Is the racism against blacks warranted?

[waggy]

I don't think you can blame society's problems on AA. For example, your comment about striving towards mediocrity...our education system has been failing for years, our place in the World in terms of education is quite dismal.

This really has nothing to do with Affirmative Action.

agreed. its NOT AA that is causing the drive to mediocrity.

i never really understood why people would hire based on the color of the skin. I started my business for 1 reason. to make money! if that means i had to hire a white guy, black guy, Asian or whatever i did.

 

[werepossum]

I understood his point. He can't appreciate the issues we're talking about because he has yet to understand that he has a privilege because he is white and Caucasians have had the power in this society for generations.

Even this discussion of names belays that fact. Why is a Jack, Joe or Tom a normal sounding name.

Jack, Joe and Tom are normal sounding names because they are more common. When we encounter a name we don't normally see we judge it (if at all) subjectively on how pleasing we find it unless we have pre-existing connotations. Black-sounding names may have negative connotations partly because they are different but also because of the contexts in which we hear those names. If for instance the only time you've seen a person named Shondell is a half dozen news reports of a Shondell being booked for some crime, you'll be more likely (at least subconsciously) to have a bad feeling about a resume from a Shondell. I think this is one reason why the media de-emphasizes black-on-white crime, to prevent these kinds of subconscious feelings from taking hold among the majority. (Racism among the most powerful group or class is always more damaging than equivalent racism among less powerful classes or groups.) Nonetheless, they are out for ratings and if it leads, it bleeds, so the most egregious crimes get reported ad nauseum.

Probably the best thing the media could do to combat racism is to promote those with black-sounding names who have positive accomplishments. It doesn't do much to combat racism if the media refuses to cover a dozen Jamaels committing petty crimes but does a solid month on some animal who happens to be named Jamael torturing and killing someone; that may still represent the only Jamael a white person can identify. If instead the media covers a Jamael who scored the highest SATs in the school's history or a Jamael who developed a new treatment for cancer in dogs - relatively small accomplishments on a national news scale but often of more actual importance to society - that can break the subconscious link between that name and heinous crime. If one knows (or at least knows of) a dozen Jamaels who are good people, seeing one animal named Jamael won't give you subconscious negative connotations for the name any more than if the murderer were named Jack, Joe or Tom. There are no names that, given contact with a reasonable number and representative cross-section of people bearing that name, would give one negative connotations of the name. It's only when one has no or very limited with that name that one or a few instances can give this power. (As a positive example of the same thing, if I heard we're going to have a factory rep named Hiawatha or Raven or Mariah coming by I would subconsciously assume there's a hot young woman coming by, because the only women I've known with those names have been hot young women. I would not have this reaction with a Susan even though a Susan was (and is) one of the most beautiful women I've ever met because I've known enough Susans to fit a broad spectrum of age, attractiveness, and moral character.)

So? The people with the best measurable academic performance should be admitted. Race shouldn't factor into the equation, period. To do otherwise is like letting somebody with a 10 second 40 time onto the track team because "they tried really hard". Anybody who says otherwise is arguing for racial discrimination, as per the definitions of the words.



If college is such an important thing to society it'd be wise to give the most capable people in society first stab at it, whether that be academically or athletically (or both). The only alternative to using some kind of performance measurement is tribalism (racial) or nepotism (my dad is an alumni, my boyfriend's aunt works in admissions etc). AA does nothing but create a society that strives towards mediocrity, and then (naive) people wonder why the US is getting its ass stomped with regards to educational outcomes.

Also lol troll thread got to 12 pages.

I agree completely, in principle. HOWEVER - we have a competing compelling interest of raising blacks out of permanent underclass status. Having a permanent underclass is for a nation embarrassing, counter-productive, and downright dangerous as people who don't believe they can succeed within the rules have little reason to play by the rules. (And of course, people who don't believe they can succeed within the rules CAN'T succeed within the rules, for the most part.) My own preference in Affirmative Action would be to pour resources into failing majority black school districts to raise those students up above the norm - thereby lifting society rather than lowering society by lowering the standards. Make those black kids so smart and educated that even racists will want to hire them. Individuals with limited resources have done it countless times on a small scale. That's difficult, is totally dependent for success on the students and their families being motivated and working much harder to succeed, and is MUCH more expensive than simply instituting some sort of quota system. We as a society don't have the will to implement that, not least I think because we know some kids will inevitably fail. Much easier to simply throw up a quota system. And that WILL work, over the long haul. As blacks get better educations and better jobs - regardless of whether they deserved it compared to white or Asian kids - they become more vested in the American system. Their kids will receive more resources (on average) and more support. Ignoring for a moment the huge damage done disproportionately to blacks by well-meaning liberal social programs, the legacy of slavery and Jim Crowe segregation caused the disparity we're oh so slowly fixing.

Affirmative Action is a bass ackward system of addressing the problem, but it's what we've got. Sucks for Asian kids who must inevitably cross a higher bar to succeed. Really, really sucks for those Asian (and yes, white) kids who fail to cross that higher hurdle but would have succeeded on a level playing field. But government can't benefit one person or group without harming another person or group. That's just reality. Failing some marginal Asian or white kids to benefit some black or Hispanic kids isn't fair to the individuals, but right now it's the best we can (or will) do to address this inequity.

Man, the racism on youtube is strong.

There are browser extensions which block the comments on Youtube, removing the vast majority of the racism and otherwise vastly increasing the average intelligence there.

 

[fskimospy]

Ad Hominen argumentation doesn't address the points I bring up.

The election has nothing to do with this or my points.

The only thing we know about them is that they had absolutely nothing to say about discrimination in any form. They simply didn't participate in the relevant portion of the data. It is absolutely irrelevant if they would have otherwise responded but were abducted by aliens instead. The bottom line is they didn't have anything to say about the issue since they replied to nobody. There were 1098 that replied to nobody and only 232 who replied to at least one person.

Its a study about possible discrimination yet they used a sample in determining significance that had absolutely nothing to say about race or whether white wine tastes better than red wine.

There were only 232 businesses who replied to anybody. Why should we give a fuck about the 1098 who made no response at all? We shouldn't because at the end of the day they gave us ZERO data in support and ZERO data contradicting businesses discriminate.

Have it your way.

And I'll tell you to go fuck yourself and address my points instead of my education.

That's all there is to say. You just don't understand how stats work so you keep flailing against them to preserve your viewpoint and pride. This is just basic math and you don't get it.

The combination of arrogance and ignorance you show here is pitiable, but I guess from your posting history it is expected.

 

[buckshot24]

That's all there is to say. You just don't understand how stats work so you keep flailing against them to preserve your viewpoint and pride. This is just basic math and you don't get it.

As I stated in a post you didn't respond to (aside from telling me I don't understand statistics) the way I'd like to look at the data makes discrimination MORE prevalent. The point you keep avoiding is that looking at the data the way I am the sample size becomes too small to make any valid conclusions about discrimination. I couldn't care less about the amount of calls vs non calls each "race" gets.

I'm more interested in racial preferences instead of 1098 companies who had absolutely nothing to say about racial discrimination whatsoever. I have no idea why you or anybody else would give a shit about some company who didn't choose anybody. Using them in calculating the degree of significance is troublesome for me. You haven't made one point to alleviate these concerns. Telling me I'm an idiot just isn't very convincing.

I'm sorry but I don't just slither away and hide in the corner when forum know it all jack asses start making irrelevant references to my education. I could be a first grade graduate or a Nobel laureate and neither of those two things answers whether my point is valid or not.

If you won't explain it to me then explain it for the benefit of the people reading this thread.

 

[xj0hnx]

There are no black unibombers

No, just underwear bombers ...

proponents of slavery in recorded history.

I believe this is not accurate either as other Africans sold slaves to Europeans, and kept them long before Europeans traded with them.

Im not a racist, but in the grand scheme whites have produced the biggest percentage of piece of shit human beings and the trend continues.

Another falsehood.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

But it is a study about discrimination, whether prospective employers DO define you by your name. Whether a LaShonda is a good person is immaterial; whether she is even black is immaterial. The point of the study was that "black-sounding" names (i.e. names principally given to blacks and/or thought of as principally given to blacks) will, all else being constant, get you fewer call-backs from resumes.

EDIT: My first thought was whether they had picked names more prevalent among ghetto blacks than among blacks in general, but Eskimospy said the names were not significantly related to parental level of education which I think would correspond pretty closely to economic level.

You need a research study to know that people will judge others? Wow, let's call Bill Nye on that one. Unless your head is empty - you will judge.

This thread isn't about judgement. It's about racism. Distinctive, although similar terms.

It's hilarious since eskimospy is advocating statistics classes - if you brought up this kind of mockery in the real stastic study world you would be laughed out. There are so many flaws to wehere you get this logic - all your brain wants to point to is racism. Regardless of outstanding factors. Regardless of your scarecrow. Regardless of the fact that names have nothing to do with race.

If anyone here needs to take a statistics class, hands down Eskimospy is the WinRAR.

 

[werepossum]

You need a research study to know that people will judge others? Wow, let's call Bill Nye on that one. Unless your head is empty - you will judge.

This thread isn't about judgement. It's about racism. Distinctive, although similar terms.

But the point isn't that people will judge others, the point is that people will judge others based on what certain names connote for them. Since this study apparently went to great lengths to define "black names" (names given to backs at statistically significantly higher rates than to whites), ergo these people are judging individuals by perceived race. That "black names" receive a lower rate of call backs implies the belief that if an applicant is black, he or she will be a poorer choice for an employee; otherwise there would be no reason to call back at different rates. We can argue about whether or not there are non-racist reasons for this belief - one might be that blacks are on average of a lower economic level and therefore statistically more likely to be trapped in failed school systems and less likely to have a good education - but the authors apparently also went to great lengths to minimize that factor, to the degree possible. But either way, either the difference is due to racism, or the difference has the exact same effect as racism. Whatever stratagem is used to explain the behavior, the net effect is that the black applicant has a lesser chance of being judged fairly on his or her own merits because his or her race has been pre-judged inferior in at least this one area.

 

[RampantAndroid]

No, just underwear bombers ...

Is this the guy from the christmas bombing? Never saw his picture before. If so, I hope the burns he got from the failed bomb were enough to sterilize him...

I believe this is not accurate either as other Africans sold slaves to Europeans, and kept them long before Europeans traded with them.

Yeah, blacks would sell others into slavery. I believe that's well recorded history, though I will bet you'll never learn it in school. We have to paint the white people as being evil bastards...

Another falsehood.

Go look in Africa, where many of the countries there have a coup a week. An in the world right now, it isn't the white people that order protestors to be steam rolled (WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES) and last I looked, Pol Pot wasn't white either.

I really don't know which skin color has the most menaces of the human race...and I don't think I really care. I will point out though that while I'm not into nation building and all that (and I'd rather send zero aid to countries in Africa unless the aid is a seed packet and instructions on growing crops) but I'd rather see western values propagate to the east, rather than the opposite. I don't want the world to be like China where the government can kill people at will, where they pollute with no repercussions and there's mass censorship. I don't want a world like the middle east where women cannot have any amount of freedom and it's accepted that you can cut the nose and ears off of your wife (who isn't your wife willingly) because she got tired of being forced to sleep in the stable (oh hey, that guy wasn't white either. WARNING: GRAPHIC) and I sure as fuck don't want anything like Africa where - take your pick - you have Somolia, DRC and whatnot with zero stability, zero amount of policing or safety...

Do I think Africa is a hell hole because blacks are there? No. I think they're plenty capable of having great nations if they could get beyond land wars and get their growth rate under control and produce enough food to be self sufficient.

And I'm rambling. Anyway: can we stop all this racism bullshit? Your surroundings and upbringing have a greater affect on who you are than your skin color does.

 

[xj0hnx]

Is Go look in Africa, where many of the countries there have a coup a week. An in the world right now, it isn't the white people that order protestors to be steam rolled (WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES) and last I looked, Pol Pot wasn't white either.

Well then you better not even bring up the African "freedom fighters" and rebels, and they are not even mass murders, more like mass atrocities and attempted genocides hacking up whole villages with machetes, raping, and just destroying every human being in them. There has been not a single mass murder in the US that even comes close to the depraved slaughter that happens in Africa on a regular basis. Without trying to sound callous, the murders in Newton absolutely pale in comparison to any number of the hundreds of thousands of villages slaughtered there.

 

[Joepublic2]

You are completely out of touch.

You're the one arguing for legally codified racism in the 21st century.

I don't think you can blame society's problems on AA. For example, your comment about striving towards mediocrity...our education system has been failing for years, our place in the World in terms of education is quite dismal.

This really has nothing to do with Affirmative Action.

Not letting the statistically smartest people go to college is really going to help with that.

Not to mention that it's our colleges where it is most prevalent, and they are the envy of the world.

It helps as they can draw the best thousands from a talent pool of millions/billions, something they are ironically not able to legally do when selecting candidates from within the united states.

 

[Incorruptible]

There are legit reasons to examine race, culture, genetics, and so forth. But it's very dangerous territory when so many have agendas they might not even realize they hold.

The answer to the simple question in the title of the OP is a resounding NO.

I agree but we have way too many people who pull the race card whenever non whites are criticized

Racism against whites is perfectly alright but dont dare do it to minorities

 

[emperus]

Jack, Joe and Tom are normal sounding names because they are more common. When we encounter a name we don't normally see we judge it (if at all) subjectively on how pleasing we find it unless we have pre-existing connotations. Black-sounding names may have negative connotations partly because they are different but also because of the contexts in which we hear those names. If for instance the only time you've seen a person named Shondell is a half dozen news reports of a Shondell being booked for some crime, you'll be more likely (at least subconsciously) to have a bad feeling about a resume from a Shondell. I think this is one reason why the media de-emphasizes black-on-white crime, to prevent these kinds of subconscious feelings from taking hold among the majority. (Racism among the most powerful group or class is always more damaging than equivalent racism among less powerful classes or groups.) Nonetheless, they are out for ratings and if it leads, it bleeds, so the most egregious crimes get reported ad nauseum.

.

It's amazing you can write a post and not stop to see the inconsistency in what you are saying. Why is Joe and Tom more common? Is it more common all over the world? If we were in Ghana, Kweku or Kofi would be very common and thus normal. Here not so much. Because there are less Ghanaians and more Caucasians. That is the definition of white privilege that you still are taking for granted. By virtue of living in a country dominated by Caucasians your views, customs and even names are seen to be in the norm. So, all the inherent human biases come to play in every aspect of life with those who are not in the norm. You get it?

 

[HeXen]

Really it's not often the race that is the issue, it's the behaviors which sadly get passed down to each generation.
At this point i basically hate all races, dress stupid, talk stupid,act stupid..whatever, i'll hate in reaction

 

[SheHateMe]

Not letting the statistically smartest people go to college is really going to help with that.

What now?

We don't let "statistically" smart people go to College?

It helps as they can draw the best thousands from a talent pool of millions/billions, something they are ironically not able to legally do when selecting candidates from within the united states.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Incorruptible]

What now?

We don't let "statistically" smart people go to College?



What the hell are you talking about?

Some smart people dont get to go to college because of AA, they have to make sure minorities get in first.

In case you didn't know paul ryan dated a black girl

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...der-stole-heart-coming-political-student.html

 

[SheHateMe]

Some smart people dont get to go to college because of AA, they have to make sure minorities get in first.

WOW, you're dumber than I thought.

 

[Joepublic2]

What now?

We don't let "statistically" smart people go to College?

Yeah, grades and test scores are the best statistical indicators of future academic performance.

What the hell are you talking about?

Most public universities use racial quotas that match admission application percentages to shield themselves against lawsuits, at least when it comes to domestic students. The way the law is worded gives them a free pass to bump out a given american person from a quota slot and replace them with a more competent person of the same "race" which is another big problem (american tax dollars training future foreign competition).

 

[SheHateMe]

Most public universities use racial quotas that match admission application percentages to shield themselves against lawsuits, at least when it comes to domestic students.

Shens.

The way the law is worded gives them a free pass to bump out a given american person from a quota slot and replace them with a more competent person of the same "race" which is another big problem (american tax dollars training future foreign competition).

Proof?

 

[fskimospy]

As I stated in a post you didn't respond to (aside from telling me I don't understand statistics) the way I'd like to look at the data makes discrimination MORE prevalent. The point you keep avoiding is that looking at the data the way I am the sample size becomes too small to make any valid conclusions about discrimination. I couldn't care less about the amount of calls vs non calls each "race" gets.

You are welcome to look at the data any way you want to but that has literally zero bearing on whether or not THEIR way of looking at it was both methodologically sound and showed evidence of discrimination. You've decided to take a valid study with significant conclusions and look at it in a way that a.) doesn't actually give you any additional information b.) provides less certainty and c.) screws up your sample. Congratulations.

I'm more interested in racial preferences instead of 1098 companies who had absolutely nothing to say about racial discrimination whatsoever. I have no idea why you or anybody else would give a shit about some company who didn't choose anybody. Using them in calculating the degree of significance is troublesome for me. You haven't made one point to alleviate these concerns. Telling me I'm an idiot just isn't very convincing.

I've actually made several different points repeatedly about exactly those concerns, but you've just ignored them. That's when I started telling you that you were unteachable. I can't help you if you refuse to learn.

The study is looking at the system as a whole. When looking at the system as a whole you don't then decide to base conclusions on subsections of your sample, because then you aren't measuring what you set out to measure. Stats 101. AGAIN. Unless you can show evidence that responses did not happen because the job posters were unable or unwilling to respond to ALL RESUMES your point is simply invalid.

You just want to measure something other than what the researchers measured and now you're getting mad at them for not making your study instead.

I'm sorry but I don't just slither away and hide in the corner when forum know it all jack asses start making irrelevant references to my education. I could be a first grade graduate or a Nobel laureate and neither of those two things answers whether my point is valid or not.

If you won't explain it to me then explain it for the benefit of the people reading this thread.

I like how you think that your total lack of knowledge of statistics is irrelevant to a discussion on the validity of statistical measures used in a study. That has to be one of the stupidest things I've heard in a very long time.

 

[buckshot24]

You are welcome to look at the data any way you want to but that has literally zero bearing on whether or not THEIR way of looking at it was both methodologically sound and showed evidence of discrimination. You've decided to take a valid study with significant conclusions and look at it in a way that a.) doesn't actually give you any additional information b.) provides less certainty and c.) screws up your sample. Congratulations.

b) is exactly my point. The possible racism could only be displayed by those who made any calls. The non callers had nothing to say about the subject. It's logical NOT to include them when figuring out how certain we are of the sample showing discrimination.

I've actually made several different points repeatedly about exactly those concerns, but you've just ignored them. That's when I started telling you that you were unteachable. I can't help you if you refuse to learn.

I just don't buy your explanation, sorry.

The study is looking at the system as a whole.

Yes it is. By doing this they can have a smaller data set of companies showing discrimination or not showing discrimination. THEN claim that the the differences are statistically significant. But only by including all the companies who didn't make any preference known.

When looking at the system as a whole you don't then decide to base conclusions on subsections of your sample, because then you aren't measuring what you set out to measure. Stats 101. AGAIN.

When looking at the system as a whole you have to include everybody, agreed. My point is that the only sample who gives us ANY information about discrimination are those who called at least one person back.

Unless you can show evidence that responses did not happen because the job posters were unable or unwilling to respond to ALL RESUMES your point is simply invalid.

All I have to show is that they had absolutely nothing to say about discrimination. These companies may be even more discriminatory in general but we have no way of knowing one way or the other and yet these no callers are used in beefing up the level of significance to the conclusion that discrimination in the work place is real and not the product of random variation.

You just want to measure something other than what the researchers measured and now you're getting mad at them for not making your study instead.

LOL, I'm not mad at them. I think the certainty of discrimination is being artificially elevated by assuming that the no calls would have expressed the same patterns of the callers. When in fact they gave us zero information in support of that assumption and zero information contradicting it. In fact they gave us absolutely nothing so their contributions should be reflected accordingly when figuring out level of significance.

I like how you think that your total lack of knowledge of statistics is irrelevant to a discussion on the validity of statistical measures used in a study. That has to be one of the stupidest things I've heard in a very long time.

My points are either valid or they are not valid. My education is irrelevant to them being valid or invalid.

The conclusion of the study was that there are statistically significant levels of discrimination in the job market. However the only way they can get to a respectable level of significance (I think they have p=0.000 on that question) is by including a bunch of companies who said nothing about discrimination. I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes it is. By doing this they can have a smaller data set of companies showing discrimination or not showing discrimination. THEN claim that the the differences are statistically significant. But only by including all the companies who didn't make any preference known.

When looking at the system as a whole you have to include everybody, agreed. My point is that the only sample who gives us ANY information about discrimination are those who called at least one person back.

So you agree that in order to look at the system as a whole you need to include everyone in the system. Then you say that we can't include parts of the system that didn't give conclusive information about discrimination. So in other words you agree that we have to look at the whole system and then don't want to look at the whole system.

You can't even stay consistent within your own bullshit.

All I have to show is that they had absolutely nothing to say about discrimination. These companies may be even more discriminatory in general but we have no way of knowing one way or the other and yet these no callers are used in beefing up the level of significance to the conclusion that discrimination in the work place is real and not the product of random variation.

Simply factually untrue. Everyone included in a sample does not need to provide the type of information you want, they simply need to be given the same set of choices/circumstances as every other member of the sample. Their decision is irrelevant, and if you were selecting on their decision you would be biasing your sample. If you remember in the previous poll argument you tried to bias the sample by selecting on Democrats/Republicans. You are once again selecting on outputs here. That is a HUGE stats 101 no-no.

This is not arguable. Your statement is wrong.

The conclusion of the study was that there are statistically significant levels of discrimination in the job market. However the only way they can get to a respectable level of significance (I think they have p=0.000 on that question) is by including a bunch of companies who said nothing about discrimination. I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous.

You're just repeating the same wrong argument over and over again. Are you just hoping to wear me down until I give up in frustration? It's not ridiculous, it's math and basic research design. If the company received the resumes and was able to make a yes/no judgment on them, they are a valid part of the sample.

This also cannot be argued. That's the beginning and end of it. You can just acknowledge that you're wrong you realize.

 

[buckshot24]

So you agree that in order to look at the system as a whole you need to include everyone in the system. Then you say that we can't include parts of the system that didn't give conclusive information about discrimination. So in other words you agree that we have to look at the whole system and then don't want to look at the whole system.

You can't even stay consistent within your own bullshit.

No, I agree that if you look at the entire system you need to look at everybody. What I am saying is that we shouldn't be looking at the whole system but only the companies that give us any feedback on the question we're trying to answer.

The parts of the system that I am talking about (the no callers) didn't only give us inconclusive information they gave us literally NO information. We have no evidence that they ever got the resumes let alone considered them.

Simply factually untrue. Everyone included in a sample does not need to provide the type of information you want, they simply need to be given the same set of choices/circumstances as every other member of the sample.

We don't even have evidence of that. How do we know that these no call companies even saw the test resumes?

Their decision is irrelevant, and if you were selecting on their decision you would be biasing your sample.

If you design your test in the way that the study did. The fact of the matter is you're trying to say something is statistically significant by including 1098 companies that had nothing to say about the matter. That is, is there a systematic racial discrimination in the job market? We simply have no idea if an HR director at these 1098 companies ever saw these resumes. These businesses are absolutely irrelevant in every way on whether discrimination exists in the job market.

This is not arguable. Your statement is wrong.

Thanks for arguing anyway.

You're just repeating the same wrong argument over and over again. Are you just hoping to wear me down until I give up in frustration? It's not ridiculous, it's math and basic research design. If the company received the resumes and was able to make a yes/no judgment on them, they are a valid part of the sample.

If you're fine with a study who uses "no answers" as a basis to say that the ones who do answer are systematically discriminating and do so at a statistically significant level then that is your choice. I think it is utter rubbish. The companies who have nothing to say one way or the other about racial discrimination shouldn't be considered in any way. You're right though, you can't convince me otherwise so you may as well stop trying.

This also cannot be argued. That's the beginning and end of it. You can just acknowledge that you're wrong you realize.

It's probably best to agree to disagree at this stage. I'm sure you have more productive stuff to do then going back and forth. I know I do.

 

[fskimospy]

Ahh, so your argument was that mysterious circumstances affected enough of the non answering companies that they were unable or unwilling to render judgment. You've said this with absolutely no evidence to back it up, but hey, you don't really care about evidence anyway. As to whether or not those businesses are irrelevant as to whether or not discrimination exists, that's just simply false. If they saw the resumes and made a choice they were directly relevant. Period.

As to what counts as arguing, I'm just telling you reality. You don't have a leg to stand on. What you think doesn't actually matter, as all the people who do actually work with this know that it's absolutely fine. It is clear to me that you believe your ignorant opinion is equal to more informed opinion, but that's just an insult to people who have worked in this area their whole lives.

I don't agree to disagree with you because I don't believe your position has any merit. It is aggressively ignorant and it dumbs down the entire argument by pretending both sides have equal merit. This discussion, although frustrating has hopefully had two important purposes. One is to highlight the statistically significant discrimination that African Americans face in the job marketplace, but it also serves to not allowing ignorant people to muddy the field by spreading bogus information about statistics.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Ahh, so your argument was that mysterious circumstances affected enough of the non answering companies that they were unable or unwilling to render judgment. You've said this with absolutely no evidence to back it up, but hey, you don't really care about evidence anyway. As to whether or not those businesses are irrelevant as to whether or not discrimination exists, that's just simply false. If they saw the resumes and made a choice they were directly relevant. Period.

As to what counts as arguing, I'm just telling you reality. You don't have a leg to stand on. What you think doesn't actually matter, as all the people who do actually work with this know that it's absolutely fine. It is clear to me that you believe your ignorant opinion is equal to more informed opinion, but that's just an insult to people who have worked in this area their whole lives.

I don't agree to disagree with you because I don't believe your position has any merit. It is aggressively ignorant and it dumbs down the entire argument by pretending both sides have equal merit. This discussion, although frustrating has hopefully had two important purposes. One is to highlight the statistically significant discrimination that African Americans face in the job marketplace, but it also serves to not allowing ignorant people to muddy the field by spreading bogus information about statistics.

You are hands down the most illogical person in existence. There is absolutely no valid argument in this thread with the study you are quoting. Any and all use of it in this thread is downright laughable. Seek medical attention:

It's hilarious since eskimospy is advocating statistics classes - if you brought up this kind of mockery in the real stastic study world you would be laughed out. There are so many flaws to wehere you get this logic - all your brain wants to point to is racism. Regardless of outstanding factors. Regardless of your scarecrow. Regardless of the fact that names have nothing to do with race.

If anyone here needs to take a statistics class, hands down Eskimospy is the WinRAR.

 

[buckshot24]

Ahh, so your argument was that mysterious circumstances affected enough of the non answering companies that they were unable or unwilling to render judgment. You've said this with absolutely no evidence to back it up, but hey, you don't really care about evidence anyway. As to whether or not those businesses are irrelevant as to whether or not discrimination exists, that's just simply false. If they saw the resumes and made a choice they were directly relevant. Period.

I really don't get how you can say that the companies who had absolutely nothing to say about discrimination are relevant in determining how much discrimination is in the job market. Its ridiculous.

What I am saying is that we have absolutely no evidence that they even saw the resumes or that they weren't mishandled or misplaced or the HR director suddenly died or aliens stole them. In any case IF they saw them they made no judgement whatsoever on the subject of racial discrimination therefore to use them as "beef" in this bullshit broth you're cooking is hilariously ridiculous. That is the beginning and the end of it.

As to what counts as arguing, I'm just telling you reality. You don't have a leg to stand on. What you think doesn't actually matter, as all the people who do actually work with this know that it's absolutely fine. It is clear to me that you believe your ignorant opinion is equal to more informed opinion, but that's just an insult to people who have worked in this area their whole lives.

This is why I call you a pompous prick. Who the fuck are you? Why should I accept your definition of "reality" simply because you came down from your throne of bullshit and decided to post in a forum?

I don't agree to disagree with you because I don't believe your position has any merit.

Your position is ridiculous.

It is aggressively ignorant and it dumbs down the entire argument by pretending both sides have equal merit.

Of course both sides don't have equal merit, your position is absurd. The companies who had nothing to say about racial discrimination one way or the other should not be considered in any way when determining the level of significance of the data that is supposedly showing racial discrimination.

This discussion, although frustrating has hopefully had two important purposes. One is to highlight the statistically significant discrimination that African Americans face in the job marketplace, but it also serves to not allowing ignorant people to muddy the field by spreading bogus information about statistics.

How can you say its significant (based on this study) when there are only 450 or so resumes that were responded to? Or that only 232 companies made any responses at all? These 232 companies are the only businesses out of 1300+ who had any data on the central question of discrimination. The 1098 who didn't like the "white" OR the "black" are absolutely irrelevant to the question of racial discrimination.

Period.
End of the story.
C'est tout.