Black and Republican?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…

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.[/quote]

Absolutely. You can get discriminated against because of race, tattoos, hair length, sex and the name your parents gave you.

Black kids get discriminated against for having names that are not tradional and white kids get discriminated against for having striper names.

I feels sorry for kids named Jeeves. They have no choice but to be butlers.

242

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I agree Thunder more stereotyping on the part of ALDurr:

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. [/quote]

Again ZEB, I can admit when I am doing it, can you? I did it intentionally to stir the pot and to prove a point.

Many of you (those in the majority or majority-sympathizers) will get all up in arms when I throw these types of things out there and want to prove how I am stereotyping and all kinds of other things. But what you all will not admit is that you do the exact same things on a regular basis on this forum.

Also, when someone points it out, you all will come up with all kinds of justifications and explaination on why you said it, how you said it, how someone is taking things out of context, etc. In addition, you all will start name-calling, labeling and being downright obnoxious. What you all will never do though, is admit the truth that you are doing any of these things.

In fact this very quote, “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…” is similar to things that has been said in the past when it comes to minorities and many of you blew it off as more “liberal rhetoric”, “race-baiting” or whatever name of the day was. It is interesting when you can see this when you all are the target, but not when you are the shooter.

Not so much fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?

243

[quote]Moriarty wrote:

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]

Very unfortunate. I would suggest, though, that some of any discrimination that does exist in this frame of reference is due to affirmative-action programs.

In essence, by lowering standards for certain individuals, it encourages those attempting to ascertain the relative achievement amongst candidates to attribute lower actual achievement to someone who may have benefited from lower standards.

That is one of my main “effect” issues with affirmative action – it encourages people to question the achievements of its beneficiaries.

244

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
AL – that’s not what I’m missing – that’s my entire point. The assumption is that the person with the viewpoint with which a majority of his group disagrees is being considered to either be lying or to be too dumb to see the “correct” viewpoint. The assumption isn’t that it’s a good faith disagreement – the assumption is, if he is a member of the group, then he needs to see it the way the majority of the group sees it, or he should be shunned and/or otherwise punished more harshly than someone with the same views who is not a member of the group.

Professor X wrote:
It is amazing to me that you keep using the term “good faith disagreement” when I can’t think of one major issue that Conservatives have a “good faith disagreement” with Liberals on.

BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s because you’re trying to impose your own defintion on my terminolgy.

I am using “good-faith disagreement” in the sense I have heard it used most since college – meaning that the person with whom you are disagreeing holds a good-faith belief that his position is the correct, best position, and that he is telling you his true reasoning when he explains it.

Professor X wrote:
When it comes to abortions, screams are thrown at those who are Pro Choice as if they are killers and murderers. Gee, where is the “good faith disagreement”? On what issue in all of politics is there a “good faith disagreement” across the board? But blacks are held to some different standard? Would you mind telling the others in your claimed “Conservative Party” to act accordingly? You get to point fingers at an entire race of people…while those in your own party are free to think and speak as they please? What type of hypocritic bullshit is this exactly? Yet, that wouldn’t be YOUR fault…now would it?

Not relevant. The point isn’t about good manners. The point is that someone can disagree with you in principle and still have the same goal. I believe that was the point of many liberals who were upset that they had (or felt they had, depending on the incident) their patriotism questioned if they disagreed about Iraq.

BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, do you have a persecution complex? I swear I am putting things in a straightforward manner, but you keep wanting to make it out like I am singling out you or blacks generally for a special standard.

Professor X wrote:
But you are. I asked where there has been a “good faith disagreement” in politics and your claim was that it was in Liberals being upset for being called unpatriotic. Gee, they were being called that because there was NO “good faith disagreement” in politics. By your logic…if this really isn’t some “black phenomena”…you should be just as upset that liberals were considered unpatriotic by some Conservatives. You don’t seem to be.[/quote]

You’re not addressing my point, but I guess I’m going to have to address your digression to get back on point.

  1. There are good-faith disagreements in politics all the time. I have no problem believing that many advocates of abortion do not think a pre-third-trimester fetus is a person. I can assume that someone who is for increasing welfare actually thinks he is doing a good thing for poor people.

I can still call it a stupid idea and use a vituperative tone in my argumentation. A “good faith disagreement” does not mean both sides are playing nice. It just means you are crediting the other person with actually believing what he is saying.

Does it happen all the time? No. Especially when you start seeing ad hominem argumentation by people who either can’t or won’t address issues. But, absence some actual reason to believe someone is not stating something he actually believes, you should allow for the good-faith assumption that he believes what he is saying – no matter how wrong you think he is.

And my point with liberals and questions of patriotism (to the extent they were actually occurring) was that liberals were arguing that they should receive the good-faith assumption that they believed what the position they advocated vis-a-vis the Iraq War pre-invasion was in the best interests of the U.S.

I think that was a fair point. Arguing about the effect of their actions is a different argument.

So, arguing that black conservatives are not being granted the good-faith assumption is not holding black liberals or other blacks who simply don’t like black conservatives to a higher standard. It’s holding everyone to what should be seen as a correct standard. Generally, when you don’t allow for the good-faith disagreement, an argument almost immediately descends into ad hominem attacks on the person, and the issues are ignored.

Now, perhaps you can explain to me how being extra critical of blacks who espouse conservative views – and, to restate, I mean that black conservatives seem to receive more vitriolic attacks than do white conservatives – helps to fight the logical fallacy that there is a “black view” that blacks share? How does singling out individuals for extra harsh treatment based on the confluence of their race and political orientation help that problem?

245

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Very unfortunate. I would suggest, though, that some of any discrimination that does exist in this frame of reference is due to affirmative-action programs.

In essence, by lowering standards for certain individuals, it encourages those attempting to ascertain the relative achievement amongst candidates to attribute lower actual achievement to someone who may have benefited from lower standards.

That is one of my main “effect” issues with affirmative action – it encourages people to question the achievements of its beneficiaries.[/quote]

Job discrimination by name is due to affirmative action? Let me ask you, when I bring up that you never seem to either take any direct responsibility or even attribute much fault to something really rare like “white people being all racist and stuff for no damn reason”, what goes through your mind? Blacks are being discriminated against because of a program designed to help blacks not be discriminated against? I mean, do we ever win?

246

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Very unfortunate. I would suggest, though, that some of any discrimination that does exist in this frame of reference is due to affirmative-action programs.

In essence, by lowering standards for certain individuals, it encourages those attempting to ascertain the relative achievement amongst candidates to attribute lower actual achievement to someone who may have benefited from lower standards.

That is one of my main “effect” issues with affirmative action – it encourages people to question the achievements of its beneficiaries.

Professor X wrote:
Job discrimination by name is due to affirmative action? Let me ask you, when I bring up that you never seem to either take any direct responsibility or even attribute much fault to something really rare like “white people being all racist and stuff for no damn reason”, what goes through your mind? Blacks are being discriminated against because of a program designed to help blacks not be discriminated against? I mean, do we ever win?[/quote]

Look at what the study purported to show: that those with “black” names and those with “white” names received different responses to resumes that seemed to show similar qualifications.

Might not a possible reason for this be that people were not attributing the same meaning to both sets of seemingly similar qualifications?

Let me ask you this: Why do you act as if, just because racism is a possible answer, it is the answer, and must be disproved, whereas any other possible answer must be proved?

We’ve had discussions before on my views that affirmative action does more harm to blacks than it does good.

247

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Look at what the study purported to show: that those with “black” names and those with “white” names received different responses to resumes that seemed to show similar qualifications.

Might not a possible reason for this be that people were not attributing the same meaning to both sets of seemingly similar qualifications?[/quote]

So, tell me, how is it you managed to blame blacks for this? That is essentially what you have done throughout this entire thread. If blacks are being discriminated against, it is somehow because of blacks. It just couldn’t be that some white people are simply racist? Wouldn’t that be the most logical answer? You are making a habit of it and I truly don’t understand how you don’t see it. You NEVER simply attribute the cause of this to white people. You have to find some way to twist things so that blacks are at fault for why blacks are discriminated against in society.

[quote]
Let me ask you this: Why do you act as if, just because racism is a possible answer, it is the answer, and must be disproved, whereas any other possible answer must be proved?[/quote]

In cases like this, it is the most logical answer. If an employer hears the name “Jerome Jackson” and avoids giving the man a job even though he meets the exact same qualifications as “Timothy Rivers”, who he hires, why would you somehow blame Affirmative Action and not the racist employer?

It makes no sense at all to go beyond blaming the person who is guilty of the negative action. It is not the black man’s fault that some guy in a high position doesn’t like black people.

248

It’s not necessarily the most logical answer. It’s one possible answer. Logically, racism could cause the observed result. So could the affirmative-action effect I described. So could other factors. And maybe all of them played a roll in the overall observed effect. You’d probably want to do a regression analysis to determine it with specificity.

My problem is that, in many situations, people look at one possible cause, and then say, that must be the cause.

I think it stems from a common logical fallacy – If A, then B does NOT mean if B, then A. In other words, just because if you did in fact have racism, you would see that effect, doesn’t mean that if you see the effect, you must have racism.

It doesn’t mean you don’t have it either. It’s a possible cause. But I’m tired of the assumption that any observation of disparate treatment must be caused by racism.

249

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Let me ask you this: Why do you act as if, just because racism is a possible answer, it is the answer, and must be disproved, whereas any other possible answer must be proved?[/quote]

This crystallizes it perfectly - and is desperate need of an answer.

250

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Let me ask you this: Why do you act as if, just because racism is a possible answer, it is the answer, and must be disproved, whereas any other possible answer must be proved?

This crystallizes it perfectly - and is desperate need of an answer.[/quote]

I did answer it. How could anyone possibly see avoiding giving someone a job because their names sounds black as “something other than racism”? It isn’t just a “possible” answer. It is the first logical answer if someone is denied a job because their name dnotes skin color. You all are truly this blind?

251

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Let me ask you this: Why do you act as if, just because racism is a possible answer, it is the answer, and must be disproved, whereas any other possible answer must be proved?

thunderbolt23 wrote:

This crystallizes it perfectly - and is desperate need of an answer.

Professor X wrote:

I did answer it. How could anyone possibly see avoiding giving someone a job because their names sounds black as “something other than racism”? It isn’t just a “possible” answer. It is the first logical answer if someone is denied a job because their name dnotes skin color. You all are truly this blind?[/quote]

If you think you answered it, you need to re-read the explanation on the logic. It was fairly clear.

252

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Tell me how blaming the program of affirmative action amounts to blaming blacks? [/quote]

By avoiding placing blame on the one in power actually doing the discriminating and trying to blame an initiative that was started to stop this direct racism against an entire race. You blame blacks by avoiding blaming who is truly responsible for racism on the job or in hiring practices directed at blacks.

Affirmative Action is not why I made it through school. It is not why I get paid what I do. If I then get turned down for a job because some employer doesn’t like my name and thinks it “sounds black”, it is logical for you to blame Affirmative Action for why this happens? That is exactly what Affirmative Action was instituted to fight in the first place.

[quote]
I said I thought that some of any discrimination that existed was likely caused by affirmative action programs. I did not say I thought blacks caused some of any discrimination that existed.[/quote]

So, when blacks originally couldn’t get jobs based on racism, before Affirmative Action, whose fault was it then?

[quote]
I did not attribute the creation of, nor the keeping of, affirmative action programs to blacks or whites. In fact, I would tend to blame liberal whites. But thanks for asking…

Your assumptions are showing.[/quote]

No, your inability to even consider the fact that you might be wrong in your way of thinking is showing.

[quote]
It’s not necessarily the most logical answer. It’s one possible answer. Logically, racism could cause the observed result. So could the affirmative-action effect I described. So could other factors. And maybe all of them played a roll in the overall observed effect. You’d probably want to do a regression analysis to determine it with specificity.[/quote]

The “Affirmative Action effect”? So, racism was present, AA was then instituted to fight it, and now any current racism can now be blamed on the fact that initiatives were started to stop racism in the first place? Well, good God, tell me, what is the solution to racism if not only is it not the fault of racists, but it happens to be the fault of any program designed to fight it head on?

[quote]
My problem is that, in many situations, people look at one possible cause, and then say, that must be the cause.[/quote]

So, racism on the job is not caused by RACISM, it is caused by programs designed to stop racism?

[quote]
I think it stems from a common logical fallacy – If A, then B does NOT mean if B, then A. In other words, just because if you did in fact have racism, you would see that effect, doesn’t mean that if you see the effect, you must have racism.[/quote]

So, in your mind, you think people are being denied jobs based on race and racism is not a factor?

253

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Let me ask you this: Why do you act as if, just because racism is a possible answer, it is the answer, and must be disproved, whereas any other possible answer must be proved?

thunderbolt23 wrote:

This crystallizes it perfectly - and is desperate need of an answer.

Professor X wrote:

I did answer it. How could anyone possibly see avoiding giving someone a job because their names sounds black as “something other than racism”? It isn’t just a “possible” answer. It is the first logical answer if someone is denied a job because their name dnotes skin color. You all are truly this blind?

If you think you answered it, you need to re-read the explanation on the logic. It was fairly clear.
[/quote]

Racism is caused by racist beliefs or attitudes. You are saying that this statement is illogical?

254

They are being denied interviews based no something that seems to correlate to race. The cause could be many things – or a combination of things. You jump to many, many conclusions.

255

[quote]

BostonBarrister wrote:

Let me ask you this: Why do you act as if, just because racism is a possible answer, it is the answer, and must be disproved, whereas any other possible answer must be proved?

thunderbolt23 wrote:

This crystallizes it perfectly - and is desperate need of an answer.

Professor X wrote:

I did answer it. How could anyone possibly see avoiding giving someone a job because their names sounds black as “something other than racism”? It isn’t just a “possible” answer. It is the first logical answer if someone is denied a job because their name dnotes skin color. You all are truly this blind?

BostonBarrister wrote:

If you think you answered it, you need to re-read the explanation on the logic. It was fairly clear.

Professor X wrote:

Racism is caused by racist beliefs or attitudes. You are saying that this statement is illogical?[/quote]

If you’re going to continually try to state my points, at least try to get them right.

I am saying that you are continually making a logical fallacy by trying to claim that racism must be the cause of things you observe – things for which racism could be a cause.

And then you try to take a some sort of moral-high-ground position, as if your idea that you are the sole possessor of moral clarity defends your poor logic – it’s kind of sad.

256

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

If you’re going to continually try to state my points, at least try to get them right.

I am saying that you are continually making a logical fallacy by trying to claim that racism must be the cause of things you observe – things for which racism could be a cause.

And then you try to take a some sort of moral-high-ground position, as if your idea that you are the sole possessor of moral clarity defends your poor logic – it’s kind of sad.[/quote]

Gee, racism is the cause of racism on the job, not “affirmative action”. If I am denied a job based on the sound of my name or the color of my skin, the one to blame is the racist who denied me a job based on those factors, not Affirmative Action for trying to stop it directly. Before Affirmative Action, racism was the cause of racist actions on the job and after Affirmative Action racism is the cause of racism on the job.

Why would anyone in their right mind avoid blaming the RACIST first when a racist act is committed? You claim this is illogical? It is what I have been saying from the start. You want to look for other places to put blame and have yet to even aknowledge that racists just might to blame for racist actions on the job. Does it hurt that much to admit?

257

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
My point was that an effect of holding a group of people to a lower standard, but then using the same nominal evaluation system, will lead to people assuming that those nominal evaluations are not the same. That’s an easily predictable effect of affirmative action. And, it’s also an economically rational response, given there are costs to obtaining more specific information, and for many jobs there are large up front costs associated with making a new hire: recruiting, training, etc. These costs would cause employers, in a market in which people to fill particular jobs are not scarce, to err on the side of rejecting people who might not meet the standard.

Note, I said “might”. Because it’s uncertain – even if all things were equal – heck, it’s uncertain that one candidate who looks better on paper will be a better fit to a position. But the costs of hiring, those are certain.

So, with that in mind, might it be a bad thing that affirmative action calls the relative value of achievements and records into question by its mere existence? Because an employer can’t tell who benefited from it and who did not – but he can tell who was eligible to benefit from it. Does that make sense to you?

[/quote]

If an employer concludes that blacks are incapable of doing a job they are qualified on paper for because of Affirmative Action, please tell me how this type of racism is so different than simply assuming a black person is incapable because they are black? You simply want to fault Affirmative Action for this when the fault lies IN THE HANDS OF THE RACIST EMPLOYER NO MATTER WHAT THEY BLAME THEIR RACISM ON.

258

Alright, I found the full experiment here:

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mullainathan/papers/emilygreg.pdf

The overall percentage of “white” names getting callbacks was 9.65% compared to 6.45% for “black” names. While statistically significant, it isn’t that big a difference to begin with.

Of the employers, 88.13% treated each set of names equally. 8.39% favored white names, and 3.48% favored black names. Again, pretty equal.

It’s hard to compare the “white” names used to the “black” names used. It isn’t like they used white names like Cleetus, Ellie May or Joe Bob. For many of the black names used, white people assume anyone who would name their kid that way are probably uneducated.

This would affect how they view the resume. Table 8 on page 39 shows “Callback Rate and Mother?s Education by First Name.” Of the mothers who gave their children the distinctively “black” girls’ names, only 61% had completed high school. 91.7% of the mothers who gave their children the distinctively “white” girls’ names had graduated high school. For the boys’ names, 91.7% of the mothers of the white names had graduated high school compared to 66.7% of the mothers of the boys given black names.

The study only measures callbacks, so it is impossible to know who would have gotten the job or what they would have been paid.

In the end, though, there is no evidence that the employers even LOOKED at the names on the resumes.

259

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
My point was that an effect of holding a group of people to a lower standard, but then using the same nominal evaluation system, will lead to people assuming that those nominal evaluations are not the same. That’s an easily predictable effect of affirmative action. And, it’s also an economically rational response, given there are costs to obtaining more specific information, and for many jobs there are large up front costs associated with making a new hire: recruiting, training, etc. These costs would cause employers, in a market in which people to fill particular jobs are not scarce, to err on the side of rejecting people who might not meet the standard.

Note, I said “might”. Because it’s uncertain – even if all things were equal – heck, it’s uncertain that one candidate who looks better on paper will be a better fit to a position. But the costs of hiring, those are certain.

So, with that in mind, might it be a bad thing that affirmative action calls the relative value of achievements and records into question by its mere existence? Because an employer can’t tell who benefited from it and who did not – but he can tell who was eligible to benefit from it. Does that make sense to you?

Professor X wrote:

If an employer concludes that blacks are incapable of doing a job they are qualified on paper for because of Affirmative Action, please tell me how this type of racism is so different than simply assuming a black person is incapable because they are black? You simply want to fault Affirmative Action for this when the fault lies IN THE HANDS OF THE RACIST EMPLOYER NO MATTER WHAT THEY BLAME THEIR RACISM ON.[/quote]

Because, if the reason for the decision is affirmative action, then it isn’t racism – it is disparate treatment that correlates with race. But the cause would be affirmative action. Thus, it wouldn’t even be “racism” per se.

Which, again, isn’t to say that affirmative action was necessarily the cause either – but it is a possible cause. Racism is a possible cause too. You’re the only one treating the study as if you know the definitive cause (thus the logical fallacy).

I would say that Doogie’s information lends rather more credence to the affirmative action explanation, because it introduces another factor that would seemingly make the resume more likely to be affected by any affirmative action effect, if all the information one had to go on was the resume itself.

260

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

If you’re going to continually try to state my points, at least try to get them right.

I am saying that you are continually making a logical fallacy by trying to claim that racism must be the cause of things you observe – things for which racism could be a cause.

And then you try to take a some sort of moral-high-ground position, as if your idea that you are the sole possessor of moral clarity defends your poor logic – it’s kind of sad.

Gee, racism is the cause of racism on the job, not “affirmative action”. If I am denied a job based on the sound of my name or the color of my skin, the one to blame is the racist who denied me a job based on those factors, not Affirmative Action for trying to stop it directly.[/quote]

No, you’ve embedded your conclusion in your premise again. If a bias against affirmative action is the cause, then it’s not racism – it’s a discrimination based on a factor that correlates with race. If a bias against affirmative action is the cause, then, absent the existence of affirmative action, that bias would not exist. It would actually be created by the presence of affirmative action and the criteria for affirmative action. Thus, race in and of itself would not be the factor causing the discrimination, because, again, absent the affirmative action it would not exist.

Again, that is a possible cause. Racism is a possible cause. But you are insisting on treating racism as the cause that must be disproved, when it is but one possible cause.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Before Affirmative Action, racism was the cause of racist actions on the job and after Affirmative Action racism is the cause of racism on the job. [/quote]

So what? First, you assume your conclusion again. Second, the cause of discrimination on the job may have changed.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Why would anyone in their right mind avoid blaming the RACIST first when a racist act is committed? You claim this is illogical? It is what I have been saying from the start. You want to look for other places to put blame and have yet to even aknowledge that racists just might to blame for racist actions on the job. Does it hurt that much to admit?[/quote]

Why would anyone who claims to be educated resist applying basic logic principles to the analysis? That needs to be a question for you to answer, as you’re the one resisting the logic.

It’s illogical to assume that just because racism is a possible cause for a measured discrimination that racism is the cause of such measured discrimination, especially when there are other quite plausible explanations.