[downsouth]

Set the names aside...how about parents teaching their kids basic decency from an early age and that translates better later in life. Good parenting goes a LONG way in how your kid is gonna be in a few years. If you give them negative influences and drop all of your own insecurities and grievances on them...they will pick up that attitude and be a step behind in life when its their turn. See it far too often.

This is a total different animal and I think has a lot more to do with economic class than many will admit.

[recon1]

After 7 pages of this BS i'll let the tequila in me say something.

If you are offended by words, inanimate objects etc. you just might be a pussy who needs the shit slapped out of you.

Goodnight

[Triple_D_Bet]

asians face discrimination in the united states too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-asia...amboo-ceiling/

You'll see this kind of article far too often: subjective self-reporting is held up as proof of something, when it's just how people feel, not necessarily reality. Human beings are not only terrible at making accurate mathematical guesses comparing themselves to other groups, but we tend to be drastically overconfident in our answers. Doesn't matter much though; at the end of the day, someone who wants to believe the premise of the article will see it as proof and their opinion will be reinforced.

[scumbag]

The HR Manager is racist and readily screens names out that sound black before calling for interviews. Once inside an interview they meet with Accounting Manager who is not racist and will hire who he views as the most impressive candidate. Guy with "white" name landed interview, impressed in interview and landed job. Guy with "black" name was discriminated against and did not receive same opportunity. Is it right? of course not but it is what it is.

yep... because i'm sure there's just one racist in the organization. and even if you accept the idea that it's just the gatekeeper who is the racist and not the person actually doing the hiring; why should a race have to scrub away every last bit of their culture to "assimilate"? what if the he was named after his grandfather jamal who was his mother's hero?

asian assimilation is different from the blacks; most of whom still have the surname of their masters. forgive them for wanting to have "something" of their own.

[scumbag]

You'll see this kind of article far too often: subjective self-reporting is held up as proof of something, when it's just how people feel, not necessarily reality. Human beings are not only terrible at making accurate mathematical guesses comparing themselves to other groups, but we tend to be drastically overconfident in our answers. Doesn't matter much though; at the end of the day, someone who wants to believe the premise of the article will see it as proof and their opinion will be reinforced.

right... asians face no discrimination (even though they clearly say otherwise). and as far as blacks: "who gives a penetrate" and "what's wrong with it?"

and you can't grasp why i constantly insult you?

[downsouth]

yep... because i'm sure there's just one racist in the organization. and even if you accept the idea that it's just the gatekeeper who is the racist and not the person actually doing the hiring; why should a race have to scrub away every last bit of their culture to "assimilate"? what if the he was named after his grandfather jamal who was his mother's hero?

asian assimilation is different from the blacks; most of whom still have the surname of their masters. forgive them for wanting to have "something" of their own.

Again, missed the point. My point was you don't know who in the organization is or is not racist. So thats why I would give my child the best chance at success. Assimilation, right or wrong, does that, not really all that debatable. And ok with Jamal, but what about the stand out "black" names that again half the people can't even pronounce and odds are they were not named after any relative or whatnot but were instead pulled from random syllable, or something read somewhere for whatever reason.

Again, I dont say its right, I dont say its the way it should be, but in this day and age it is a reality and to deny it is foolish. Oppose it if you want and name your child whatever you want but just know the reality of it could costs later in life.

And who knows, 20 years from now maybe its a different story but Id wager it wont be a completely different story.

[Kermit]

Again, missed the point. My point was you don't know who in the organization is or is not racist. So thats why I would give my child the best chance at success. Assimilation, right or wrong, does that, not really all that debatable. And ok with Jamal, but what about the stand out "black" names that again half the people can't even pronounce and odds are they were not named after any relative or whatnot but were instead pulled from random syllable, or something read somewhere for whatever reason.

Again, I dont say its right, I dont say its the way it should be, but in this day and age it is a reality and to deny it is foolish. Oppose it if you want and name your child whatever you want but just know the reality of it could costs later in life.

And who knows, 20 years from now maybe its a different story but Id wager it wont be a completely different story.

This scene just came to mind.

[jtoler]

Again, missed the point. My point was you don't know who in the organization is or is not racist. So thats why I would give my child the best chance at success. Assimilation, right or wrong, does that, not really all that debatable. And ok with Jamal, but what about the stand out "black" names that again half the people can't even pronounce and odds are they were not named after any relative or whatnot but were instead pulled from random syllable, or something read somewhere for whatever reason.

Again, I dont say its right, I dont say its the way it should be, but in this day and age it is a reality and to deny it is foolish. Oppose it if you want and name your child whatever you want but just know the reality of it could costs later in life.

And who knows, 20 years from now maybe its a different story but Id wager it wont be a completely different story.

So are you saying the black with the name, say, Brandon is more apt to get hired than say a name like Daquan because it sounds less threatening or less oppressive?

[Kermit]

So are you saying the black with the name, say, Brandon is more apt to get hired than say a name like Daquan because it sounds less threatening or less oppressive?

I'm not going to lie, everyday it seems that similar names like those are constantly in the crime section of the news. I can't tell you how many people with the name DeAndre must live in my town. Of course not everyone named DeAndre is a criminal, but it is such an odd name that it is one that you remember.

[Triple_D_Bet]

right... asians face no discrimination (even though they clearly say otherwise). and as far as blacks: "who gives a penetrate" and "what's wrong with it?"

and you can't grasp why i constantly insult you?

I'm sure asians face discrimination...so do black people, jews, bald people, and pretty much any minority you can think of. It's human nature to discriminate, whether it's wise or not. I try not to make broad assumptions, but I do the same; here's how it works:

I assume when a guy does nothing but insult people when they ask him to back up his opinions, that the guy is not proficient with reason or critical thinking.

You go on to prove my assumption correct, with yet more examples.

Having my assumption proven correct, I'm even more likely to use it in the future.


This is how stereotypes work, and everyone uses them. You do the same; in your case, you assume "people who disagree with me on racial issues are racists"; then you call them racist and accept your label as proof. having validated your own opinion, you continue to mistakenly apply the stereotype, oblivious to the flawed thinking or even the evidence proving it wrong. For example, despite numerous times in this thread alone where I explain I don't think treating people differently based on the color of their skin is right, you somehow overlook all of that and continue to chant that I'm racist

[Triple_D_Bet]

So are you saying the black with the name, say, Brandon is more apt to get hired than say a name like Daquan because it sounds less threatening or less oppressive?

Best answer I've seen indicates that "super-black" names are often given by moms coming from a disadvantaged background (poor, little to no support for childraising) and with a super-black name herself. It's often a solid signal of a parent in a bad situation who is less likely to raise a model citizen, and who isn't thinking about helping their kid fit in to corporate environments. Deshaniqua and Sally will do just as well if they're from similar economic backgrounds, but they usually aren't. The trend isn't difficult to pick up, and employers determine that a Sally is generally more employable than Deshaniqua, and act on that bias (mistakenly in the case of similar qualifications); employers time being a limited resource, not surprising that they'd fall back on rules of thumb that don't always apply. There's some interesting data behind it, I remember being pretty surprised when I first read about it, but it makes a lot of sense.

Looks like you missed this

[scumbag]

downsouth,
the study used the name jamal; who got destroyed by his white counterpart. i'd assume the Bromquisha would do even worse.

but that doesn't even matter - even if his name is todd - he's still black when he shows up to the interview. that's what you've yet to understand. assimilation aside he's still black. do you grasp that? you're asian child won't be disqualified in the eyes of many people for their race. but as they move up the corporate ladder, they're quite likely to face discrimination.

"Most felt that Asian-Americans are unfairly stereotyped as being unagressive, having poor communications skills and limited English proficiency, and being too technical to become managers," the report said.The commission said its review of national and local studies indicate that the glass ceiling does exist. In records of court cases, the commission also found evidence that some employers discriminate against Asian-Americans who speak with an accent. Problem in Schools
The study found that there are not enough teachers who can speak the many languages of the recent wave of refugee children from Asia, whom it said are "encountering more educational difficulties than earlier waves." The nation's Asian-Americans include Filipinos, Japanese, Indians, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Thais, Cambodians, Hmong, Pakistanis and Indonesians.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/29/us...imination.html

[jtoler]

Looks like you missed this

Didn't miss it, I said earlier a name doesn't matter, I could be named Tom and get an interview, if the hirer is a racist and doesn't want to hire me because of color then I don't think the name matters.

[scumbag]

I don't think treating people differently based on the color of their skin is right, you somehow overlook all of that and continue to chant that I'm racist

LOL!

What's so terrible about people refusing to hire based on their biases anyways?

your own words would tell us all that you're full of shit.

[downsouth]

So are you saying the black with the name, say, Brandon is more apt to get hired than say a name like Daquan because it sounds less threatening or less oppressive?

No, but Brandon is probably getting a call for an interview before Daquan. And getting foot in door is half the battle in corporate america. Not saying I agree with it or even fully understand it but I'd wager I'd be odds on favorite to be right.

[scumbag]

yes we all submit that brandon has better odds of a call back. but that doesn't matter. you assume that nobody is going to notice that he's black, or that he'll encounter a non-racist hiring manager, which, according to the stats on blacks in the workplace, proves unlikely.

[Triple_D_Bet]

downsouth,
the study used the name jamal; who got destroyed by his white counterpart. i'd assume the Bromquisha would do even worse.

but that doesn't even matter - even if his name is todd - he's still black when he shows up to the interview. that's what you've yet to understand. assimilation aside he's still black. do you grasp that? you're asian child won't be disqualified in the eyes of many people for their race. but as they move up the corporate ladder, they're quite likely to face discrimination.


http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/29/us...imination.html

The problem with the articles claim is the same as the last one you posted: it starts with "Most felt". Again, people's feelings are not reality."Evidence against those who speak with an accent" is extremely understandable to me...when someone can't communicate effectively with their coworkers or customers, I don't want to hire them.

Didn't miss it, I said earlier a name doesn't matter, I could be named Tom and get an interview, if the hirer is a racist and doesn't want to hire me because of color then I don't think the name matters.

Correct...but the available studies showing a difference are based solely on names, which has a pretty sensible explanation. There's no data to show the hires that don't happen simply because the applicant is black (understandably difficult to accurately document), and nothing to support that the anti-black discrimination is any more than for any other minority.

LOL!



your own words would tell us all that you're full of shit.

Nope...the only "proof" is you assuming you know how I'd answer the question I asked, despite me giving the answer numerous times, including yet again in the response you quoted immediately before making the mistaken assumption once more. Interestingly, you still haven't answered the question of what's so terrible about people refusing to hire based on their biases; at this point, it seems reasonable to conclude you're incapable of producing an answer. Word of advice: laughing at something you're completely ignorant of doesn't make you look smart

[scumbag]

but what about the stand out "black" names that again half the people can't even pronounce and odds are they were not named after any relative or whatnot but were instead pulled from random syllable, or something read somewhere for whatever reason.

In the 1960s, Anglo-American names were common among African American children

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...st-racist.html

hmm... so... in the 60's they had "white" names and they were still discriminated against. it's almost like it's much more than the name.

[scumbag]

Again, people's feelings are not reality.

wonderful display of sensitivity toward the concerns of minorities.

[Triple_D_Bet]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...st-racist.html

hmm... so... in the 60's they had "white" names and they were still discriminated against. it's almost like it's much more than the name.

Fascinating...digging even deeper, it appears that in the 1760s, many black people had "white" names and were also discriminated against! Times and culture has definitely changed, making both of those sets of facts pretty irrelevant, but fascinating nonetheless I'm sure.

wonderful display of sensitivity toward the concerns of minorities.

Reality is reality, and it's well documented that people's subjective opinions often don't match it in situations such as the ones people were asked about in your articles. It has nothing to do with sensitivity.

[scumbag]

Nope...the only "proof" is you assuming you know how I'd answer the question I asked.

you asking such a question signals that you're an absolute racist. and i must have missed the part where you answered you're own stupid, rhetorical question.

[scumbag]

Fascinating...digging even deeper, it appears that in the 1760s, many black people had "white" names and were also discriminated against! Times and culture has definitely changed, making both of those sets of facts pretty irrelevant, but fascinating nonetheless I'm sure.



Reality is reality, and it's well documented that people's subjective opinions often don't match it in situations such as the ones people were asked about in your articles. It has nothing to do with sensitivity.

1960's you moron.

when the majority of a race indicates that they face discrimination; that sounds more objective than subjective. and of course it has to do with sensitivity; i just told you that asians feel they face discrimination and you basically said, "penetrate their feelings."

[Triple_D_Bet]

you asking such a question signals that you're an absolute racist. and i must have missed the part where you answered you're own stupid, rhetorical question.

Apparently, it only "signals" it to you, despite all the evidence to the contrary. And yes, you missed me answering the question, even after I answered you specifically several times and started off my posting in the thread by explicitly saying I disagree with treating people differently based on skin color.

The question wasn't rhetorical, and despite me reminding you several times, you still haven't answered. Do you think answering a question will somehow magically turn you into a racist? Or (more likely) are you just not willing to examine if your beliefs are correct? That question is somewhat rhetorical, as you seem to have given us the answer already.

[Triple_D_Bet]

1960's you moron.

when the majority of a race indicates that they face discrimination; that sounds more objective than subjective. and of course it has to do with sensitivity; i just told you that asians feel they face discrimination and you basically said, "penetrate their feelings."

Yes, I read what you wrote about the 1960s, and I said it happened in the 1760s too...and that neither of those facts was particularly relevant to the culture today. But somehow I'm a moron because you can't read?

Being right or wrong is objective; more people being wrong doesn't make them somehow right. In this case, once again, it's a well-documented human failing that we tend to self-report occurrences much differently than they actually happen...this being a tendency shared by all humans, it certainly isn't surprising that a majority believe so. It's not hard to understand; people reporting how they think they're being treated is proof of exactly one thing: how they think they're being treated...not proof of how they're actually being treated, which almost certainly differs dramatically. On top of all that, if you read what I posted, you'd see I said asians no doubt experience some level of discrimination, as does every single group at some point or another. The affirmative action policies that kicked off the last few pages of this debate are discrimination against whites, and that's discrimination you seem to embrace

There's a difference between "penetrate their feelings" and "their feelings are not proof of what's actually happening"; you just made an assumption based on your stereotype (that all people who disagree with you on race are racists) and changed what I said in your mind

Not a bad song though, dig the beat and the chorus

[scumbag]

more people being wrong doesn't make them somehow right

how do you know that they are wrong? i thought you were some open-minded freethinker. have you personally conducted a study to see if asians actually face discrimination?

[scumbag]

people reporting how they think they're being treated is proof of exactly one thing: how they think they're being treated...not proof of how they're actually being treated.

and what do you say to actually proof: promotions they don't get because they're considered "too technical", CEO percentages, etc.?

[KVB]

uuughh. Go read the CFL thread by Porkchop everybody. Get your mind off of it yo.

[Triple_D_Bet]

how do you know that they are wrong? i thought you were some open-minded freethinker. have you personally conducted a study to see if asians actually face discrimination?

I don't know they're wrong, same as you don't know they're right. Not knowing for sure, I simply have to make an educated guess based on other data...none of which suggests anything out of the ordinary on the scale you're suggesting. Still waiting on that answer...

[Triple_D_Bet]

and what do you say to actually proof: promotions they don't get because they're considered "too technical", CEO percentages, etc.?

Not much in the way of actual proof; the closest they come are some court cases, which are a far cry from what might have actually happened. Discrimination suits are often a joke, decided on the HR being able to show violation of policies or claimant being able to bring up some non-PC behavior, usually jokes. More often than not, it's an employee who knowingly did something wrong and is trying to get some extra $$ out of the deal.

[scumbag]

I don't know they're wrong, same as you don't know they're right

you said they were wrong. the evidence i've encountered suggests they're right.



not so sure why you think it's such a great question anyway. it's pretty obvious.

What's so terrible about people refusing to hire based on their biases anyways?

because being biased is penetrating stupid. losers are biased. i take their money all the time because they can't think rationally and stick to their preconceived superstitions.

[Triple_D_Bet]

you said they were wrong. the evidence i've encountered suggests they're right.



not so sure why you think it's such a great question anyway. it's pretty obvious.


because being biased is penetrating stupid. losers are biased. i take their money all the time because they can't think rationally and stick to their preconceived superstitions.

Yes, they're very probably wrong, because there's a mountain of evidence that people often are when it comes to this.

So you make money off people making biased hires? Care to elaborate on how that necessitates affirmative action?

From where I'm sitting, the irony is pretty thick here

[grease lightnin]

You know, there is truth to what most people are saying in this thread, regardless of their opinions being on the opposite side.

Here is my opinion on this topic: blacks have been at a disadvantage for generations, even today they are at a disadvantage in many ways, but they also have an advantage in many ways. Today they are victims of racism, but just as often, they are also purporters of racism. I don't know how to gauge when the tables have been turned and I don't know if anyone can accurately gauge that, but one day, and that day may have already come, but one day, the playing field in America will be even between blacks and whites. I predict that when that day comes, it will not be declared, and it will not be acknowledged. It will not be spoken about until it is taught in a history class of caramel colored students that speak a simplistic, slang-based amalgam of English and Spanish. Going forward, as long as our society isn't wiped out, for a long time I'm sure this will continue to be a highly polarized, hotly debated topic with cocksure, dogmatic idiots on both sides, lined-up and ready to sling shit at each other.

I don't subscribe to either side, but the discussion is interesting.

[The Kraken]

I dont have time to rwad all this, have we solved racism yet?

[DwightShrute]

[KVB]