable approaching them when executing their civic duty without feeling threatened and 2) they make it as easy as possible for the police to take them away without hurting them. Generally this involves going completely limp and/or showing absolutely 0 resistance and is pretty much the optimal way for the conflict to resolve.
This is the nice thing about handcuffing/chaining yourself to things; it severely limits your movements such that the police will never think you're going for a gun/weapon/etc. and you present minimal threat.
|
Canada2764 Posts
I'm very intrigued to see what the race shapes up to be further down the line in 2020/2024, considering that the Democratic future doesn't seem very establishment (both due to the youth vote and Hillary Clinton being the last 'old-school' establishment big name left- unless I'm wrong?) and the Republican future is just.. an absolute mess, really. Rubio was the only republican candidate this time around that could even match Romney/McCain in my eyes, although none of those names are 'good' insofar as they're 'good relative to batshit insanity'.
|
Both parties are lacking good, high-quality candidates and I could see that from the last DNC/RNC of 2012 where they failed to put forward someone who we could care about. It'll be interesting to see if there's a genuinely interesting rising star from their party this convention.
|
Yeah pretty obvious what the strategy is from the Trump campaign.
Using the old, whisper about the kids dead mom, then call the teacher when he comes after you.
Donald Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski appeared to grab and pull a protester by his collar at a rally in Tucson, Ariz., Saturday.
In a video, Lewandowski and another man can be seen talking sternly to the protester. As the man tries to walk away, Lewandowski grabs him by the back of his shirt collar and yanks him backward.
Source
|
Canada2764 Posts
On March 20 2016 11:59 LegalLord wrote:
Both parties are lacking good, high-quality candidates and I could see that from the last DNC/RNC of 2012 where they failed to put forward someone who we could care about. It'll be interesting to see if there's a genuinely interesting rising star from their party this convention.
Rubio could be a wonderful 'establishment' republican with more experience to help him become more consistent and make less NH-esque gaffs. I just don't think he's as crazy right as the others, which might be troubling as the voters move to further extremes. Do you guys think it'll be more of a case where the establishment moves to follow the voters and become more extreme, or are we looking at an almost 'four-party' system in the future?
|
On March 20 2016 12:03 Soularion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2016 11:59 LegalLord wrote:
Both parties are lacking good, high-quality candidates and I could see that from the last DNC/RNC of 2012 where they failed to put forward someone who we could care about. It'll be interesting to see if there's a genuinely interesting rising star from their party this convention. Rubio could be a wonderful 'establishment' republican with more experience to help him become more consistent and make less NH-esque gaffs. I just don't think he's as crazy right as the others, which might be troubling as the voters move to further extremes. Do you guys think it'll be more of a case where the establishment moves to follow the voters and become more extreme, or are we looking at an almost 'four-party' system in the future?
I think the Democratic party is changing more than fracturing. The under 40 demo that heavily favors people like Sanders aren't going to age into Hillary type democrats at a rate fast enough to keep them viable.
The kicker is that traditional power structures are starting to break down, so no one really knows what they are going to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
