Black and Republican?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]doogie wrote:
For a minute, I’ll play along with your flawed premise. Tell us, Doctor, how did being lumped together with all people has keep you from success. Tell us how it prevented you from getting a good education and from going to medical school.

Oh, that’s right, Doc. It didn’t.

Tell us,Doc, what percentage of your success is the direct result of the wonderful parents you had as opposed to social programs?

[/quote]

I will focus on this from your post because the rest is the same you always “spew” (is that the word you used?). I had many problems in school based on perception. I have even mentioned them here in the past at times only to be told that I must be imagining these issues. You have the advantage of ignoring the issues that face minorities and then accusing any who do speak out on these issues as having a “persecution complex” whenever they are brought up.

I was raised to understand the difficulties I was going to face and was PREPARED to handle them. That is why I succeeded in spite of them, not because they didn’t exist. The mentality that allows you to think “well, since you made it there must not be a problem” is exactly what the problem is that we are discussing. I am not a failure.

I refuse to be and thankfully, I had parents who spent my entire life getting me ready for shit I would have to deal with. Yes, my parents deserve the credit for that. Everyone isn’t so lucky. It is my perspective that I am not going to now pretend as if there were no problems in getting here or that I succeeded all because of myself. While I worked my ass off, had I not been prepared, I probably would not have made it through.

222

[quote]doogie wrote:
Another good article on how Blacks (even one’s who are not particularly conservative) are punished for not following the traditional Black groupthink.

Armstrong Williams: Biography and Latest Articles [/quote]

That article is not about “blacks” at all but in-house feuding at the NAACP. Where is the opposing side to that story? Do we just take Armstrong Williams’ side of it without any other information? How do you relate what equates to hear-say about the NAACP (because that was not the publically released account of what happened) and then label an entire race of people with it?

That wasn’t even an interview. How do we confirm anything stated in that article? Yet, you have no problem believing every word because it says what you want it to. But of course, there is no problem, right?

223

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Another good article on how Blacks (even one’s who are not particularly conservative) are punished for not following the traditional Black groupthink.

That article is not about “blacks” at all but in-house feuding at the NAACP. Where is the opposing side to that story? Do we just take Armstrong Williams’ side of it without any other information? How do you relate what equates to hear-say about the NAACP (because that was not the publically released account of what happened) and then label an entire race of people with it?

That wasn’t even an interview. How do we confirm anything stated in that article? Yet, you have no problem believing every word because it says what you want it to. But of course, there is no problem, right?[/quote]

Mfume is no conservative and he was forced out because he dared suggest reaching out to Republicans might help Black people. Despite his long record of service to the Black community, he was ousted becasue many in the NAACP can’t think beyond the traditional “group think” of what is acceptable for Black leaders. That’s sad.

Let me get this straight, though. You are more willing to believe that Williams, as part of the grand white conspiracy to keep the Black man down, made up the story–including the direct quotes he included–than to believe the article is an accurate account of the events? I’m sure Bond must have sued Williams for libel, right? Wrong.

Here’s another account for you:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/wickham/2004-11-29-mfume-naacp_x.htm

224

[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Another good article on how Blacks (even one’s who are not particularly conservative) are punished for not following the traditional Black groupthink.

That article is not about “blacks” at all but in-house feuding at the NAACP. Where is the opposing side to that story? Do we just take Armstrong Williams’ side of it without any other information? How do you relate what equates to hear-say about the NAACP (because that was not the publically released account of what happened) and then label an entire race of people with it?

That wasn’t even an interview. How do we confirm anything stated in that article? Yet, you have no problem believing every word because it says what you want it to. But of course, there is no problem, right?

Mfume is no conservative and he was forced out because he dared suggest reaching out to Republicans might help Black people. Despite his long record of service to the Black community, he was ousted becasue many in the NAACP can’t think beyond the traditional “group think” of what is acceptable for Black leaders. That’s sad.

Let me get this straight, though. You are more willing to believe that Williams, as part of the grand white conspiracy to keep the Black man down, made up the story–including the direct quotes he included–than to believe the article is an accurate account of the events? I’m sure Bond must have sued Williams for libel, right? Wrong.

Here’s another account for you:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/wickham/2004-11-29-mfume-naacp_x.htm
[/quote]

I don’t disagree with Mfume at all if that was truly his position. Like I said, that was “he said she said” journalism. That wouldn’t be accepted by anyone but people who just really want to believe only that side of the story. I personally don’t just get my news from one area. I like checking many sources, including those that are often “staunch republican”. Why is that, yet agaqin, so hard for you to understand?

225

The USA Today account is much different than the accusations thrown out with no references or solid confirmation by Williams’.

226

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I don’t disagree with Mfume at all if that was truly his position. Like I said, that was “he said she said” journalism. That wouldn’t be accepted by anyone but people who just really want to believe only that side of the story. I personally don’t just get my news from one area. I like checking many sources, including those that are often “staunch republican”. Why is that, yet agaqin, so hard for you to understand?[/quote]

Do you think Williams made it up? To what end?

227

[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I don’t disagree with Mfume at all if that was truly his position. Like I said, that was “he said she said” journalism. That wouldn’t be accepted by anyone but people who just really want to believe only that side of the story. I personally don’t just get my news from one area. I like checking many sources, including those that are often “staunch republican”. Why is that, yet agaqin, so hard for you to understand?

Do you think Williams made it up? To what end?
[/quote]

I don’t know and don’t care. I have seen Williams speak before and I find him to be an idiot. That is my personal opinion of the man based on how he answers questions on talk shows. If Mfume was truly after that goal as represented, I don’t disagree with the man at all.

However, that is NOT what was publically released and Williams was NOT interviewing anyone. He didn’t even list where he got this wonderful information. Did some housekeeper overhear these transactions? I find it funny that you so easily accept any news that supports what you want to believe…however, had this come in reverse, you would have claimed any source not from FOX or the Associated Press was “liberal bias”. Meanwhile, what could ANYONE call Williams’ report but “Conservative Bias”?

228

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I find it funny that you so easily accept any news that supports what you want to believe…however, had this come in reverse, you would have claimed any source not from FOX or the Associated Press was “liberal bias”. [/quote]

I find it funny that you think you predict what I would say. The only sources I dismiss out of hand are the retarded ones people like JustTheFacts pull out of their asses.

229

So Prof. X are just going to admit you can’t anwer this:

230

[quote]doogie wrote:
So Prof. X are just going to admit you can’t anwer this:

If it is a human nature problem, give a single example of a white politician being called a traitor to his race because he supports affirmative action. If it is a human nature problem, tell me what term is the white equivalent to “Uncle Tom” or “house Negro”.[/quote]

I already did answer it. You can compare it directly to calling Liberals traitors to this country. You are simply stuck on the use of race when it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that the world minorities have to deal with is not the same that you have to deal with. For the last time, until you accept that, any more debate is pointless with you. Just because the context of the accusation changes doesn’t seperate the action whether it is against race or political affiliation.

231

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
So Prof. X are just going to admit you can’t anwer this:

If it is a human nature problem, give a single example of a white politician being called a traitor to his race because he supports affirmative action. If it is a human nature problem, tell me what term is the white equivalent to “Uncle Tom” or “house Negro”.

I already did answer it. You can compare it directly to calling Liberals traitors to this country. You are simply stuck on the use of race when it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that the world minorities have to deal with is not the same that you have to deal with. For the last time, until you accept that, any more debate is pointless with you. Just because the context of the accusation changes doesn’t seperate the action whether it is against race or political affiliation.[/quote]

Sounds like a case of “Whiteblindness”. It is, I quote "A refusal of whites to understand their own pathology with respect to race prejudice. Their refusal to acknowledge the privileges that race affords them, while others are denied the same privileges, causes society (largely themselves) to ignore some very fundamental “danger signs” that, because of their own race biases, don’t frame all white males as suspect.

This caused the Columbine school massacre and the Oklahoma City bombing to occur despite all signs - two events hidden by white America’s “blind spot” - while causing every Black, Arab, Muslim, and now Latino (because of the anti-immigrant backlash) to be met with suspicion. These groups are perceived as the biggest threats to society and profiled as being un-American, un-democratic, un-patriotic and ungovernable (terroristic). Furthermore, this condition frames white radicals who terrorize as just sick, troubled or misguided and suspicions are limited to their individual acts."

In other words, whites can afford to screw up as individuals without having that screw up reflect on the group as a whole. Minorities don’t have that option.

232

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

Sounds like a case of “Whiteblindness”. It is, I quote "A refusal of whites to understand their own pathology with respect to race prejudice. Their refusal to acknowledge the privileges that race affords them, while others are denied the same privileges, causes society (largely themselves) to ignore some very fundamental “danger signs” that, because of their own race biases, don’t frame all white males as suspect. [/quote]

What privileges can you prove exist? Name just ONE that you can actually PROVE. I know your victim mentality makes you think that these mythical privileges exist, but they don’t. Substantiate your claim or shut up about it. If you can’t substantiate it, don’t expect anyone to take it seriously.

Just so we are clear, doing the standard “if you don’t see it you’re racist” or “It’s been explained again and again” lines of crap don’t count as competent evidence.

Competent evidence is something like the statistics that show how much more often Whites are victims of violent crimes committed by Blacks as opposed to Blacks being the victims of violent crimes committed by Whites.

Wow. That is some amazingly racist, ignorant tripe. If I didn’t know better, I would think you were just joking. It is hard to believe anyone can be stupid enough to say “whiteblindness” CAUSED these tragedies. Not only that, but EVERY Black, Arab, Muslim, and Latino are met with suspicion. To speak in absolutes just proves your ignorance.

[quote]
In other words, whites can afford to screw up as individuals without having that screw up reflect on the group as a whole. Minorities don’t have that option.[/quote]

What a crock of shit. PROVE that minorities can’t afford to screw up as individuals without having that reflect on the group as a whole. PROVE that White people can.

PROVE that because Michael Jackson fucks little kids, White people now believe ALL Black people do.

PROVE that because Scott Peterson killed his wife, all minorities don’t think all WHITE people are potential wife killers.

233

[quote]doogie wrote:
What privileges can you prove exist? Name just ONE that you can actually PROVE. I know your victim mentality makes you think that these mythical privileges exist, but they don’t. Substantiate your claim or shut up about it. If you can’t substantiate it, don’t expect anyone to take it seriously.
[/quote]

I’ve quoted the abstract of an MIT-University of Chicago joint study conducted in 2001 and 2002 and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Is this what you were looking for?

234

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Sounds like a case of “Whiteblindness”. It is, I quote "A refusal of whites to understand their own pathology with respect to race prejudice. Their refusal to acknowledge the privileges that race affords them, while others are denied the same privileges, causes society (largely themselves) to ignore some very fundamental “danger signs” that, because of their own race biases, don’t frame all white males as suspect.

This caused the Columbine school massacre and the Oklahoma City bombing to occur despite all signs - two events hidden by white America’s “blind spot” - while causing every Black, Arab, Muslim, and now Latino (because of the anti-immigrant backlash) to be met with suspicion. These groups are perceived as the biggest threats to society and profiled as being un-American, un-democratic, un-patriotic and ungovernable (terroristic).

Furthermore, this condition frames white radicals who terrorize as just sick, troubled or misguided and suspicions are limited to their individual acts."

In other words, whites can afford to screw up as individuals without having that screw up reflect on the group as a whole. Minorities don’t have that option.[/quote]

Then was it “Black Blindness” that kept the black DC community from turning in John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo when they were going around shooting white people?

If that is true, then should blacks do the same?

I think you are generalizing as I guarantee you that city whites will be damn suspicious of red-neck whites. So I don’t think the “whites can screw up without it affecting the whole” is accurate.

I think you believe that whites are a more homogeneous group than I think they really are. It is a class thing with whites. Anyone different from them as a class is viewed with suspicion. If someone is in the same class as them then they tend to accept them more quickly that if not.

235

Moriarty,

I’m going to be leaving town for my anniversarry, so I don’t want you to think I’m ducking the study you posted. I’m having difficulty finding the full text or any analysis of it.

On the face of it, it appears to strongly support the existence of racism in the workplace.

Thanks for posting it.

236

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

Sounds like a case of “Whiteblindness”.[/quote]

If you are going to quote, drop us a hyperlink.

http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur25554.cfm

And let’s see - attributing a simple and generic way of thinking to a broad cross-section of people while refusing to acknowledge the complexity of varying ideas is the very definition of mindless stereotyping.

All white people do not think the same, so the concept of “Whiteblindness” starts off with wobbly legs.

This is absolute garbage. These atrocities didn’t occur because White people were unconciously ignoring the indicators that something bad was going to occur. The author makes no case for it and assumes it. Ridiculous.

What the author is suggesting is that if white people done what he prescribed, Columbine and Oklahoma City would not have happened. Laughable.

I am pretty sure at the Mexican restaurant I just ate at tonight, the white patrons were not profiling the waiters and the Mariachi band.

If there was any basis to this other than the author’s own gassing, he’d presumably offer it. But he doesn’t. There is not one anecdotal or empirical example of Timothy McVeigh getting a pass as merely a ‘misguided’ guy.

Blame it on culture. If most of the members of a culture act a certain way, it is going to lead to broad expectations on the members of that culture. Take a culture where members tend to act in very fragmented or unpredictable ways, and you don’t build up the expectations that all members are going to act a certain way.

How can Timothy McVeigh represent ‘white people’ when so many segments of white people take great pains to think, act, and, do differently than McVeigh, and also demonstrate that publicly? Can’t build a trend or expectation on that.

As for minorities never getting a ‘second chance’ after screwing up, that is nonsense. It is a blanket statement, an absolutist statement. It couldn’t possibly be true. If you don’t care for stereotypes, you might think about qualifying this victimology a little bit.

237

A little information can be dangerous.

http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2006/a/pages/ethnic_names.html

"Another study on the role of names in the labor market found results that seem to contradict Bertrand and Mullainathan?s conclusions. Economists Roland Fryer and Steven Levitt used information collected on non-Hispanic black and non-Hispanic white babies born in California between 1961 and 2000.3 The authors measured how distinct an African-American name is by calculating a Black Name Index (BNI), which measures the percentage of babies with a given name who are black.4

Fryer and Levitt found the BNI to be related to a number of variables associated with socioeconomic status. For example, single black mothers, as well as younger and less-educated black parents, are more likely to give their children distinctively ethnic names. Additionally, lower birth weight is correlated with a higher occurrence of ethnic names. Fryer and Levitt also found that the local socioeconomic environment can spill over to the likelihood of receiving an ethnic name. For instance, increasing per capita income in the residential ZIP code decreases the incidence of ethnic names. Moreover, children born in hospitals with lower percentages of black births?an indicator of the degree of neighborhood segregation?and children whose births are paid for by private insurance are, on average, less likely to be given ethnic names.

If employers believe both that low social background hinders human capital accumulation and that an ethnic name is a signal of low socioeconomic status at birth, then they may infer that an ethnic name signals low productivity. In this case, employers might forgo interviewing a person with an ethnic name on the basis of inferred productivity rather than animus. However, if employers use names to facilitate racial animus instead of as a signal of productivity, then one would expect to find variations in the effect on economic outcomes, and a black adult with an ethnic name would be worse off economically than an otherwise similar black adult with a race-neutral name, on average…

In light of their results, Fryer and Levitt concluded that having a distinctively African-American name will not directly cause worse economic outcomes in adulthood. Rather, they argue that such a name typically goes hand-in-hand with a worse socioeconomic background and, hence, lower productivity on average. After the authors controlled for negative economic conditions at the time of birth, they found that name alone has virtually no impact. They argue that this evidence supports the notion that employers may be inferring productivity from an ethnic name."

This look at the studies is very interesting. Read the whole thing.

While Moriarty’s post was not wrong or bad, the information is far from conclusive as to cause or extent of effect.

238

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
doogie wrote:
What privileges can you prove exist? Name just ONE that you can actually PROVE. I know your victim mentality makes you think that these mythical privileges exist, but they don’t. Substantiate your claim or shut up about it. If you can’t substantiate it, don’t expect anyone to take it seriously.

I’ve quoted the abstract of an MIT-University of Chicago joint study conducted in 2001 and 2002 and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Is this what you were looking for?

Marianne Bertrand, Sendhil Mullainathan

NBER Working Paper No. 9873
Issued in July 2003
NBER Program(s): LS

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer’ in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.
[/quote]

That is name discrimination and it exists.

If you name your kid Moon Unit he will probably have a harder time getting a job than if he was named John.

239

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
doogie wrote:
What privileges can you prove exist? Name just ONE that you can actually PROVE. I know your victim mentality makes you think that these mythical privileges exist, but they don’t. Substantiate your claim or shut up about it. If you can’t substantiate it, don’t expect anyone to take it seriously.

I’ve quoted the abstract of an MIT-University of Chicago joint study conducted in 2001 and 2002 and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Is this what you were looking for?

Marianne Bertrand, Sendhil Mullainathan

NBER Working Paper No. 9873
Issued in July 2003
NBER Program(s): LS

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer’ in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.

That is name discrimination and it exists.

If you name your kid Moon Unit he will probably have a harder time getting a job than if he was named John.[/quote]

The problem arises when you have people making such strict judgement of others by name. The Valedictorian of my high school (a high school that you had to take a test to get into that strangely resembled an IQ test), a girl who I had known since junior high who never made less than a 98 in her entire school life due to her extremely impressive photographic memory, had a name so ethnic and distinctive that I won’t even mention it here because it just might get back to her. The sad thing is, there is some idiot who, despite her full scholarship to Harvard, would judge her as being inferior due to her name.

Some people on this planet simply need to wake up.

240

I agree Thunder more stereotyping on the part of ALDurr: