2018 mid-term forecast

[Doc Savage Fan]

There is no doubt that affirmative action needs review and improvement. For admissions and employment, there is no doubt that at times it isn't employed correctly. In general, the preference for minorities should only be given when they are also qualified in my opinion, otherwise you just set them up for failure. But this also emphasizes where we are still failing. If black freshman were receiving the same level of preparation as whites, we would expect similar rates of success. Clearly blacks are not receiving the same opportunities k-12 as whites. Note that this is not the same as saying that the schools are actively repressing blacks. Rather, a combination of socioeconomics and societal racism put these students at a disadvantage. I would also probably even agree that the socioeconomic elements are the bigger issue. However, I think research also shows that racism itself isn't a sufficiently insignificant problem that we can just ignore it.

The real problem starts at home if you really want to get brutally honest here.

 

[mect]

See bolded, I agree 100%! People are born and see a cycle of relying on the government, having kids out of wedlock (marriage not really being the issue, but dads being around and setting good examples really is) and playing the victim. So, to break the cycle, I agree, we throw resources at the problem. But, where you and I differ is that I'm not for harming other people to help prop up another demographic, and that's exactly what affirmative action is.

No it isn't. Affirmative action in hiring was primarily developed to counter exactly what you are describing. Before affirmative action, if two candidates were equally qualified, the white person would most often be hired. Why? Because people are more likely to hire someone that looks like them, and the vast majority of the people doing the hiring are white. Even with affirmative action this happens. A study in 2008 found that equally qualified white applicants were twice as likely to receive a call back compared to black applicants. White applicants with a felony performed just as well as black applicants with a clean background. Basically, what the study found is that being black was approximately equivalent to being white with a drug charge felony. Removing built in advantages for whites is not harming them to prop up another demographic. Its leveling the playing field.

 

[Amused]

The real problem starts at home if you really want to get brutally honest here.

Why yes, of course. Because generations of systemic racism has no effects of the home life of those discriminated against.

Because an automatic 36% handicap doesn't lead to poverty, resentment and thus, crime. Oh no. Of course not. High unemployment and poverty have never been linked to crime rates... ever.

Seriously. The intellectual contortions on the right when it comes to racism is astounding. Oppress a people through systemic racism, then blame the symptoms of generational systemic racism on them and use as an excuse to... wait for it... be racist.

It's fucking sociopath and narcissistic abuse on a national level.

 

[mect]

The real problem starts at home if you really want to get brutally honest here.

I agree, but this isn't the only problem, and it is one of the most challenging to address. This is also the reason for so many of the social programs the right wants to tear down. They seem to like to place the blame for societies problems there, but don't seem to be willing to provide support for programs that would help address it. This is the reason for programs like planned parenthood, head start, community parenting programs, classes in schools that teach soft skills and not just reading and math, etc. Democrats try to provide programs to help make up for these deficiencies. As far as I can tell, all republicans want to push for is for these people to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps.

 

[woolfe9998]

Why yes, of course. Because generations of systemic racism has no effects of the home life of those discriminated against.

Because an automatic 36% handicap doesn't lead to poverty, resentment and thus, crime. Oh no. Of course not. High unemployment and poverty have never been linked to crime rates... ever.

Seriously. The intellectual contortions on the right when it comes to racism is astounding. Oppress a people through systemic racism, then blame the symptoms of generational systemic racism on them and use as an excuse to... wait for it... be racist.

It's fucking sociopath and narcissistic abuse on a national level.

Agreed. I think DSF is trying to suggest that there is a lack of motivation toward achievement in African American culture, which starts in the home, i.e. the parent-child relationship. But he makes no attempt to explain why such a problem would exist. It certainly doesn't arise from a vacuum. A story sometimes told by conservatives - which is likely apocryphal - is that of the black mother criticizing her black child for doing well in school, saying that educational achievement is "acting white." But where did this idea come from in the first place? It sounds an awful lot like what the slave owners said to their slaves. You won't be taught to read and write, because education and learning are for white people. These ideas of the slave owner are internalized by the slave in a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, and passed down through generations, reinforced by systemic racism which continues even after slavery ends. You can't tell people over and over again that they're shit, then expect them to see themselves otherwise.

If only it were so simple as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" or "teach your kids the importance of education and achievement." It's difficult to disentangle the psychological effects of generations of racism. Even as racism begins to diminish, those effects may not go away over night.

 

[Jhhnn]

It isn't privilege to be intelligent and use that to your advantage. It isn't privilege because my father was around to help raise me. The bolded to me sounds like you are saying you are privileged because you are smarter than other races. That is an interesting way to look at it...

That's delusional. People of all races suffer from birth defects & I'm lucky it wasn't me. As they reach maturity they can be afflicted by things like schizophrenia through no fault of their own, as well.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why yes, of course. Because generations of systemic racism has no effects of the home life of those discriminated against.

Because an automatic 36% handicap doesn't lead to poverty, resentment and thus, crime. Oh no. Of course not. High unemployment and poverty have never been linked to crime rates... ever.

Seriously. The intellectual contortions on the right when it comes to racism is astounding. Oppress a people through systemic racism, then blame the symptoms of generational systemic racism on them and use as an excuse to... wait for it... be racist.

It's fucking sociopath and narcissistic abuse on a national level.

Yeh, but he's the victim rather than a member of the lucky sperm club.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you dismiss a peer reviewed meta study as garbage, you have no idea how science works whatsoever.

Seriously.

Is it that important to you to deny systemic racism exists that you'd refuse to accept what amounts to the strongest scientific evidence that one can provide proving that it does, in fact, exist?

That's the saddest part here. Like any other science denier fro flat earth to anti-vaxx, you deny the painfully obvious incontrovertible proof right in front of your face because, to do so, would require you to actually change your worldview.

Yes, I dismiss the idea that 1/3 of black people didn't get called back in a meta study as a must-be racism issue as well as that explaining away why society is so broken. I 100% agree that some people are caught up in a cycle of seeing that not working for a living, making babies and not being around to support them or be a parent to them is the norm, and a cycle of thinking one must rely on the government for existence. That is a real problem. But if you think some silly study that shows 1/3 of black people didn't get called back is the proof you're looking for, I think you're sorely mistaken. There is nothing out there stopping people from achieving. Having been a victim of racist policies that held me back myself, I can attest that if you keep trying, you will succeed. As I said earlier, there are two groups of people, those that work to achieve, and those that make excuses why they can't achieve. The American Dream isn't dead, its just that a large portion of society today wants it handed to them vs. putting in effort.

I'll ask once again, a hypothetical situation. If there were 10 of us, myself and the other nine being minorities, and we all applied for the same job, but I got the job because of my skin color and race, and they didn't get the job because of their skin color and race, would you agree that is racism? Because that is 100% what affirmative action is and does. It may have been created with good intentions, but it is not good and is in fact institutionalized racism, in which the racist left (today's outdated conservatives) support.

 

[shortylickens]

I dont think its gonna matter much. The Democrats cant get a majority but hypothetically even if they did, the big fat wrinkled orange would blame them for everything and not accomplish anything for himself.

In other words, exactly what he did this year.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Does anyone truly believe that SlowSpyder lost a job because of "institutional anti-white racism," or simply because he just isn't that bright compared to the competition? I mean, he's not making a good case for himself here.

I know the truth, and once again you are showing how wrong you are and how you think on emotion. You think since you don't like me, so I must be lying. Silly.

 

[shortylickens]

Probably stupidity.

I'm white, unemployed, and stupid. I dont believe in white-racism in the work force.

 

[Maxima1]

This is a meta study about racism and hring in the US. About as close to a scientific consensus as one can get.

And it's damning. It utterly destroys the narrative from the far right and proves we need more affirmative action and stricter enforcement.

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/41/10870.full

Abstract
This study investigates change over time in the level of hiring discrimination in US labor markets. We perform a meta-analysis of every available field experiment of hiring discrimination against African Americans or Latinos (n = 28). Together, these studies represent 55,842 applications submitted for 26,326 positions. We focus on trends since 1989 (n = 24 studies), when field experiments became more common and improved methodologically. Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos. We observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire.

A 36% handicap. Can you even begin to fathom what that means, on average, for a black american? When all else is equal, they get an automatic 36% handicap against them.

Facts do not lie. And as seems to be usual lately, the worldview of the far right is 180 degrees removed from actual, factual facts.

Denial doesn't make things go away. It only allows them to fester

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/f...consequences_of_distinctively_black_names.pdf

Since the past few decades, a black family giving their children distinctly black names is a predictor of socioeconomic status i.e. low. There is a productivity-related statistical discrimination motive for employers to base decisions on then. But when you adjust for background characteristics, a distinctly black name does not change life outcomes. The same can be said that equal credentials doesn’t mean equal knowledge and skills acquired in aggregate of each racial group, so a gap in hiring isn’t necessarily a reflection of racism on HR’s part.

 

[SlowSpyder]

There is no way this study can possibly tackle such a complex issue and be calibrated for all of humanity's nuance that comes into play here. Those saying this proves racism have truly put the answer before the question.

 

[Amused]

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/f...consequences_of_distinctively_black_names.pdf

Since the past few decades, a black family giving their children distinctly black names is a predictor of socioeconomic status i.e. low. There is a productivity-related statistical discrimination motive for employers to base decisions on then. But when you adjust for background characteristics, a distinctly black name does not change life outcomes. The same can be said that equal credentials doesn’t mean equal knowledge and skills acquired in aggregate of each racial group, so a gap in hiring isn’t necessarily a reflection of racism on HR’s part.

You obviously did not read the meta study, and the fact that the combined results of a peer reviewed meta study carries much more weight to it than an individual paper.

Secondly this study doesn't say what you think it says. They compared blacks with black sounding names to blacks without black sounding names. Not to whites. I guess you missed that. The paper in no way suggests racism does not exist or that blacks are not discriminated against, only that black sounding names are not a major cause of increased discrimination.

This is what happens when you want to believe something, rather than actually read something and comprehend it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You obviously did not read the meta study, and the fact that the combined results of a peer reviewed meta study carries much more weight to it than an individual paper.

Secondly this study doesn't say what you think it says. They compared blacks with black sounding names to blacks without black sounding names. Not to whites. I guess you missed that. The paper in no way suggests racism does not exist or that blacks are not discriminated against, only that black sounding names are not a major cause of increased discrimination.

This is what happens when you want to believe something, rather than actually read something and comprehend it.

You are said black names on resumes cause 1/3 less call backs.

 

[Amused]

There is no way this study can possibly tackle such a complex issue and be calibrated for all of humanity's nuance that comes into play here. Those saying this proves racism have truly put the answer before the question.

You spend so much time denying the study, yet none reading it.

Why is it so very important for you to deny systemic racism exists? A normal, objective person would say "wow, if true this is horrible!" But no. Your first response is to try desperately and laughably to deny its validity.

Again, a meta study is about the strongest form of proof you have in science.

May as well jump on the flat earth and anti-vaxx bandwagons too.

 

[Amused]

You are said black names on resumes cause 1/3 less call backs.

No, I said blacks. Maybe you should actually read the study??? Just maybe??? Try it???

Come on. It's won't kill you.

 

[Maxima1]

You spend so much time denying the study, yet none reading it.

Why is it so very important for you to deny systemic racism exists? A normal, objective person would say "wow, if true this is horrible!" But no. Your first response is to try desperately and laughably to deny its validity.

Again, a meta study is about the strongest form of proof you have in science.

May as well jump on the flat earth and anti-vaxx bandwagons too.

Those studies are crap. They're just like the criminal justice ones about sentencing when it's obvious that it correlates with the crime of the racial group and gender.

 

[Amused]

Those studies are crap. They're just like the criminal justice ones about sentencing when it's obvious that it correlates with the crime of the racial group and gender.

Wow. Please provide sourced references for your claim the meta study is invalid.

Citations please.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No, I said blacks. Maybe you should actually read the study??? Just maybe??? Try it???

Come on. It's won't kill you.

"These studies include both resume audits, in which fictionalized resumes with distinct racial names are submitted online or by mail (e.g., ref. 19), and in-person audits, in which racially dissimilar but otherwise matched pairs of trained testers apply for jobs (e.g., ref. 20)."

 

[Amused]

"These studies include both resume audits, in which fictionalized resumes with distinct racial names are submitted online or by mail (e.g., ref. 19), and in-person audits, in which racially dissimilar but otherwise matched pairs of trained testers apply for jobs (e.g., ref. 20)."

Again, *I* never said black names.

The study may have looked at many different studies, some using black names, some using a racial marker and others in person. But the results were the same. A 36% less of a chance to be called back than white applicants with identical qualifications.

And Maximia posting a study that compares blacks with black names, to blacks with non black names in a vain attempt to discredit the painfully obvious fact that systemic racism exists does not debunk this meta study. It's funny he thought it would means blacks are not discriminated against vs whites.

Again, you are attempting to discredit one of the highest forms of proof in science. To do so, I will need cited sources, and actual proof of flaws or corruption in the meta study's authors, or their source material.

In this case, the meta study passed peer review. So...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Again, *I* never said black names.

The study may have looked at many different studies, some using black names, some using a racial marker and others in person. But the results were the same. A 36% less of a chance to be called back than white applicants with identical qualifications.

And Maximia posting a study that compares blacks with black names, to blacks with non black names in a vain attempt to discredit the painfully obvious fact that systemic racism exists does not debunk this meta study. It's funny he thought it would means blacks are not discriminated against vs whites.

Again, you are attempting to discredit one of the highest forms of proof in science. To do so, I will need cited sources, and actual proof of flaws or corruption in the meta study's authors, or their source material.

In this case, the meta study passed peer review. So...

The study looks at those resumes submitted by mail and online, as well as in person. The study also said before 1989 race was often listed on resumes, after 1989 they no longer did, your meta study is from 1989 forward. How did HR know the probable race if a resume was submitted by mail or online? Especially in the first 15-20 years of this study? How did the study compensate for the presence of those that applied in person? There is no need to provide anything more, bring a horse to water and all that. Like the other poster said, these kind of studies are garbage.

 

[fskimospy]

The study looks at those resumes submitted by mail and online, as well as in person. The study also said before 1989 race was often listed on resumes, after 1989 they no longer did, your meta study is from 1989 forward. How did HR know the probable race if a resume was submitted by mail or online? Especially in the first 15-20 years of this study? How did the study compensate for the presence of those that applied in person? There is no need to provide anything more, bring a horse to water and all that. Like the other poster said, these kind of studies are garbage.

Jesus Christ dude, read the meta-analysis. You are asking embarrassingly stupid questions.

This is like the fifth critique you’ve tried to make that no one who actually read the study would make.

 

[Maxima1]

Again, *I* never said black names.

The study may have looked at many different studies, some using black names, some using a racial marker and others in person. But the results were the same. A 36% less of a chance to be called back than white applicants with identical qualifications.

And Maximia posting a study that compares blacks with black names, to blacks with non black names in a vain attempt to discredit the painfully obvious fact that systemic racism exists does not debunk this meta study. It's funny he thought it would means blacks are not discriminated against vs whites.

The study I posted shows a productivity-related statistical discrimination motive for employers to base decisions on. This is a similar reason why the studies with comparisons to white convicts, "equal" credentials, sentencing bias, etc. are misleading and disingenuously reported on.

 

[Jhhnn]

"These studies include both resume audits, in which fictionalized resumes with distinct racial names are submitted online or by mail (e.g., ref. 19), and in-person audits, in which racially dissimilar but otherwise matched pairs of trained testers apply for jobs (e.g., ref. 20)."

Pouncing on the minutiae, huh? Of course. Telling us about how persecuted you are as a member of the most privileged demographic in American society is so precious. Going on about it in a thread about the upcoming midterm elections is equally so. If you think it'll be an issue that will resonate outside your gun range buddies you're in for a rude surprise.