Is the racism against blacks warranted?

[Don Vito Corleone]

sure if they are fair about it. i have seen over racism against blacks shot down (though i do agree not often enough). but against whites an Asians allowed. I never really understood that. IF you want to stop racism you need to stop it all. not allowing it to flow one way.

you see that everywhere though. from TV to forums. it's just allowed under the guise of "white guilt"

I would agree it should be consistent, but I will also say that on a forum that, I would guess, is ethnically 85+% white, the pernicious effects of racist statements against white people are entirely different from those about other ethnicities.

I have no problem with confronting facts (e.g., crime statistics as between races) in a candid and accurate way, but I greatly take issue with overtly racist statements, much less calls to have members of particular racial groups killed or deported. That is straight stormfront stuff.

 

[Svnla]

sure if they are fair about it. i have seen over racism against blacks shot down (though i do agree not often enough). but against whites an Asians allowed. I never really understood that. IF you want to stop racism you need to stop it all. not allowing it to flow one way.

you see that everywhere though. from TV to forums. it's just allowed under the guise of "white guilt"

Agree totally with the bolded/underlined parts.

A while back, a Lifer (not just a newbie) said let gather all Asians and shipped them all back to China. I quoted him and then he backtracked a bit (he was talking about Gipsies and Eastern Europeans).

 

[Geosurface]

Know what guys? One of my new years' resolutions was to try to take a serious break from thinking about these controversial, unpopular topics anyway... particularly racial issues, etc.

In all honesty, I haven't felt it's been healthy to delve into it to this degree. The primary result of it is to get upset and disheartened about shit that is far too self-sustaining at this point to do anything about.

So, you can declare that a victory if you like. You can (hopefully) expect to see a lot less of my posts in these sorts of threads in the new year. That's my hope and my intention, that I can restrain myself from commenting on such things.

This will be my last post in this thread, and hopefully in any thread with similar subject matter for quite some time. Hopefully, this will also lead to just a generally far lower use of these boards at all. If I'm going to be on my PC, I'd much rather be spending the time playing a good game than endlessly running in circles on the same topics.

Good luck with your campaign to get mods to shut up the other dozen people or however many that you hate just as much. Peace.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I'll see what I can do.

In exchange, I ask that from now on, any time you reply directly to me, you save my time also by just pasting this:



That is really the ONLY thing you say in any of your posts to me, with absolutely zero new content whatsoever... so, while I'm trying to save your time, return the favor and paste that from here on out.

While I do generally feel that way about you - you make my skin crawl - you are entirely wrong about the idea that all of my posts about you say anything like that. As you will recall I did my best to civilly engage with you about the CT shootings, for example. I will always extend that same courtesy to all members here, whether I like them or not, if they are prepared to engage in serious discussion.

That being said, when you post overtly racist things and/or blather on endlessly about your conversion from well-meaning liberal to card-carrying bigot, you can't seriously expect that it won't generate hostility. I sincerely think you might be more comfortable on stormfront, where like-minded people run the place.

 

[TheVrolok]

Indeed - it's really sad. It wasn't always this way. Ironically I expect that Anand himself, based on his appearance and ethnicity, would fall into GS's "shoot on sight" policy if he were unfortunate enough to be innocently wandering around in Europe. If I were Anand I would not tolerate this.

I'm fairly certain Anand has no idea the kinds of things that are said here in P&N.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Indeed - it's really sad. It wasn't always this way. Ironically I expect that Anand himself, based on his appearance and ethnicity, would fall into GS's "shoot on sight" policy if he were unfortunate enough to be innocently wandering around in Europe. If I were Anand I would not tolerate this.

I didn't see Geo say shoot on sight. Now, I'm not sifting through this thread so maybe he did, but all I saw was (paraphrasing) "Backing up deportation with teeth" which isn't a "kill all people of colored skin" comment. You're putting those words in his mouth from what I can see.

 

[waggy]

I would agree it should be consistent, but I will also say that on a forum that, I would guess, is ethnically 85+% white, the pernicious effects of racist statements against white people are entirely different from those about other ethnicities.

I have no problem with confronting facts (e.g., crime statistics as between races) in a candid and accurate way, but I greatly take issue with overtly racist statements, much less calls to have members of particular racial groups killed or deported. That is straight stormfront stuff.

i don't care about the racial makeup frankly that has nothing to do with it racism is racism and if you allow racism to flow one way you justify (at least in there minds) people like spidey and geo.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I didn't see Geo say shoot on sight. Now, I'm sifting through this thread so maybe he did, but all I saw was (paraphrasing) "Backing up deportation with teeth" which isn't a "kill all people of colored skin" comment. You're putting those words in his mouth from what I can see.

He put those words in his own mouth. While I don't know what post he was referring to (his post quoting himself was somewhat incoherent), he wrote, in this very thread:

Have I sometimes, perhaps, gotten a bit over-exuberant in how I frame things? Sure, no doubt. Was talking about "shoot on sight" forced deportation of 1st and 2nd generation Muslim immigrants in Europe, who are already hole up in Muslim only "no go zones" operating Sharia courts and flouting every single thing about the countries they immigrated to... one such instance of me overstating something or getting carried away? Yea, I'll admit it was such an instance.

If "shooting on sight" is the same thing as giving "teeth" to deportation, the deportation regimen is itself horrifically brutal, and more akin to genocide than garden-variety deportation.

EDIT: Here was his original post -

Muslims do not have "just as much of a right" to be in western countries, they do not share the values, they did not contribute to the development of the civilization there. Do I have just as much of a right to go live in China as the native Chinese? Or Kenya as the native Kenyans? Or Iraq as the native Iraqis? Of fucking course not.

And I'm sorry, but when I consider there are 7 billion people on the planet, and that these people by and large (there are exceptions) represent an ENORMOUS backslide for our planet in terms of women's rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, and a million other HARD FOUGHT freedoms and advancements we fought tooth and nail as western civilization to attain, I reflect that I would have absolutely no problem with every European nation putting out a message saying if you're first or second generation Muslim immigrant, depart now. You have one week, after which time the army of each nation will simply enter the heavily Muslim districts with a shoot on sight policy.

 

[buckshot24]

That's because you don't understand statistics or research design. How many times do I have to tell you this? They are comparing the mean callback rates of two groups. It would be utterly illogical to ignore the results where neither were called back. Since all other aspects of the resumes were equal but the names they should have very similar callback rates. They did not. For the purposes of the analysis we are discussing it would be nonsensical to exclude employers who called neither back.

I made a point of it that in going after the rates of call back you have to include the no calls. The fact of the matter is that if you want to discuss discrimination in a meaningful way you can't include the companies that didn't call anybody because they gave us absolutely no indication on which race, if any, they would favor. The sample of companies that gave any call back is very low in this case.

Explaining to me how they designed the study isn't answering what I'm saying. I know they used rates and in using rates the no calls are important. The study should have measured actual points of interest which would be the companies who called at least one person back and ignored all the companies that didn't call anybody. Keep in mind that given the numbers the discrimination looks much worse if you ignore the no calls. Although the level of confidence goes way down since we're only looking at a data set of 410 responded to resumes.

Out of 232 companies that made a call 118 favored whites and 50 favored blacks and 64 favored neither. (50.8% vs 21.6% vs 27.6%)

The "white" applicant has 78.4% chance of being treated equally or favorably and the "black" applicant has only a 49.1% chance. However since the design of the study focuses on call back rates they don't need as many companies responding to get meaningful sample sizes.

If we had some more data of this sort it would be much harder to argue against discrimination.

I know why the no calls should be included in discussing rates of call back but I think its pretty obvious that the no calls had nothing whatsoever to say about racism or discrimination or whether Santa Claus is real.

/facepalm. They only don't tell us about discrimination if you can come up with another plausible causal mechanism for how the extreme disparity was caused by some other unaccounted factor.

The problem is that the companies I am talking about didn't call ANYBODY. They literally had nothing to say about what race they would prefer. Their inaction, across the board, is nothing that needs to be explained in the context of discrimination because they "discriminated" against "whites" and "blacks" equally. (ie. by not calling a single fucking person back)

The resumes were identical outside of the names.

Yes and 1098 of the 1330 ads responded to didn't like any of the names as they didn't call anybody. Only 232 ads that were applied to replied to any of the names whether black or white sounding.

So far if I remember you've come up with that the names were 'too black' (lol),

I said that real names of African Americans aren't as "black" as the names they used in this study. So, real black people wouldn't get these rates of call backs on average since the names they used here aren't representative (remember the study explicitly states that they aren't).

 

[yllus]

Can you please be more concise in your endless posts attempting to rationalize your own bigotry? You blather endlessly like a coked-up asshole at a cocktail party. The fact that you're saying such outrageously racist, un-American things just makes it that much more obnoxious.

I for one would like to get an invite to the cocktail parties you've been attending. Mine have been much less entertaining! (Or is this a result of me having missed being of-age in the 80s?)

A mod taking action to shut down this forum's racism would not be practicing "censorship" - there is no government action involved, and our hosts are free to regulate our speech in whatever way they deem appropriate, just as I am free to kick bigots out of my own house. The mods in this forum used to vacation and ban members for posting racist conduct, and in doing so they helped elevate the level of discussion here.

This is a common issue of web forums - I actually read a study about this topic a few months back which concluded that most forums sputter out as a result of second-guessing their own moderation instead of actively banning bad seeds. This is absolutely the problem facing this website.

 

[Whiskey16]

[EDIT] Don Vito beat me to it... Thank you.:thumbsup:

I didn't see Geo say shoot on sight. Now, I'm not sifting through this thread so maybe he did, but all I saw was (paraphrasing) "Backing up deportation with teeth" which isn't a "kill all people of colored skin" comment. You're putting those words in his mouth from what I can see.

For solid clarification, I will re-quote Geosurface's from another thread:

I reflect that I would have absolutely no problem with every European nation putting out a message saying if you're first or second generation Muslim immigrant, depart now. You have one week, after which time the army of each nation will simply enter the heavily Muslim districts with a shoot on sight policy.

I've been contacted by another for a possible resolution to this mess. Here were my quick thoughts:

A simple test for intolerable posts should consider any that advocate prejudicial violence (forced deportation to that of death) against a marginalised group (categorized by race, religion, ethnicity, geographic population, etc) -- ie. the popular recorded target being that of Muslims. These are incitement to high crimes. Will AnandTech continue to welcome hosting such filth?

Then there is the issue of overt racism. Prejudicially marginalising such groups with supremacist intentions.

It's quite simple. On these subjects, and what would not be tolerated elsewhere in the forum or real life should not be acceptable in the P&R.

By fostering and tolerating a cesspool that mirrors StormFront, then it will remain such.

 

[classy]

sure if they are fair about it. i have seen over racism against blacks shot down (though i do agree not often enough). but against whites an Asians allowed. I never really understood that. IF you want to stop racism you need to stop it all. not allowing it to flow one way.

you see that everywhere though. from TV to forums. it's just allowed under the guise of "white guilt"

Time to put up or shut up. Give me examples of where racism against whites is allowed. Even asians? And rather than sell a bunch of snake oil, show me where these results are also in line with percentages as well. Since everyone here wants percentages so much now, show me where either one of those groups are not over-represented in almost every walk in life. I laughed when people complained about Michigan University.

PS. And I have been keeping a lot of time with a beautiful lady who is full Asian, chinese to be exact.

 

[fskimospy]

I made a point of it that in going after the rates of call back you have to include the no calls. The fact of the matter is that if you want to discuss discrimination in a meaningful way you can't include the companies that didn't call anybody because they gave us absolutely no indication on which race, if any, they would favor. The sample of companies that gave any call back is very low in this case.

Explaining to me how they designed the study isn't answering what I'm saying. I know they used rates and in using rates the no calls are important. The study should have measured actual points of interest which would be the companies who called at least one person back and ignored all the companies that didn't call anybody. Keep in mind that given the numbers the discrimination looks much worse if you ignore the no calls. Although the level of confidence goes way down since we're only looking at a data set of 410 responded to resumes.

Out of 232 companies that made a call 118 favored whites and 50 favored blacks and 64 favored neither. (50.8% vs 21.6% vs 27.6%)

The "white" applicant has 78.4% chance of being treated equally or favorably and the "black" applicant has only a 49.1% chance. However since the design of the study focuses on call back rates they don't need as many companies responding to get meaningful sample sizes.

If we had some more data of this sort it would be much harder to argue against discrimination.

I know why the no calls should be included in discussing rates of call back but I think its pretty obvious that the no calls had nothing whatsoever to say about racism or discrimination or whether Santa Claus is real.

The problem is that the companies I am talking about didn't call ANYBODY. They literally had nothing to say about what race they would prefer. Their inaction, across the board, is nothing that needs to be explained in the context of discrimination because they "discriminated" against "whites" and "blacks" equally. (ie. by not calling a single fucking person back)

No.

This is a basic methodological error on your part. There was a statistically significant gap in call back rates between the two groups. Both groups sampled from the same population and measured under the same criteria. That is methodologically sound. That certain companies did not call either back is entirely irrelevant as to the method employed in this study. Like, 100% irrelevant.

Period.

You are only arguing this way because you do not understand statistics or research design. I have explained it to you here repeatedly and yet you continue to do this. Why?

Yes and 1098 of the 1330 ads responded to didn't like any of the names as they didn't call anybody. Only 232 ads that were applied to replied to any of the names whether black or white sounding.
I said that real names of African Americans aren't as "black" as the names they used in this study. So, real black people wouldn't get these rates of call backs on average since the names they used here aren't representative (remember the study explicitly states that they aren't).

We already discussed this and I have corrected you on this issue as well. Why do you insist on repeating yourself?

Again, I STRONGLY recommend you take a few elementary courses in statistics. You might find that you enjoy them. It will certainly improve your quality of posts.

 

[yllus]

Time to put up or shut up. Give me examples of where racism against whites is allowed. Even asians? And rather than sell of bunch of snake oil, show me where these results are also in line with percentages as well. Since everyone here wants percentages so much now, show me where either one of those groups are not over-represented in almost every walk in life. I laughed when people complained about Michigan University.

PS. And I have been keeping a lot of time with a beautiful lady who is full Asian, chinese to be exact.

I believe there are studies showing that Asians are being discriminated against in the university admissions process. I can't find the particular article I originally read, but this one is close:

Boston Globe - High-achieving Asian-Americans are being shut out of top schools

...

Although Asian-Americans represent less than 5 percent of the US population (and slightly more than 5 percent in Massachusetts), they make up as much as 20 percent of students at many highly selective private research universities – the kind of schools that make it into top 50 national rankings.

But, critics charge, Asian-American students would constitute an even larger share if many weren’t being filtered out during the admissions process. Since the University of California system moved to a race-blind system 14 years ago, the percentage of Asian-American students in some competitive schools there has reached 40, even 50 percent. On these campuses, the so-called “model minority” is becoming the majority.

...

Even though the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that universities can continue to consider race in admissions in the interest of diversity, admissions officers deny they’re screening out Asian-Americans. However, in researching their 2009 book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and researcher Alexandria Walton Radford examined data on students applying to college in 1997 and found what looks like different standards for different racial groups.

They calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African-Americans who got 1100. Whites were three times, Hispanics six times, and blacks more than 15 times as likely to be accepted at a US university as Asian-Americans.

...

Asian-Americans represent 17.8 percent, or 383, of the students admitted to Harvard last month, which is up from 14.1 percent a decade ago. During the last five years, however, the proportion there and at other Ivies has remained relatively flat or increased only slightly, even after an Asian-American student at Yale filed a federal complaint in 2006 against Princeton, where he applied but was not accepted, alleging it discriminated against him because of his race. Despite perfect SAT scores and nine Advanced Placement courses, the student said he was also rejected by Harvard, Stanford, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT. (That complaint has not been resolved, a US Department of Education spokesman says.)

By contrast, at California’s competitive – and race-blind – state schools, Asian-Americans are much better represented: 52 percent of the student population at the University of California at Irvine, 40 percent at Berkeley, and 37 percent at UCLA. (The ban on admissions committees considering race was upheld by a federal judge in December.)

...

 

[Svnla]

@ yllus,

Good find.

Here is what I find so far (from well know sources and not from some blogs) = http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe.html

Like Jews in the first half of the 20th century, who faced quotas at Harvard, Princeton, and other Ivy League schools, Asian-Americans are over-represented at top universities relative to their population, yet must meet a higher standard than other applicants based on measures such as test scores and high school grades, according to several academic studies.

Wonder why those Asian students are doing so well in schools? Maybe because they go to schools to study and not to act like criminals like certain group?

Ting Shi said his first two years in the United States were wretched. He slept in a bunk bed in the same room with his grandparents and a cousin in Chinatown, while his parents lived on East 89th Street, near a laundromat where they endured 12-hour shifts. He saw them only on Sundays.

Even after they found an apartment together, his father often talked about taking the family back to China. So, following the advice of friends and relatives from Fuzhou, where he is from, Ting spent more than two years poring over dog-eared test prep books, attending summer and after-school classes, even going over math formulas on the walk home from school.

Source = http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/e...ighlights-a-racial-divide.html?pagewanted=all

 

[classy]

I believe there are studies showing that Asians are being discriminated against in the university admissions process. I can't find the particular article I originally read, but this one is close:

Although Asian-Americans represent less than 5 percent of the US population (and slightly more than 5 percent in Massachusetts), they make up as much as 20 percent of students at many highly selective private research universities – the kind of schools that make it into top 50 national rankings.

This is my point exactly. You are 5% of population but makeup 20% of most universities. So they are not under represented and not short of equal opportunity. I said many many times, college is way more than just a secondary education. And no student should ever be judged soley on just scores for admission.

 

[yllus]

This is my point exactly. You are 5% of population but makeup 20% of most universities. So they are not under represented and not short of equal opportunity.

I think you missed the point of the article. Despite being high achievers, Asian-Americans are in fact facing some amount of discrimination, as their test scores alone should be admitting a far greater number of Asian youths to these schools. They (I am not Asian) are over-represented as far as population goes, but under-represented if pure academic merit was the yardstick.

I said many many times, college is way more than just a secondary education. And no student should ever be judged solely on just scores for admission.

This is a pretty interesting statement to which I don't have a strong opinion myself. I will say that the first piece I read on this subject delved into why universities in the U.S. originally moved away from the yardstick of pure academic merit - it was to consider "more well rounded" pupils, which at the time (the early 1900s) was a method used to keep Jewish students out. This technique is now apparently being used on another minority group as well.

Edit: This article reprints much of what I read originally elsewhere...

The College Fix - Asians, the ‘New Jews’ of Academia

Asian Americans have now “inherit[ed] the mantle of the most disenfranchised group in college admissions,” writes Daniel Golden, author of Price of Admission. “The nonacademic admission criteria established to exclude Jews, from alumni child status to leadership qualities, are now used to deny Asians.”

The joint brief draws on the history of discrimination as recounted in Jerome Karabel’s The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (2005), which finds that many of the practices we consider legitimately integral to the college admissions process—the interview, teacher recommendations, concerns about “leadership” and athletic ability, geographic diversity—were means of screening out Jews and other “undesirables.” Dartmouth president Ernest Hopkins once warned that “any college which is going to base its admissions wholly on scholastic standing will find itself with an infinitesimal proportion of anything else than Jews eventually.”

Colleges even held conferences on how to deal with the “Jewish problem” in the early 1900s. At Princeton, Yale, and Harvard, the combined Catholic and Jewish population was kept to 5, 15, and 7 percent respectively. At Harvard, President A. Lawrence Lowell later called for an explicit Jewish quota of 15 percent. When that failed, the admissions committee proposed and Harvard adopted the “top-seventh” rule, under which any boy who graduated in the top seventh of his class would be eligible for admission.

Though it was intended to limit Jewish enrollment while producing more Southern and Western Harvard men, it wound up allowing a large percentage of Jews—27 percent of the entering class in 1925—and was scrapped by Lowell and the Board of Overseers in favor of a new plan which would consider subjective criteria like “character” and “leadership.” Today the euphemistic emphasis at Harvard and many other highly selective schools is on “holistic” admission, which really means that college admissions officers can admit whomever they like.

 

[classy]

I think you missed the point of the article. Despite being high achievers, Asian-Americans are in fact facing some amount of discrimination, as their test scores alone should be admitting a far greater number of Asian youths to these schools. They (I am not Asian) are over-represented as far as population goes, but under-represented if pure academic merit was the yardstick.



This is a pretty interesting statement to which I don't have a strong opinion myself. I will say that the first piece I read on this subject delved into why universities in the U.S. originally moved away from the yardstick of pure academic merit - it was to consider "more well rounded" pupils, which at the time (the early 1900s) was a method used to keep Jewish students out. This technique is now apparently being used on another minority group as well.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you are saying. But my argument along this line has always been, its hard to cry racism, when as a people group in every upper area of life, you are represented equal to or above your actual representation. Its amazing that argument is used against blacks when it comes to crime, but yet the same mode of thinking isn't applied in many other areas when it come to whites or asians.

Lol, I hate talking about asians right now, lol.

 

[classy]

Also there is only so many slots for opportunity. To use only one method such as test scores as a measuring stick for those slots is wrong. A highly skilled athlete who may be an average student, deserves just as much consideration for one of those slots as a super smart student.

 

[yllus]

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you are saying. But my argument along this line has always been, its hard to cry racism, when as a people group in every upper area of life, you are represented equal to or above your actual representation. Its amazing that argument is used against blacks when it comes to crime, but yet the same mode of thinking isn't applied in many other areas when it come to whites or asians.

Lol, I hate talking about asians right now, lol.

Yeah, I get what you mean.

I should add as well that there are of course downsides to admitting on purely academic merit. I read somewhere that an anonymous Harvard admissions officer was quoted as facing this problem: Do you admit the student with a perfect SAT score and who also learned Chinese in after-school classes because that's awesome, or do you admit the other student with just a perfect SAT score because the other kid whose parents could afford to get him a Chinese tutor probably doesn't need the scholarship to Harvard quite as badly?

 

[buckshot24]

No.

This is a basic methodological error on your part. There was a statistically significant gap in call back rates between the two groups. Both groups sampled from the same population and measured under the same criteria. That is methodologically sound. That certain companies did not call either back is entirely irrelevant as to the method employed in this study. Like, 100% irrelevant.

Period.

LOL You aren't responding to anything I wrote. Just "you don't understand statistics". The companies who didn't call anybody have nothing to say about their preference for one race over the other but they are used in determining significance.

The method employed in this study is bullshit for the reasons already stated. Telling me I don't understand doesn't do one thing to answer them. I could keep calling you a pompous prick but that doesn't do anything to address your points so I try to refrain.

The only meaningful data (as far as discrimination is concerned) are the companies who called at least one applicant. The companies who didn't call didn't provide any data as far as that question is concerned.

You are only arguing this way because you do not understand statistics or research design. I have explained it to you here repeatedly and yet you continue to do this. Why?

What a load of shit. You're not addressing my points.

We already discussed this and I have corrected you on this issue as well. Why do you insist on repeating yourself?

Because you're full of shit? Just because you replied to something I wrote doesn't mean you're right. This is where the pompous prick moniker applies. The belief that since you've made a statement that it is the last word on the subject and any further discussion is moot.

The study uses non representative names (they explicitly state this) so the call back rates won't apply to black people in general. I'll keep saying that because its true.

Again, I STRONGLY recommend you take a few elementary courses in statistics. You might find that you enjoy them. It will certainly improve your quality of posts.

I strongly recommend that you address the points and quit with this bullshit about my education.

 

[classy]

And I tell you something else too. Every college usually has some sort of bottomline baseline for acceptance. Now athletes, especially blue chippers are exceptions to the rules, we all know that. But I would love to see the acceptance rates based on number of applicants as well. I am willing to bet whites and asians have a higher acceptance rate than any other race in respect to those baselines.

 

[emperus]

I'm watching "The Help" on showtime while cleaning up my place. I'm shaking my head at this thread and those who know little of the US History esp. as it pertains to race. Maybe if ur home u should turn it on and it let actual History influence your thoughts.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm watching "The Help" on showtime while cleaning up my place. I'm shaking my head at this thread and those who know little of the US History esp. as it pertains to race. Maybe if ur home u should turn it on and it let actual History influence your thoughts.

This is probably one of the main reasons for all the disagreements in this thread. The belief that those who make any argument against racism believes that any racism exists. Of course that's bullshit. Racism exists.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL You aren't responding to anything I wrote. Just "you don't understand statistics". The companies who didn't call anybody have nothing to say about their preference for one race over the other but they are used in determining significance.

The method employed in this study is bullshit for the reasons already stated. Telling me I don't understand doesn't do one thing to answer them. I could keep calling you a pompous prick but that doesn't do anything to address your points so I try to refrain.

The only meaningful data (as far as discrimination is concerned) are the companies who called at least one applicant. The companies who didn't call didn't provide any data as far as that question is concerned.

I don't know what else to say to you; seriously, you are beyond teaching. Shockingly enough, researchers at Yale did not employ a bullshit method of statistical sampling that you the guy who has repeatedly shown he knows nothing about statistics has suddenly figured out.

This will be my last attempt to explain it to you. Remember how you fought so long and hard against everyone about the election polls? You're doing it again here. You don't learn your lesson very easily, do you.

Cutting out the people who called neither back would be completely illogical unless you had reason to believe that the businesses were unwilling or incapable of giving a response to ANY AND ALL resumes that they were sent. There is no reason whatsoever to think that such a thing happened with enough of the 1,300 businesses contacted to impact the study's significance, particularly in light of the fact that the levels of significance were extremely, extremely high.

For the last time it doesn't matter one whit if someone called neither back. Not. One. Tiny. Bit. out of the 1,300 businesses, when presented with functionally identical resumes they decided to call back white people approximately 10% of the time and black people approximately 6.5% of the time. Since we were measuring overall response rate, no responses are fundamentally a part of that.

End of story.

Oh, and in the future I will most certainly not quit harping on your lack of education. If you want to discuss a topic you know nothing about expect me to remind you of that.