Black and Republican?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
THis is irrelvant, but just to make you happy, lets say they are being compensated far below true market value for an eminent domain taking. Or, if you like, let’s say they aren’t compensated at all for a regulatory taking, because the regulation that was passed made it impossible for them to continue their businesses. Let’s say it completely devastates their liveliehoods .[/quote]

If some regulation wipes out an entire particular racial segmment’s income then that regulation could indeed be called racist and no doubt would be called this even in the media.

302

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
THis is irrelvant, but just to make you happy, lets say they are being compensated far below true market value for an eminent domain taking. Or, if you like, let’s say they aren’t compensated at all for a regulatory taking, because the regulation that was passed made it impossible for them to continue their businesses. Let’s say it completely devastates their liveliehoods.

Professor X wrote:
If some regulation wipes out an entire particular racial segmment’s income then that regulation could indeed be called racist and no doubt would be called this even in the media. [/quote]

So if the regulation was a simple regulation of parking lots, that hurt parking lot businesses, and wasn’t motivated by race, you are saying it would necessarily be racist if it had the impact of taking away those owners liveliehoods, because all those owners happened to be of one race?

Not that it could be a cause, or might be a cause, but is, de facto, racist, simply due to its impact?

That, my good Professor, is staunchly illogical.

303

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That is NOT my argument. [/quote]

Oh no?

Bolded for your convenience.

304

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I just want to post my point again, in case it gets lost in all the irrelevant digressions:

Disparate impact on a particular race does not prove racism. Particularly when race is highly correlative to other factors that could very easily play a part in causing the phenomenon that leads to the disparate impact.

Professor X wrote:
Bullshit. Read what you just wrote. The only way you could defend this is if your stance is that being black with a certain name leads to being less productive. [/quote]

I know what I wrote - I’ve written it twice now. And it’s very easily defendable on pure logical grounds. You are completely missing the logical point.

No, you don’t need to show causation between the someone’s name, race and productivity for the point to hold.

We are not debating the accuracy of any of the possible beliefs that could cause the effect. We are simply talking about whether various beliefs could cause the effect. And, quite simply, non-racist beliefs – even non-racist discrimination, such as cultural or socioeconomic discrimination – could cause the observed disparity in callbacks with the differing names.

Another possible cause could be the “affirmative action” effect, which creates a bias against possible recipients of affirmative action. Those are quite obviously possible causes of the observed effect.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Race has nothing to do with why someone won’t do their job. Race has nothing to do with whether someone is qualified or not. [/quote]

I don’t disagree with you on either of these points – it’s just that they aren’t relevant to my point at all.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It can not be “disparate” if the only people it affects is one racial group and then labels them “not good enough” for the job.[/quote]

Now here is where you are flatly wrong again. First, a small digression: the word “disparate” means:

[i]dis?pa?rate Pronunciation Key (dspr-t, d-sprt)
adj.

  1. Fundamentally distinct or different in kind; entirely dissimilar: “This mixture of apparently disparate materialsscandal and spiritualism, current events and eternal recurrencesis not promising on the face of it” (Gary Wills).

  2. Containing or composed of dissimilar or opposing elements: a disparate group of people who represented a cross section of the city.[/i]

So, I don’t think you meant to write that. It most certainly would be disparate if it created a different effect for blacks than for whites.

Secondly, if I got what you meant correctly, you are again incorrect, as you are arguing about the effect. The effect may indeed be bad, but that does not mean it is necessarily racist in character, nor caused by racism. Racism may indeed be bad and evil, but it is not a synonym that can be used to describe anything bad that happens only to one race.

So, in sum, let me restate my point for a third time:

Disparate impact on a particular race does not prove racism. Particularly when race is highly correlative to other factors that could very easily play a part in causing the phenomenon that leads to the disparate impact.

305

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:

That is NOT my argument.

Oh no?

Bullshit. Regardless of what you blame it on, if the impact is on a racial segment of the population, it is racist.

Bolded for your convenience.

[/quote]

I must be typing too fast. I will try typing slower so you can keep up. In your example, you used a concept where every race on the planet has representatives. My argument is NOT whether it has any impact at all on a race, it is when the impact is ONLY on one specific race and no other and that impact is purely negative. Did you catch it that time? Not giving a job to a convicted criminal, a concept held as a negative in all of society where every race on this planet has an individual with that classification can not be held as a racist act unless they were hiring all convicts but those of a certain race. Not giving a job to someone because their name sounds too black ONLY affects black people. Therefore, how could anyone see it is not being racist? Having a black sounding name is NOT a negative in society except to those biased enough to hold that ridiculous opinion. That means, since society as a whole does not view it as a negative, and blacks alone have these names, to discriminate against those names has a singular racial impact on no one else but BLACKS.

Again, the fact that someone would even equate being a criminal to having a “black sounding name” proves how biased some of you really are. No one should be in support of something like that and no one should be in the dark that the act is discriminatory and racist.

306

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I must be typing too fast. I will try typing slower so you can keep up.[/quote]

Isn’t interesting about how you were whining about Boston ‘talking down’ to you, but the moment you get in a pickle, your go-to move is trying to talk down to people?

You have proclaimed elsewhere on these boards that you are quite arrogant in conceited in tone, but you seem to reserve the right to request no one talk down to you - how does that work again?

That is a qualifier - one that you did not make in your original statement.

Write it the first time, and I won’t have to ‘catch it’. Let’s call a spade a spade - you got caught reversing yourself and you are trying to pretend like it never happened.

At the risk of repeating Boston, such a decision is only racist if done for racist reasons. If done for other reasons, it is not.

No one equated being a criminal to having a type of name. You repeatedly claim things that no one suggest or argue and then argue against that manufactured claim - the very essence of a strawman.

You said that racial impact equates racism with no qualifiers, and I gave you an example of how that logic didn’t work because of the no-felon work rule.

Here is the problem - you can’t even follow basic arguments.

307

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

At the risk of repeating Boston, such a decision is only racist if done for racist reasons. If done for other reasons, it is not.[/quote]

Many people thought slavery was the Christian thing to do. According to you, it was not racist as long as they believed they were doing God’s work? Who are you kidding?

308

Slavery was clearly done for racist reasons, in that the only qualification was purely racial – in fact, it was race, and only race. Only race to the point of laws classifying by race based on percentage of parentage. I don’t see how you get any closer to evidence that racism is a cause of slavery.

In fact, even those who thought it was the “Christian” thing to do, thought that because of their belief that blacks were inferior and needed guidance and paternalistic control from whites. So even that belief, even with a subjective good intent, would be racist by definition.

Your specific problem is that, in the example from the study, you’re trying to turn a cultural qualification, which stands for more than just race, into a purely racial qualification.

As I said previously, from the information doogie and thunderbolt23 provided, it seems that the “ethnic sounding names” group is a generally a subgroup within blacks (setting aside whatever tiny minority of non-blacks might have similar-sounding names), and that subgroup has some pronounced socioeconomic and cultural tendencies.

And because of that complexity, you want to jump to the effect as proof of the cause – and that’s just poor logic.

309

You know what, I was thinking, and I really wish that the study had also included some “hick” names that would indicate the person was white but likely from undereducated parents and a lower socioeconomic strata. I wonder what responses people named “Jethro” or “Zeke” would tend to receive, if grouped with “J.R. Winthrop, III” and “R. Jonathan Hunt”…

Just a thought.

310

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

thunderbolt23 wrote:

At the risk of repeating Boston, such a decision is only racist if done for racist reasons. If done for other reasons, it is not.

Professor X wrote:
Many people thought slavery was the Christian thing to do. According to you, it was not racist as long as they believed they were doing God’s work? Who are you kidding?

Slavery was clearly done for racist reasons, in that the only qualification was purely racial – in fact, it was race, and only race. Only race to the point of laws classifying by race based on percentage of parentage. I don’t see how you get any closer to evidence that racism is a cause of slavery.

In fact, even those who thought it was the “Christian” thing to do, thought that because of their belief that blacks were inferior and needed guidance and paternalistic control from whites. So even that belief, even with a subjective good intent, would be racist by definition.[/quote]

To many of them, however, you could easily argue that they thought they were doing blacks a favor by enslaving them. According to you, if they find a good enough reason for slavery that doesn’t exactly mention “race”, then it isn’t racist. That is what you are arguing, right? As long as you don’t say “race” is the reason, nothing is racist?

311

[quote]Professor X wrote:

To many of them, however, you could easily argue that they thought they were doing blacks a favor by enslaving them. According to you, if they find a good enough reason for slavery that doesn’t exactly mention “race”, then it isn’t racist. That is what you are arguing, right? As long as you don’t say “race” is the reason, nothing is racist?[/quote]

Why would they have thought they were doing them a favor?

And you’re missing the point – the point is that if there are actual, logical other explanations that pass the laugh test, you need to give them credence and cannot just presume that racism is the cause. You can’t do that because, as I have said before, just because racism could produce an effect doesn’t mean it did produce the effect. In other words, you have to look into it more and can’t just simply say, “It’s racism!” when there are other reasonable possibilities.

312

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is what you are arguing, right? As long as you don’t say “race” is the reason, nothing is racist?[/quote]

Actually, let me parse this further, because if this is what you think we have been saying then you have badly missed the point.

I have explicitly stated that I am not making the argument that racism could not be the cause – my argument is entirely against your presumption that racism is the cause. I have explicitly said racism could be the cause (more likely, the effect is has multiple causations, and racism might be among them).

My problem is with the assumption people constantly make that any disparate effect on a race means racism is THE cause.

313

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:

To many of them, however, you could easily argue that they thought they were doing blacks a favor by enslaving them. According to you, if they find a good enough reason for slavery that doesn’t exactly mention “race”, then it isn’t racist. That is what you are arguing, right? As long as you don’t say “race” is the reason, nothing is racist?

Why would they have thought they were doing them a favor?

And you’re missing the point – the point is that if there are actual, logical other explanations that pass the laugh test, you need to give them credence and cannot just presume that racism is the cause. You can’t do that because, as I have said before, just because racism could produce an effect doesn’t mean it did produce the effect. In other words, you have to look into it more and can’t just simply say, “It’s racism!” when there are other reasonable possibilities.[/quote]

I haven’t missed the point at all. If you claim that there are other logical reasons, we can find “other logical reasons” for why slavery existed. According to you, we should ignore the impact an action has on race and ignore a bias towards a specific race as long as there some really really good “other logical reasons”. I can effectively avoid allowing black students into colleges if I claim I am…going to avoid allowing people in who happened to grow up in certain parts of town because those parts of town have higher crime rates. What was that? Nearly all of those people are black? Well, them being black isn’t the specific reason I chose therefore it isn’t racist. The sad thing is, this actually made sense to you.

Racism isn’t just about whether you do something with blatant racist intent. It is also about whether that action affects a certain race with bias and no others are affected even though that race should otherwise not be degraded.

314

[quote]Professor X wrote:

To many of them, however, you could easily argue that they thought they were doing blacks a favor by enslaving them. According to you, if they find a good enough reason for slavery that doesn’t exactly mention “race”, then it isn’t racist. That is what you are arguing, right? As long as you don’t say “race” is the reason, nothing is racist?[/quote]

Is the decision/policy based on:

A belief that one ethnicity is inherently/naturally/biologically inferior to your own/someone else’s?

If you enslave someone who is black, and not someone who is white, based entirely on your belief that a black person is inherently inferior to the white, it is racist, even if you justify it through tangential vehicles: religious beliefs, etc.

Slavery is also an extreme example because of the nature of the act - i.e., there is little reason to think there would be an alternative reason to put a status of subhuman on a race of people other than that deserve to be treated as inferior by way of blood. In the case of other less nefarious practices, like the hiring scenario, other althernative explanations exist.

315

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That is what you are arguing, right? As long as you don’t say “race” is the reason, nothing is racist?

Actually, let me parse this further, because if this is what you think we have been saying then you have badly missed the point.

I have explicitly stated that I am not making the argument that racism could not be the cause – my argument is entirely against your presumption that racism is the cause. I have explicitly said racism could be the cause (more likely, the effect is has multiple causations, and racism might be among them).

My problem is with the assumption people constantly make that any disparate effect on a race means racism is THE cause.

[/quote]

If that “effect” is only on one race and there is nothing that race has done that actually goes against the rules of society, it is racist. Having a black sounding name is not “wrong”. Therefore, to hold that against someone is wrong. Considering it affects no other races, it is also blatantly racist.

316

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
there is little reason to think there would be an alternative reason to put a status of subhuman on a race of people other than that deserve to be treated as inferior by way of blood.[/quote]

But what if there was an alternative reason? What you are saying is that if I can find a reason that doesn’t mention race, slavery isn’t racist. What if I say that we should base slavery on “people who come from Africa because Africa is ‘evil’”. There, I have effectively come up with a different reason other than race so slavery is no longer racist. Right?

317

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That is what you are arguing, right? As long as you don’t say “race” is the reason, nothing is racist?

Actually, let me parse this further, because if this is what you think we have been saying then you have badly missed the point.

I have explicitly stated that I am not making the argument that racism could not be the cause – my argument is entirely against your presumption that racism is the cause. I have explicitly said racism could be the cause (more likely, the effect is has multiple causations, and racism might be among them).

My problem is with the assumption people constantly make that any disparate effect on a race means racism is THE cause.

[/quote]

Racism is certainly not the only logically possible cause of something that produces a disparate effect on a race, true.

However, this study I don’t think is a good example of that. Since both people were aptly qualified, the person had to make a judgement on the name in spite of their obvious qualifications.

You could make that argument if the resumes only had names/numbers and no biographical information.

It could have been some horrible conincidence that all of the white names happened to have been listed as going to the college of the employers, but very likely, a racial preference was shown.

If Zeke went to Harvard, I don’t think anyone would assume he was a yokel.

318

No, if the effect is only on one race that might be something that would cause one to look for racism as a possible cause, but it would not mean that racism was THE cause.

You keep trying to re-cast the argument, but it’s not helping. No one is claiming that having a black-sounding name is “wrong,” so trying to re-state your point under that moniker doesn’t do anything for the discussion.

Having long dreadlocks isn’t “wrong” either, but it doesn’t mean that if it is held against someone it must be for racist reasons.

I can’t believe how long this conversation had dragged on with you claiming that basic logic is wrong.

If A then B, does NOT mean if B then A. In other words, just because racism would definitely cause a disparate effect doesn’t mean that racism DID cause the disparate effect. The only way that would be true is if racism were the only possible cause of the disparate effect. And that, in this case, is obviously a flawed premise.

319

[quote]ExNole wrote:
Racism is certainly not the only logically possible cause of something that produces a disparate effect on a race, true.

However, this study I don’t think is a good example of that. Since both people were aptly qualified, the person had to make a judgement on the name in spite of their obvious qualifications.

You could make that argument if the resumes only had names/numbers and no biographical information.

It could have been some horrible conincidence that all of the white names happened to have been listed as going to the college of the employers, but very likely, a racial preference was shown.

If Zeke went to Harvard, I don’t think anyone would assume he was a yokel.[/quote]

Ah, thank you!

Anyway, w/r/t to the studies, I want to re-post this link that thunderbolt23 posted earlier:

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."

320

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

No, if the effect is only on one race that might be something that would cause one to look for racism as a possible cause, but it would not mean that racism was THE cause.[/quote]

You are doing all of this debate over semantics? Who gives a flying shit what the “cause” was if it is the result? The act is RACIST regardless of the “cause”.