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.
Professor X wrote:
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”.[/quote]
The point is not semantic, and your re-wording is changing my meaning. The act may or may not be racist – you need to look further into the causation to make that decision.
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.
Professor X wrote:
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”.
The point is not semantic, and your re-wording is changing my meaning. The act may or may not be racist – you need to look further into the causation to make that decision.
[/quote]
Actually, I don’t need to look further if an action has a purely negative effect on only one race and the reason for that is something that isn’t even a negative in society. That makes it a bias which should have no bearing on someone’s employment if they meet all of the qualifications for the job.
Actually, I don’t need to look further if an action has a purely negative effect on only one race and the reason for that is something that isn’t even a negative in society. That makes it a bias which should have no bearing on someone’s employment if they meet all of the qualifications for the job. [/quote]
Yes you do. Your addition of qualifications doesn’t change the logic.
As I said above, dreadlocks are not a sociological negative either, but if someone is discriminated against for having them, that is not de facto racial discrimination, even if far more black people have dreadlocks. Even if black people were the ONLY ones to have dreadlocks, it would still not necessitate your conclusion.
BTW, I need to get some work done, and then I’m heading on vacation for a week, so please don’t take my lack of any responses as conceding any points. We can resume later. Hasta.
Actually, I don’t need to look further if an action has a purely negative effect on only one race and the reason for that is something that isn’t even a negative in society. That makes it a bias which should have no bearing on someone’s employment if they meet all of the qualifications for the job.
Yes you do. Your addition of qualifications doesn’t change the logic.
As I said above, dreadlocks are not a sociological negative either, but if someone is discriminated against for having them, that is not de facto racial discrimination, even if far more black people have dreadlocks. Even if black people were the ONLY ones to have dreadlocks, it would still not necessitate your conclusion.[/quote]
Fine. I’m not sexist, I just don’t want people who have ever used tampons working for me.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
I did it intentionally to stir the pot and to prove a point.
Wahahaha…you remind me of the little kid who falls off his bike, gets up fast and says “I meant to do that.”
[/quote]
And you remind me of those sad old men that sit on the stoop everyday and complain about everyone and everything and add snippy little comments to every conversation but outside of that they never contribute anything of value.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
ZEB wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
I did it intentionally to stir the pot and to prove a point.
Wahahaha…you remind me of the little kid who falls off his bike, gets up fast and says “I meant to do that.”
And you remind me of those sad old men that sit on the stoop everyday and complain about everyone and everything and add snippy little comments to every conversation but outside of that they never contribute anything of value.[/quote]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
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.[/quote]
Someone should track this guy’s career path. For scientific reasons, of course.
Actually, I don’t need to look further if an action has a purely negative effect on only one race and the reason for that is something that isn’t even a negative in society. That makes it a bias which should have no bearing on someone’s employment if they meet all of the qualifications for the job.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes you do. Your addition of qualifications doesn’t change the logic.
As I said above, dreadlocks are not a sociological negative either, but if someone is discriminated against for having them, that is not de facto racial discrimination, even if far more black people have dreadlocks. Even if black people were the ONLY ones to have dreadlocks, it would still not necessitate your conclusion.
Professor X wrote:
Fine. I’m not sexist, I just don’t want people who have ever used tampons working for me.[/quote]
You know, I just happened to read “Freakonomics” while I was on vacation. One of the chapters – the last one I believe – talks about all the status implications from names. It also briefly touches on the flaws in these types of studies, the biggest one being that the name imparts socioeconomic information as well as racial information. The other one he pointed out, which I hadn’t thought of previously, was how often people lie on their resumes – given these are “real world” tests – resumes are sent to real companies – one can be fairly certain that the employers are not trusting that all the facts set forth on the resume are true. Thus, a factor that might indicate in inferior record would take on greater weight (see my earlier posts on the affirmative action effect).
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
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.
doogie wrote:
Someone should track this guy’s career path. For scientific reasons, of course.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
ZEB wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
I did it intentionally to stir the pot and to prove a point.
Wahahaha…you remind me of the little kid who falls off his bike, gets up fast and says “I meant to do that.”
Man, you are just pathetic.
You were just not happy with your first attack and decided to come back for yet another one 10 minutes later huh?
Yea…I know…I know…all that hate and no place to go…
It’s okay.
[/quote]
I love this. You constantly do nothing but attack me every chance you get, but when I respond to it, I’m the nasty one that is full of hate? You are old enough to know the saying about glass houses and stones aren’t you? If not, you should look it up and remember it before you post.