"Prosperity is shared"

[The Big Cat]

Yes I'm implying that. And not only that I'm asking for you to list what those benefits might actually be.

 

I don't understand your insistence on playing dumb for the sake of trapping someone in an argument.

[CosmicBills]

Again?Lame

Of course it's lame. It also happens to be true.

[Chef Jim]

As a white male you're given the benefit of the doubt. As a black female you're given the burden of extra scrutiny.

 

And you're basing this on what exactly? Do you give white males the benefit of the doubt and black females extra scrutiny? Is that how you know this happens?

 

I don't understand your insistence on playing dumb for the sake of trapping someone in an argument.

 

Ok let's here your detailed list of what benefits I have as a white Christian male over a black jewish female seeing tgreg99 did such a horrible job of it.

[DC Tom]

Ok let's here your detailed list of what benefits I have as a white Christian male over a black jewish female seeing tgreg99 did such a horrible job of it.

 

Country club membership.

 

Really, tgreg does have a point. The jewish Monday chick might have more of a benefit of a doubt in certain circles (like, government offices)...but in more social, less formal settings, no one's mistaking me for a poor welfare queen with eight kids either.

 

As a white male you're given the benefit of the doubt. As a black female you're given the burden of extra scrutiny.

 

I guarantee you, if a black woman says I called her a "!@#$" in the elevator at work, I'm gone without a second thought.

 

"Extra scrutiny" is extremely contextual.

[The Big Cat]

Ok let's here your detailed list of what benefits I have as a white Christian male over a black jewish female seeing tgreg99 did such a horrible job of it.

 

Oh, get over it already. You're playing dumb and you know it. Why don't you try acting smart by actually...saying something smart? That would be a change.

[Joe Miner]

"Extra scrutiny" is extremely contextual.

 

Only a racist would assume the extra scrutiny given to a specific individual or group is due to the color of their skin.

 

Unless the person scrutinizing is Dave in Elma.

[DC Tom]

Only a racist would assume the extra scrutiny given to a specific individual or group is due to the color of their skin.

 

Actually, in the case of black women, it probably has more to do with the size of their ass.

[Chef Jim]

Oh, get over it already. You're playing dumb and you know it. Why don't you try acting smart by actually...saying something smart? That would be a change.

 

Ok, ok, so you don't have a list of advantages I have as a white male. Come on Cat you can do it, I really want to know. Maybe I am dumb but please, enlighten me, make me smarter.

[Joe Miner]

Ok, ok, so you don't have a list of advantages I have as a white male. Come on Cat you can do it, I really want to know. Maybe I am dumb but please, enlighten me, make me smarter.

 

There aren't any advantages they can list that aren't inherently ignorant and racist.

 

But they'll never actually realize that or admit it.

[The Big Cat]

Ok, ok, so you don't have a list of advantages I have as a white male. Come on Cat you can do it, I really want to know. Maybe I am dumb but please, enlighten me, make me smarter.

 

You like to boast here about your business moving decimal points around for rich people. If a son was born to you tomorrow, he'd be no better off than the kid who fell from the crotch of the crack head who paces up and down the street outside my office, asking passersby for marshmallows and a ride back to Algonquin.

 

They would have the exact same lot in life because I won't play your little game and give you a list.

 

Always a pleasure.

Edited August 15, 2012 by The Big Cat

[CosmicBills]

And you're basing this on what exactly? Do you give white males the benefit of the doubt and black females extra scrutiny? Is that how you know this happens?

It's based on careful and close observation which I realize is completely subjective.

 

People naturally judge and form preconceptions in their head based on appearance. We're genetically designed to seek comfort in homogeneous groups. Thousands of years ago the smarter folks learned how to manipulate this to their benefit. Kingdoms were formed and rulers were crowned based soley on the principle that it's far easier to control a divided populace than it is a united one. As long as there has been rulers of men we have been conditioned to believe that different equals dangerous. It's been beaten into our heads since the beginning of time and is reflected in our society today. We've moved from fearing natives to fearing blacks to fearing brown folks. From fearing monarchies to fearing fascism to fearing communism to fearing conservatives and liberals. Hell, even right now in this thread you have people reacting to things I'm not even saying because it hints of being different from their political platform. It's ingrained in us because it makes us easier to control.

 

But that's just an excuse. And easy to write off as paranoid. The truth is each one of us makes our own choices. We choose whether or not we react to an impulse, conditioned or not. I'd like to believe that the vast majority of humans look past the differences and interact with the person. And I've seen it first hand. I've seen strangers helping strangers with incredible compassion and empathy. But I'm under no delusions that it's universal. I've seen too much of the other side to believe that. So if it's not universal, then it means the playing field has never really been level. Someone will always have the upper hand -- and someone will always be out there trying to tell you who's to blame for it. How someone chooses to deal with that reality is up to them. Some cry victim and sit on the sidelines. Others push through and make their mark through effort and perserverance. Crying victim isn't a solution -- but neither is pretending the issue doesn't exist. Overreaction can be dangerous but denial guarantees a perpetuation of the cycle.

 

I guarantee you, if a black woman says I called her a "!@#$" in the elevator at work, I'm gone without a second thought.

 

"Extra scrutiny" is extremely contextual.

Oh for sure.

[Rob's House]

As a white male you're given the benefit of the doubt. As a black female you're given the burden of extra scrutiny.

I doubt there's any empirical evidence to support this. At times I've even seen the opposite occur. These blanket statements are so outdated I feel like I'm listening to the guy in your avatar.

[IDBillzFan]

You like to boast here about your business moving decimal points around for rich people. If a son was born to you tomorrow, he'd be no better off than the kid who fell from the crotch of the crack head who paces up and down the street outside my office, asking passersby for marshmallows and a ride back to Algonquin.

 

They would have the exact same lot in life because I won't play your little game and give you a list.

 

And yet you'll be the first flaming liberal dolt to scream like a whiny B word the minute someone wants to stop giving financial welfare incentives to crackwhores simply because they have more babies. Or make the crackwhores submit to a drug test before they can get welfare benefits.

 

But OOOHHH, when the little baby is born, the responsible people should pony up more taxes because of some idiotic concept of "inherent injustice."

[jjamie12]

I doubt there's any empirical evidence to support this. At times I've even seen the opposite occur. These blanket statements are so outdated I feel like I'm listening to the guy in your avatar.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-575685.html

 

First link I came up with, no sourcing but it references some of the many different studies that have been done on "black-sounding" names vs. "white-sounding" names and the likelihood of a callback from their resume. Some studies took EXACTLY the same resumes, gave half of them "white" names and half of them "black" names. "Black" names were 50% less likely to get a callback. I think you guys sometimes get caught up and assume certain things away. The very real prejudice (prejudice -- not racism, necessarily) that black people face has a bigger effect than you guys think, I would imagine, especially on the margins.

 

Relevant passages:

 

"The other, however, suggests a black-sounding name remains an impediment to getting a job. After responding to 1,300 classified ads with dummy resumes, the authors found black-sounding names were 50 percent less likely to get a callback than white-sounding names with comparable resumes."

 

"The University of Chicago's Marianne Bertrand and MIT's Sendhil Mullainathan, however, appeared to find that a black-sounding name can be an impediment, in another recent NBER paper entitled "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?"

 

The authors took the content of 500 real resumes off online job boards and then evaluated them, as objectively as possible, for quality, using such factors as education and experience. Then they replaced the names with made-up names picked to "sound white" or "sound black" and responded to 1,300 job ads in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune last year.

 

"Previous studies have examined how employers responded to similarly qualified applicants they meet in person, but this experiment attempted to isolate the response to the name itself.

 

White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names."

[The Big Cat]

And yet you'll be the first flaming liberal dolt to scream like a whiny B word the minute someone wants to stop giving financial welfare incentives to crackwhores simply because they have more babies. Or make the crackwhores submit to a drug test before they can get welfare benefits.

 

But OOOHHH, when the little baby is born, the responsible people should pony up more taxes because of some idiotic concept of "inherent injustice."

 

You're quite good at arguing against far-blown hyperboles of your own making. But what does it have to do with anything?

[DC Tom]

You like to boast here about your business moving decimal points around for rich people. If a son was born to you tomorrow, he'd be no better off than the kid who fell from the crotch of the crack head who paces up and down the street outside my office, asking passersby for marshmallows and a ride back to Algonquin.

 

They would have the exact same lot in life because I won't play your little game and give you a list.

 

Actually, I think Chef Jim's son would be better off, if only for not having had to deal with you directly.

[Chef Jim]

 

 

Actually, I think Chef Jim's son would be better off, if only for not having had to deal with you directly.

 

Actually my son would be better off because his mother was not a homeless crack addicted insane person who, I guess according to The Big Cat are only black women.

[Rob's House]

http://www.cbsnews.c...162-575685.html

 

First link I came up with, no sourcing but it references some of the many different studies that have been done on "black-sounding" names vs. "white-sounding" names and the likelihood of a callback from their resume. Some studies took EXACTLY the same resumes, gave half of them "white" names and half of them "black" names. "Black" names were 50% less likely to get a callback. I think you guys sometimes get caught up and assume certain things away. The very real prejudice (prejudice -- not racism, necessarily) that black people face has a bigger effect than you guys think, I would imagine, especially on the margins.

 

Relevant passages:

 

"The other, however, suggests a black-sounding name remains an impediment to getting a job. After responding to 1,300 classified ads with dummy resumes, the authors found black-sounding names were 50 percent less likely to get a callback than white-sounding names with comparable resumes."

 

"The University of Chicago's Marianne Bertrand and MIT's Sendhil Mullainathan, however, appeared to find that a black-sounding name can be an impediment, in another recent NBER paper entitled "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?"

 

The authors took the content of 500 real resumes off online job boards and then evaluated them, as objectively as possible, for quality, using such factors as education and experience. Then they replaced the names with made-up names picked to "sound white" or "sound black" and responded to 1,300 job ads in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune last year.

 

"Previous studies have examined how employers responded to similarly qualified applicants they meet in person, but this experiment attempted to isolate the response to the name itself.

 

White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names."

I'm well aware of this. My sister-in-law is about to have a black child and we were discussing names today and I suggested she use a normal sounding name for this very reason. That being said, I'm always hesitant to make absolute declarations based on one study or one statistic because there are other variables to consider. Would a hiring manager call back Sherry before he called Shaquanda if he knew both were black? I don't know. When picking between candidates who are already known to the company (or otherwise) does minority status ever give one candidate a leg up over another? You bet your ass. Does this happen more often than the inverse? I don't know. I've seen it go both ways where I knew with 100% certainty superficial distinctions were the basis of the decision.

 

The bigger point is, we need to be careful about empowering government to provide disparate treatment based on race and sex and especially careful when allowing government to impose disparate treatment on other entities, because the law of unintended consequences is a mother!@#$er. The problem is very likely to be overstated, the solution overreaching, and the consequences more detrimental than beneficial. And often times it !@#$s the person it's supposed to help - I have known of people who avoided certain hires due to high risk of litigation.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Rob's House

[DC Tom]

Actually my son would be better off because his mother was not a homeless crack addicted insane person who, I guess according to The Big Cat are only black women.

 

Yeah...I'm arguing that being anywhere within 50 yards of Big Cat is worse...

[CosmicBills]

I doubt there's any empirical evidence to support this. At times I've even seen the opposite occur. These blanket statements are so outdated I feel like I'm listening to the guy in your avatar.

jjamie's link shows there is in fact empirical evidence and I'm sure you've seen the opposite occur a bunch of times. I have too. But that's due to an over correction to a problem we like to pretend no longer exists.

 

Of course I'm speaking subjectively. As I said a couple times now, I'm not trying to make a political point with any of this. It's a subject that interests me from an entirely different level. I don't claim to have solutions but am always interested in hearing ideas.