|
On August 07 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 00:50 xM(Z wrote:
i'd say yes, 'cause there so much one can attribute to his skills; doubtful about the americans thou, and that's just by reading topics/posts: seems like every little thing they do is such a personal achievement, that no one should dare question it.
i see the privilege you're talking about as nepotism(or, something very, very similar to it) and fail to grasp its systemic side.
ex:there's a job opening, the interviewer is white. 17 people apply: 7 black, 10 white. we assume the black people stand no chance/lose by default because 'privilege'(as per the argument presented here). you're left with 10 whites of which one gets the job.
question: how did those other 9 whites experience 'the privilege' in that case, and what would you take away from them to make them consciously experience it?. Kwark pretty much summed it up but to suss it out a bit in your example. ~3 Black people didn't even get an interview despite being equally qualified to the 9 white guys who did but didn't get the job. The privilege is white guys who didn't get the job got the opportunity to demonstrate their fitness for it in a face to face interaction with someone that likely shares some affinity for whiteness in an office where they could stumble across others who do as well. Privilege is like a luck modifier, not a mario star (although extreme wealth/power privilege seems to come damn close). you added a modifier for no reason what so ever: there's no preinterview, come on.
even so, you'd need more than assumptions, you need stats that show that luck hits white more often than <...>.
@ZerOCoolSC2 - and if the play isn't on racism?.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 07 2019 01:11 xM(Z wrote:
i can agree with the first part, sure; but i see that line of reasoning as consequenceless.
what's your end point here?, how would you repay(if desired) what the unprivileged lost through generations?, based on what?,
can you make do with an apology? ... etcetcetc.
for that second part you'd need data, present day data, then an argument along those lines could be made; maybe.
Edit: even with a "privilege quotient of which skin colour is just one component", i can't see colour making it pass 5, or 4(1 being wealth)
The question of what exactly should be done to redress problems of privilege is a hard one because everyone wants all injustices to be fixed simultaneously. Poor white people won’t sign off on addressing white privilege unless wealth privilege is fixed at the same time and then things get super complicated. I think the best solution is probably creating a more just society through welfare, redistributive taxation, provision of healthcare and education, criminal justice reform, and access to the means of betterment (small business loans, mortgages, tertiary education etc). Those are likely to benefit all marginalized folks and, given time, break down the barriers to privileged society by making the outcomes indistinguishable.
|
United States41980 Posts
On August 07 2019 01:27 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 07 2019 00:50 xM(Z wrote:
i'd say yes, 'cause there so much one can attribute to his skills; doubtful about the americans thou, and that's just by reading topics/posts: seems like every little thing they do is such a personal achievement, that no one should dare question it.
i see the privilege you're talking about as nepotism(or, something very, very similar to it) and fail to grasp its systemic side.
ex:there's a job opening, the interviewer is white. 17 people apply: 7 black, 10 white. we assume the black people stand no chance/lose by default because 'privilege'(as per the argument presented here). you're left with 10 whites of which one gets the job.
question: how did those other 9 whites experience 'the privilege' in that case, and what would you take away from them to make them consciously experience it?. Kwark pretty much summed it up but to suss it out a bit in your example. ~3 Black people didn't even get an interview despite being equally qualified to the 9 white guys who did but didn't get the job. The privilege is white guys who didn't get the job got the opportunity to demonstrate their fitness for it in a face to face interaction with someone that likely shares some affinity for whiteness in an office where they could stumble across others who do as well. Privilege is like a luck modifier, not a mario star (although extreme wealth/power privilege seems to come damn close). you added a modifier for no reason what so ever: there's no preinterview, come on. even so, you'd need more than assumptions, you need stats that show that luck hits white more often than <...>. @ZerOCoolSC2 - and if the play isn't on racism?.
The preinterview is John getting his resume read when Tyrone’s wasn’t. They’ve done identical resume name bias studies before. John gets the call more often.
|
On August 07 2019 01:27 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 07 2019 00:50 xM(Z wrote:
i'd say yes, 'cause there so much one can attribute to his skills; doubtful about the americans thou, and that's just by reading topics/posts: seems like every little thing they do is such a personal achievement, that no one should dare question it.
i see the privilege you're talking about as nepotism(or, something very, very similar to it) and fail to grasp its systemic side.
ex:there's a job opening, the interviewer is white. 17 people apply: 7 black, 10 white. we assume the black people stand no chance/lose by default because 'privilege'(as per the argument presented here). you're left with 10 whites of which one gets the job.
question: how did those other 9 whites experience 'the privilege' in that case, and what would you take away from them to make them consciously experience it?. Kwark pretty much summed it up but to suss it out a bit in your example. ~3 Black people didn't even get an interview despite being equally qualified to the 9 white guys who did but didn't get the job. The privilege is white guys who didn't get the job got the opportunity to demonstrate their fitness for it in a face to face interaction with someone that likely shares some affinity for whiteness in an office where they could stumble across others who do as well. Privilege is like a luck modifier, not a mario star (although extreme wealth/power privilege seems to come damn close). you added a modifier for no reason what so ever: there's no preinterview, come on. even so, you'd need more than assumptions, you need stats that show that luck hits white more often than <...>. @ZerOCoolSC2 - and if the play isn't on racism?.
Typically there is a pre-interview, at minimum there's an initial screening process. It's extremely rare for everyone that applies to be considered at a face to face interview level.
It's not an assumption?
A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience.
+ Show Spoiler +In response to help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston newspapers, they sent resumes with either African-American- or white-sounding names and then measured the number of callbacks each resume received for interviews. ... In total, the authors responded to more than 1,300 employment ads in the sales, administrative support, clerical, and customer services job categories, sending out nearly 5,000 resumes. The ads covered a large spectrum of job quality, from cashier work at retail establishments and clerical work in a mailroom to office and sales management positions. Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback. The 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant, Bertrand and Mullainathan note in Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience.
+ Show Spoiler + Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller. "While one may have expected that improved credentials may alleviate employers' fear that African-American applicants are deficient in some unobservable skills, this is not the case in our data," the authors write. " Discrimination therefore appears to bite twice, making it harder not only for African-Americans to find a job but also to improve their employability."
"Discrimination therefore appears to bite twice, making it harder not only for African-Americans to find a job but also to improve their employability."
www.nber.org
|
On August 07 2019 01:27 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 07 2019 00:50 xM(Z wrote:
i'd say yes, 'cause there so much one can attribute to his skills; doubtful about the americans thou, and that's just by reading topics/posts: seems like every little thing they do is such a personal achievement, that no one should dare question it.
i see the privilege you're talking about as nepotism(or, something very, very similar to it) and fail to grasp its systemic side.
ex:there's a job opening, the interviewer is white. 17 people apply: 7 black, 10 white. we assume the black people stand no chance/lose by default because 'privilege'(as per the argument presented here). you're left with 10 whites of which one gets the job.
question: how did those other 9 whites experience 'the privilege' in that case, and what would you take away from them to make them consciously experience it?. Kwark pretty much summed it up but to suss it out a bit in your example. ~3 Black people didn't even get an interview despite being equally qualified to the 9 white guys who did but didn't get the job. The privilege is white guys who didn't get the job got the opportunity to demonstrate their fitness for it in a face to face interaction with someone that likely shares some affinity for whiteness in an office where they could stumble across others who do as well. Privilege is like a luck modifier, not a mario star (although extreme wealth/power privilege seems to come damn close). you added a modifier for no reason what so ever: there's no preinterview, come on. even so, you'd need more than assumptions, you need stats that show that luck hits white more often than <...>. @ZerOCoolSC2 - and if the play isn't on racism?.
It doesn't matter what the play is about, the actors bring it to life. Im using racism because that is the current topic. Same with radical islamic terrorism or environmental terrorism. The play is what is being acted out (violent rhetoric) but terrible people (terrorists). All to advance some agenda.
|
|
|
On August 07 2019 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 01:27 xM(Z wrote:On August 07 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 07 2019 00:50 xM(Z wrote:
i'd say yes, 'cause there so much one can attribute to his skills; doubtful about the americans thou, and that's just by reading topics/posts: seems like every little thing they do is such a personal achievement, that no one should dare question it.
i see the privilege you're talking about as nepotism(or, something very, very similar to it) and fail to grasp its systemic side.
ex:there's a job opening, the interviewer is white. 17 people apply: 7 black, 10 white. we assume the black people stand no chance/lose by default because 'privilege'(as per the argument presented here). you're left with 10 whites of which one gets the job.
question: how did those other 9 whites experience 'the privilege' in that case, and what would you take away from them to make them consciously experience it?. Kwark pretty much summed it up but to suss it out a bit in your example. ~3 Black people didn't even get an interview despite being equally qualified to the 9 white guys who did but didn't get the job. The privilege is white guys who didn't get the job got the opportunity to demonstrate their fitness for it in a face to face interaction with someone that likely shares some affinity for whiteness in an office where they could stumble across others who do as well. Privilege is like a luck modifier, not a mario star (although extreme wealth/power privilege seems to come damn close). you added a modifier for no reason what so ever: there's no preinterview, come on. even so, you'd need more than assumptions, you need stats that show that luck hits white more often than <...>. @ZerOCoolSC2 - and if the play isn't on racism?. Typically there is a pre-interview, at minimum there's an initial screening process. It's extremely rare for everyone that applies to be considered at a face to face interview level. It's not an assumption? Show nested quote +A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. + Show Spoiler +In response to help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston newspapers, they sent resumes with either African-American- or white-sounding names and then measured the number of callbacks each resume received for interviews. ... In total, the authors responded to more than 1,300 employment ads in the sales, administrative support, clerical, and customer services job categories, sending out nearly 5,000 resumes. The ads covered a large spectrum of job quality, from cashier work at retail establishments and clerical work in a mailroom to office and sales management positions. Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback. The 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant, Bertrand and Mullainathan note in Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience.
+ Show Spoiler + Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller. "While one may have expected that improved credentials may alleviate employers' fear that African-American applicants are deficient in some unobservable skills, this is not the case in our data," the authors write. " Discrimination therefore appears to bite twice, making it harder not only for African-Americans to find a job but also to improve their employability."Show nested quote + "Discrimination therefore appears to bite twice, making it harder not only for African-Americans to find a job but also to improve their employability." www.nber.org ok, so my framework was lacking within an american context(there is no pre-anything here; you see the add, you go there, and things happen or they don't).
still, there is something missing from that data, imo. you need the race of the employers(or the ones doing the callbacks) too else i don't know, it looks like everyone likes white but then you go and blame whites for being white ...
stuff is missing, the guilt trip does not follow from the data.
@ZerOCoolSC2 - dude just get it, the play, the script, is: the ideology of race, the ideology of privilege, the ideology of faith(Gods), the ideology of the spaghetti monster, and so on. the buffoon, the fool, the actor is the irrelevant nitwit you can find on every corner, driven by need/want/desire and eager to serve a higher goal/purpose/entity/ideal that might fulfill those yearns.
there is no racist without it, racism, being scripted first else it's this: In social psychology, the cross-race effect is described as the "ingroup advantage". In other fields, the effect can be seen as a specific form of the "ingroup advantage" since it is only applied in interracial or inter-ethnic situations, whereas "ingroup advantage" can refer to mono-ethnic situations as well.[2]
Deeper study of the cross-race effect has also demonstrated two types of processing for the recognition of faces: featural and holistic. It has been found that holistic processing (which occurs beyond individual parts of the face) is more commonly used in same-race situations, but there is an experience effect, which means that as a person gains more experience with those of a particular race, he or she will begin to use more holistic processing. Featural processing is much more commonly used with an unfamiliar stimulus or face.[3] just preference.
Edit:On August 07 2019 01:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 01:11 xM(Z wrote:
i can agree with the first part, sure; but i see that line of reasoning as consequenceless.
what's your end point here?, how would you repay(if desired) what the unprivileged lost through generations?, based on what?,
can you make do with an apology? ... etcetcetc.
for that second part you'd need data, present day data, then an argument along those lines could be made; maybe.
Edit: even with a "privilege quotient of which skin colour is just one component", i can't see colour making it pass 5, or 4(1 being wealth) The question of what exactly should be done to redress problems of privilege is a hard one because everyone wants all injustices to be fixed simultaneously. Poor white people won’t sign off on addressing white privilege unless wealth privilege is fixed at the same time and then things get super complicated. I think the best solution is probably creating a more just society through welfare, redistributive taxation, provision of healthcare and education, criminal justice reform, and access to the means of betterment (small business loans, mortgages, tertiary education etc). Those are likely to benefit all marginalized folks and, given time, break down the barriers to privileged society by making the outcomes indistinguishable. hallelujah
|
On August 07 2019 02:35 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 07 2019 01:27 xM(Z wrote:On August 07 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 07 2019 00:50 xM(Z wrote:
i'd say yes, 'cause there so much one can attribute to his skills; doubtful about the americans thou, and that's just by reading topics/posts: seems like every little thing they do is such a personal achievement, that no one should dare question it.
i see the privilege you're talking about as nepotism(or, something very, very similar to it) and fail to grasp its systemic side.
ex:there's a job opening, the interviewer is white. 17 people apply: 7 black, 10 white. we assume the black people stand no chance/lose by default because 'privilege'(as per the argument presented here). you're left with 10 whites of which one gets the job.
question: how did those other 9 whites experience 'the privilege' in that case, and what would you take away from them to make them consciously experience it?. Kwark pretty much summed it up but to suss it out a bit in your example. ~3 Black people didn't even get an interview despite being equally qualified to the 9 white guys who did but didn't get the job. The privilege is white guys who didn't get the job got the opportunity to demonstrate their fitness for it in a face to face interaction with someone that likely shares some affinity for whiteness in an office where they could stumble across others who do as well. Privilege is like a luck modifier, not a mario star (although extreme wealth/power privilege seems to come damn close). you added a modifier for no reason what so ever: there's no preinterview, come on. even so, you'd need more than assumptions, you need stats that show that luck hits white more often than <...>. @ZerOCoolSC2 - and if the play isn't on racism?. Typically there is a pre-interview, at minimum there's an initial screening process. It's extremely rare for everyone that applies to be considered at a face to face interview level. It's not an assumption? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. + Show Spoiler +In response to help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston newspapers, they sent resumes with either African-American- or white-sounding names and then measured the number of callbacks each resume received for interviews. ... In total, the authors responded to more than 1,300 employment ads in the sales, administrative support, clerical, and customer services job categories, sending out nearly 5,000 resumes. The ads covered a large spectrum of job quality, from cashier work at retail establishments and clerical work in a mailroom to office and sales management positions. Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback. The 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant, Bertrand and Mullainathan note in Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience.
+ Show Spoiler + Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller. "While one may have expected that improved credentials may alleviate employers' fear that African-American applicants are deficient in some unobservable skills, this is not the case in our data," the authors write. " Discrimination therefore appears to bite twice, making it harder not only for African-Americans to find a job but also to improve their employability." "Discrimination therefore appears to bite twice, making it harder not only for African-Americans to find a job but also to improve their employability." www.nber.org ok, so my framework was lacking within an american context(there is no pre-anything here; you see the add, you go there, and things happen or they don't). still, there is something missing from that data, imo. you need the race of the employers(or the ones doing the callbacks) too else i don't know, it looks like everyone likes white but then you go and blame whites for being white ... stuff is missing, the guilt trip does not follow from the data. @ZerOCoolSC2 - dude just get it, the play, the script, is: the ideology of race, the ideology of privilege, the ideology of faith(Gods), the ideology of the spaghetti monster, and so on. the buffoon, the fool, the actor is the irrelevant nitwit you can find on every corner, driven by need/want/desire and eager to serve a higher goal/purpose/entity/ideal that might fulfill those yearns. there is no racist without it, racism, being scripted first else it's this: Show nested quote +In social psychology, the cross-race effect is described as the "ingroup advantage". In other fields, the effect can be seen as a specific form of the "ingroup advantage" since it is only applied in interracial or inter-ethnic situations, whereas "ingroup advantage" can refer to mono-ethnic situations as well.[2]
Deeper study of the cross-race effect has also demonstrated two types of processing for the recognition of faces: featural and holistic. It has been found that holistic processing (which occurs beyond individual parts of the face) is more commonly used in same-race situations, but there is an experience effect, which means that as a person gains more experience with those of a particular race, he or she will begin to use more holistic processing. Featural processing is much more commonly used with an unfamiliar stimulus or face.[3] just preference. Edit: Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 01:43 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2019 01:11 xM(Z wrote:
i can agree with the first part, sure; but i see that line of reasoning as consequenceless.
what's your end point here?, how would you repay(if desired) what the unprivileged lost through generations?, based on what?,
can you make do with an apology? ... etcetcetc.
for that second part you'd need data, present day data, then an argument along those lines could be made; maybe.
Edit: even with a "privilege quotient of which skin colour is just one component", i can't see colour making it pass 5, or 4(1 being wealth) The question of what exactly should be done to redress problems of privilege is a hard one because everyone wants all injustices to be fixed simultaneously. Poor white people won’t sign off on addressing white privilege unless wealth privilege is fixed at the same time and then things get super complicated. I think the best solution is probably creating a more just society through welfare, redistributive taxation, provision of healthcare and education, criminal justice reform, and access to the means of betterment (small business loans, mortgages, tertiary education etc). Those are likely to benefit all marginalized folks and, given time, break down the barriers to privileged society by making the outcomes indistinguishable. hallelujah
In case you forgot what we were initially talking about
Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 23:10 Gorsameth wrote:
Is there some universal law that says that when a racist gets banned a new one must rise up to take his place?
And you said that it was Gorsameth, not the racism. I shot back that it was racists replacing racists. The racism is still there, never left.
Dude, just get it. Without the fucking bullshit, hate filled actors bring a bullshit, hate filled play to life, the play has no power and is nothing. Not a damn thing but words. The actors are needed to bring the hatred into being.
Do. You. Understand? You basically agreed with what I've been saying, in a smarmy way.
|
On August 07 2019 02:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 01:11 xM(Z wrote:
i can agree with the first part, sure; but i see that line of reasoning as consequenceless.
what's your end point here?, how would you repay(if desired) what the unprivileged lost through generations?, based on what?,
can you make do with an apology? ... etcetcetc.
for that second part you'd need data, present day data, then an argument along those lines could be made; maybe.
Edit: even with a "privilege quotient of which skin colour is just one component", i can't see colour making it pass 5, or 4(1 being wealth) Whether or not it helps is up for debate but many cities and some provinces in Canada have been trying to make reconciliation with the bands that it has messed with for generations. The basic plan simplified is you have members of the band and leadership get together and work on what can be done to heal old wounds. Public apologies, recognition of what has happened, lots of education. One of the easy to notice changes is now at the start of council meetings and school announcements and so on who ever is introducing acknowledges that the event is happening on Blackfoot land. It isn't all about paying money, it is more about healing old wounds and respect. https://www.lethbridge.ca/City-Government/Documents/Reconciliation Lethbridge - Implementation Plan (FINAL).pdfHere also is some older info on the lead up. http://bloodtribe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/AUGSEPT2014.pdf that's a way too; i'm mostly following what's going on in Australia with the Aborigines reconciliation(through stories mostly, permaculture related since it's more up my alley).
i don't see the guilt trip i see in America though, towards the whites. i see respect, dutifulness, reverence, some piousness towards the aborigines from the colonizers, pretty limited but emerging, while some of the natives are cautiously optimistic and others overjoyed that their stories, legacy, knowledge is being talked about, written, preserved.
@ZerOCoolSC2 - because Gorsameth runs on a script that sees racism everywhere, even when not present.
it's not them being racists, it's him seeing them as racists, because he looks for racists. the old"... when all you have is a hammer ..." saying.
Edit: the rest of your post is a chicken vs the egg conundrum which can be easily solved, in this context, with a simple question: how many of those "hate filled actors" do you see able to come up with a whole ideology(of racism lets say)?.
that also has a simple answer: not many.
from those, you get that the ideology has more weight than the actor.
the script needs not to be silenced; it needs to be brought to life in order to be resolved.
|
|
|
On August 07 2019 02:35 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 07 2019 01:27 xM(Z wrote:On August 07 2019 01:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 07 2019 00:50 xM(Z wrote:
i'd say yes, 'cause there so much one can attribute to his skills; doubtful about the americans thou, and that's just by reading topics/posts: seems like every little thing they do is such a personal achievement, that no one should dare question it.
i see the privilege you're talking about as nepotism(or, something very, very similar to it) and fail to grasp its systemic side.
ex:there's a job opening, the interviewer is white. 17 people apply: 7 black, 10 white. we assume the black people stand no chance/lose by default because 'privilege'(as per the argument presented here). you're left with 10 whites of which one gets the job.
question: how did those other 9 whites experience 'the privilege' in that case, and what would you take away from them to make them consciously experience it?. Kwark pretty much summed it up but to suss it out a bit in your example. ~3 Black people didn't even get an interview despite being equally qualified to the 9 white guys who did but didn't get the job. The privilege is white guys who didn't get the job got the opportunity to demonstrate their fitness for it in a face to face interaction with someone that likely shares some affinity for whiteness in an office where they could stumble across others who do as well. Privilege is like a luck modifier, not a mario star (although extreme wealth/power privilege seems to come damn close). you added a modifier for no reason what so ever: there's no preinterview, come on. even so, you'd need more than assumptions, you need stats that show that luck hits white more often than <...>. @ZerOCoolSC2 - and if the play isn't on racism?. Typically there is a pre-interview, at minimum there's an initial screening process. It's extremely rare for everyone that applies to be considered at a face to face interview level. It's not an assumption? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. + Show Spoiler +In response to help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston newspapers, they sent resumes with either African-American- or white-sounding names and then measured the number of callbacks each resume received for interviews. ... In total, the authors responded to more than 1,300 employment ads in the sales, administrative support, clerical, and customer services job categories, sending out nearly 5,000 resumes. The ads covered a large spectrum of job quality, from cashier work at retail establishments and clerical work in a mailroom to office and sales management positions. Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback. The 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant, Bertrand and Mullainathan note in Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience.
+ Show Spoiler + Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller. "While one may have expected that improved credentials may alleviate employers' fear that African-American applicants are deficient in some unobservable skills, this is not the case in our data," the authors write. " Discrimination therefore appears to bite twice, making it harder not only for African-Americans to find a job but also to improve their employability." "Discrimination therefore appears to bite twice, making it harder not only for African-Americans to find a job but also to improve their employability." www.nber.org ok, so my framework was lacking within an american context(there is no pre-anything here; you see the add, you go there, and things happen or they don't). still, there is something missing from that data, imo. you need the race of the employers(or the ones doing the callbacks) too else i don't know, it looks like everyone likes white but then you go and blame whites for being white ... stuff is missing, the guilt trip does not follow from the data.
There's no guilt trip, and no one is "blaming whites for being white". White supremacists don't have to be "white", nor do people who perpetuate white supremacy out of ignorance or fear.
|
Per seeker's request:
On August 15 2019 16:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Mods, please take note of exactly how this conversation has been intentionally pulled away from the existing topic. This is a textbook example of why whataboutism is damaging to conversations and fundamentally makes the thread worse. Instead of being able to discuss Trump's response to Hong Kong, we are now once again examining the US' history of violence. It's not a coincidence. GH makes a conscious effort to drag conversations in that direction.
As shown by:
On August 15 2019 14:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2019 14:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 15 2019 14:21 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2019 13:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 15 2019 10:14 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
US statement on the Hong Kong protests
I guess the interpretation of this message depends a lot on what you imagine Trump means with 'quickly and humanely solve' Not really the time to criticise Trump when Xi has tanks and troops in Schenzen that he could use against civilians. It’s good that Trump is trying to stop any engagement there but the ball is fully in the court of the Chinese Communist Government. The fact that the tanks are there is a reason to criticize Xi. We are not subordinate to Xi. Xi should be criticized and stopped from violence. As far as I've heard (I haven't followed it that closely) the police have been far less violent than they typically would be in the US? Doesn't matter. We should prevent harm from coming to Hong Kong by applying political pressure. It being hypocritical of our government means nothing if it helps Hong Kong. What in the world is your obsession with whataboutism? You've had plenty of complaints about it and you seem to simply not care.
Leading to:
On August 15 2019 15:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2019 14:58 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2019 14:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 15 2019 14:21 Mohdoo wrote:On August 15 2019 13:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Not really the time to criticise Trump when Xi has tanks and troops in Schenzen that he could use against civilians. It’s good that Trump is trying to stop any engagement there but the ball is fully in the court of the Chinese Communist Government. The fact that the tanks are there is a reason to criticize Xi. We are not subordinate to Xi. Xi should be criticized and stopped from violence. As far as I've heard (I haven't followed it that closely) the police have been far less violent than they typically would be in the US? Doesn't matter. We should prevent harm from coming to Hong Kong by applying political pressure. It being hypocritical of our government means nothing if it helps Hong Kong. What in the world is your obsession with whataboutism? You've had plenty of complaints about it and you seem to simply not care. Pointing out legitimate hypocrisy isn't whataboutism. Remove the plank, glass houses and all that.
Followed by:
On August 15 2019 16:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2019 16:05 Velr wrote:
Tiananmen Square happened in 1989.. Don't make this about "5000 years/history of mankind", plenty of people remember this, they remember the news broadcasts that aired at the time ffs.
Search me one thing the US has done to his own citizens in the last 100 years that was as bad. We are talking about sending the army after a mass protest with orders to shoot, not just the use of excessive force by the police. There was the massacre at of Black Wallstreet. The boarding schools I mentioned. I recently mentioned the it was the 54th anniversary of the Watts Rebellion. There was the reaction to the civil rights movement, and the drug war (mass incarceration and modern day slave labor) to name a few. I presume the "it's own citizens" is intentionally excluding the growing concentration camps (which sometimes hold citizens for years) we have? EDIT: For those who don't want to do the math, yes he was kidnapped by the Obama administration, not Trumps. Also that's not meant to be a comprehensive list, just some that I had off the top of my head and Wounded Knee was just out of the allotted time frame.
Followed by:
On August 15 2019 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2019 16:16 Jockmcplop wrote:This is what's happening right now in China: There is absolutely no way the US is doing anything this bad on this scale. No way. https://www.news.com.au/world/asia/chinas-sickening-acts-on-female-prisoners-at-reeducation-camps/news-story/34d531c19a5bb060881a76ac8b478609China is forcibly sterilising women held in its vast network of “re-education” camps which house political and religious prisoners, survivors have claimed.
One woman, who was held for more than a year, has told French television that she was repeatedly injected with a substance by doctors in a prison in the far-west region of Xinjiang.
“We had to stick our arms out through a small opening in the door,” Gulbahar Jalilova, a 54-year-old former detainee, told France 24.
“We soon realised that after our injections that we didn’t get our periods any more.”
She and up to 50 other women were crammed into a tiny cell “like we were just (a) piece of meat”, she said.
Speaking to an Amnesty International conference recently, another woman, Mehrigul Tursun, 30, told a similar story of being unknowingly sterilised.
She felt “tired for about a week, lost my memories and felt depressed” after being administered a cocktail of drugs while imprisoned in 2017, she said.
After several months she was released, having been diagnosed as mentally ill, and now lived in the United States. Doctors there later told her that she had been sterilised. I think it's more fair to compare China to the US when it was industrializing and had comparable per capita wealth rather than post industrialization. But it's possible they are honestly reporting their experience, it's also possible they are earning various defection/propaganda incentives ( for example in Korea). We really don't know, despite the hollering about it definitely being totally real. What we have is conflicting reports from various sources of sketchy credibility and questionable motives. Regardless they are still Muslims, there are thousands of Mosques in China (like 10x more than the US or something like that), and has it not crossed anyone's mind why they would target these specific Muslims and not Muslims in general? Oh and I forgot: Female inmates sterilized in California prisons without approvalWhich also mentioned this: Show nested quote +Between 1909 and 1964, about 20,000 women and men in California were stripped of the ability to reproduce – making the state the nation’s most prolific sterilizer. Historians say Nazi Germany sought the advice of the state’s eugenics leaders in the 1930s.
GH essentially hides behind this nonsense of "whoa there all I'm doing is point out hypocrisy" as if that is some divine purpose and something that must be done. Hypocrisy does not invalidate beliefs or actions or requests. Hypocrisy is simply hypocrisy. But the question as to whether something is hypocrisy or not does not need to be discussed at every possible avenue. That is the issue here. There was an attempt to discuss the US handling the Hong Kong situation, but as displayed above, the main priority for GH was determining whether or not the US criticizing China's handling of Hong Kong would be hypocritical or not.
And lets assume it is indeed hypocritical. Now what? Nothing. It does not change anything being said. If the US calls out China for being shitty to Hong Kong, the US committing similarly immoral things does not change how moral it is for China to be shitty to Hong Kong. That's the fundamental problem that GH tries to skirt past as he tries to divert people's attention towards reforming the US. The idea of "I'm not using whataboutism! I'm just pointing out hypocrisy" is total nonsense. He is intentionally trying to pull attention away from the original topic.
|
I don't want to make big deal out of this, I'd just point out my previous response and address the question posed.
+ Show Spoiler +On August 15 2019 16:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2019 16:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Mods, please take note of exactly how this conversation has been intentionally pulled away from the existing topic. This is a textbook example of why whataboutism is damaging to conversations and fundamentally makes the thread worse. Instead of being able to discuss Trump's response to Hong Kong, we are now once again examining the US' history of violence. It's not a coincidence. GH makes a conscious effort to drag conversations in that direction. I am discussing Trump's response to Hong Kong and why it's absurd*? + Show Spoiler +(*there's probably a better word that'll come to me), meh stickin with absurd I think You are misusing the term whataboutism. Please stop. I didn't drag it there, I made an argument and substantiated it as asked. as to the question about if it's hypocritical, "now what?" The discussion/topic you've suggested that I've interrupted in the US politics thread isn't the one about Trump's/the US's comments/role then, but how moral it is for China to be shitty to Hong Kong. which I'm not opposed to discussing, but the US politics thread doesn't seem like the place for that unless it's in the context of the role of/comparisons to the US. I'm open to being shown otherwise or clarifying without this getting out of hand. If I get to have a concern considered it'd be the constant mischaracterizations (which I've demonstrated and will pull up the receipts if needed) of my posts/arguments/points without consequence. I believe that's one of the most consistent features of these "make GH stop it" type events.
Worth pointing out Trump/Republican hypocrisy and jokes based on it is a significant portion of the thread without me.
|
It's not that people don't like having you involved in conversations, it's just that you always try to move it to shitting on the US, calling for a (r)evolution, or saying the US is worse than any nation currently being discussed. Everyone knows you dislike America. It's tiring to have to sift through your posts complaining about something the US did (past or present) in comparison to another nation.
|
On August 16 2019 09:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It's not that people don't like having you involved in conversations, it's just that you always try to move it to shitting on the US, calling for a (r)evolution, or saying the US is worse than any nation currently being discussed. Everyone knows you dislike America. It's tiring to have to sift through your posts complaining about something the US did (past or present) in comparison to another nation.
The thread is about US politics, so I try to position (my arguments/posts about) topics within the context of US politics. What you're complaining about is not being able to talk about things (other nations specifically) without them being framed within the context of US politics.
I can sort out that "(r)evolution" thing in PM for you too because that's a silly thing to keep doing.
|
On August 16 2019 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2019 09:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It's not that people don't like having you involved in conversations, it's just that you always try to move it to shitting on the US, calling for a (r)evolution, or saying the US is worse than any nation currently being discussed. Everyone knows you dislike America. It's tiring to have to sift through your posts complaining about something the US did (past or present) in comparison to another nation. The thread is about US politics, so I try to position (my arguments/posts about) topics within the context of US politics. What you're complaining about is not being able to talk about things (other countries specifically) without them being framed within the context of US politics.
You're not talking about US politics. You're just shitting on US period. You don't talk about politics without some negative remark towards the US at any and every opportunity. We could solve perpetual energy and you'd find a way to shit on the US. US could end hunger, cure cancer/AIDS, and you'd complain they didn't do it soon enough.
WE GET IT.
|
On August 16 2019 10:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2019 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 16 2019 09:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It's not that people don't like having you involved in conversations, it's just that you always try to move it to shitting on the US, calling for a (r)evolution, or saying the US is worse than any nation currently being discussed. Everyone knows you dislike America. It's tiring to have to sift through your posts complaining about something the US did (past or present) in comparison to another nation. The thread is about US politics, so I try to position (my arguments/posts about) topics within the context of US politics. What you're complaining about is not being able to talk about things (other countries specifically) without them being framed within the context of US politics. You're not talking about US politics. You're just shitting on US period. You don't talk about politics without some negative remark towards the US at any and every opportunity. We could solve perpetual energy and you'd find a way to shit on the US. US could end hunger, cure cancer/AIDS, and you'd complain they didn't do it soon enough. WE GET IT.
Your (and others) problem seems to be I don't take a positive perspective on the US past or present relative to whatever the particular topic is (in this case the morality of China's actions regarding protests in HK, which again, isn't US politics at all), not that I'm not talking about US politics.
The stuff about US ending hunger and curing cancer is just silly so let's not go there.
|
|
|
On August 16 2019 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2019 10:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 16 2019 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 16 2019 09:55 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It's not that people don't like having you involved in conversations, it's just that you always try to move it to shitting on the US, calling for a (r)evolution, or saying the US is worse than any nation currently being discussed. Everyone knows you dislike America. It's tiring to have to sift through your posts complaining about something the US did (past or present) in comparison to another nation. The thread is about US politics, so I try to position (my arguments/posts about) topics within the context of US politics. What you're complaining about is not being able to talk about things (other countries specifically) without them being framed within the context of US politics. You're not talking about US politics. You're just shitting on US period. You don't talk about politics without some negative remark towards the US at any and every opportunity. We could solve perpetual energy and you'd find a way to shit on the US. US could end hunger, cure cancer/AIDS, and you'd complain they didn't do it soon enough. WE GET IT. Your (and others) problem seems to be I don't take a positive perspective on the US past or present relative to whatever the particular topic is (in this case the morality of China's actions regarding protests in HK, which again, isn't US politics at all), not that I'm not talking about US politics. The stuff about US ending hunger and curing cancer is just silly so let's not go there.
We were discussing trump's response to the protests. You had to compare what the US has done in the past/present as a way to take a shot at the US. Instead, you could have agreed or suggested something else trump could have said. But you didn't. You forced others, intentionally or not, to stop their conversation to address your need for attention.
That is the problem people are having. Also, what JimmiC said is true to the letter.
|
I think when I'm arguing with the two of you in particular it's unlikely to end anywhere productive so I'll just answer
you could have agreed or suggested something else trump could have said.
what I thought was implied by my general political standing and said more or less explicitly when asked ("remove the plank") which is to say mind their business/get our own house in order and certainly don't let Trump be considered a legitimate messenger of "peace" or human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
