According to a recent poll.
click here to see full poll
Not entirely surprised at the results there.
Printable View
According to a recent poll.
click here to see full poll
Not entirely surprised at the results there.
Any poll that shows nearly 50% of Democrats as saying that Blacks are at least moderately violent seems suspect, the other results notwithstanding. Would like to see the methodology that led to their conclusions. Also, ironic that the last line of the article chastises for stereotyping while the article pretty much condemns Trump supporters as racist. Stereotyping those who stereotype?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Probably a majority of Trump supporters ARE racists, white supremacists, homphobes, xenophobes, Muslim haters. IOW, the traditional Repug base.
Trump seems to have really connected with the internet troll base.
What gets lost is nuance.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
I would describe blacks as somewhat violent/lazy, in the same way that whites or humans in general are. Poverty and circumstance has far more to do with it than skin color. Although I think I would get the point of the poll and just say "not at all accurate".
I think the question could have been better worded.
Still... the trend the poll shows is rather obvious, even allowing for poor wording.
You want to draw nuance and Trends from a self-selecting internet poll?
Good luck with that.
:lol Salon
Salon has never printed a single article that was not completely full of shit.
inb4 breitbart article about racist democrats
Only 7%?
Try 10 times that.
Wild Cobra calling anybody racist is fucking rich :lol
If you really believe that, your are retarded. I am far from racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by djohn2oo8
I say 10 times or about 70% of the democrats are racist because they believe in quota based affirmative action. You see it all the time, comparing statistics. To believe is such a system is needed is saying minorities are inferior, and need help.
Is their belief system that the minorities ARE inferior or that they are TREATED as inferior?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
When they ran a study where 2 identical resumes/applications were submitted to the same jobs (one with a typical "white" name and one with a latino name), and one of those (you can guess which) got a significant higher rate of response, what does that tell you?
Does Salon have any editorial standards? Is anything fact checked? Is there even any system of QC whatsoever?
take salon/daily kos with the same grain of salt that you would for breitbart and freebeaconQuote:
Originally Posted by DMX7
this is my favorite gem
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CH48vUfWUAAVD5D.png
i also remember last year they put up an article saying The US Military is the greatest risk to our national security... and they literally waited for memorial day weekend to drop that article :rollin
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...07/oswalt1.png
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...07/oswalt2.png
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...07/oswalt3.png
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...07/oswalt4.png
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...07/oswalt5.png
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...07/oswalt6.png
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...07/oswalt7.png
Prejudice and racism are not the same. If you are not going to learn the nuances of specific definitions, then don't blame anyone for your ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
People have a natural tendency to prefer others with more in common with themselves. Under the "all other conditions are the same" this is a natural bias. Not racism. Racism specifically means thinking another race is inferior. Preferring to be around others that are more likely to share similar cultural values is not racism.
Confusing such nuances is your failing. Not mine.
I will suspect that under conditions where the employer making the decision is a Latino, the Latino applicant would more likely be chosen.
racism is prejudice that is based upon race. choosing employee A over employee B because of your racial preference is absolutely a racist decisionQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
https://i.gyazo.com/65ec55bfed678838...26fd85f037.png
Notice the qualifier "superior" in your insert, or are you blind to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Your employment example has no indication the bias was based of perceived superiority. This is why I say quota based affirmative action is racist! It assumes minorities are inferior... not equal, and need help.
your affirmative action example has no indication that the bias was based off perceived superiorityQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
lol
No, it (correctly) assumes that many people believe minorities are inferior and cannot be relied upon to provide equal opportunity for jobs without some level of enforcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
That's your confirmation bias speaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Care to quote the part of the study that supports your assumption?
I didn't think so...
Then minorities don't need help with quota systems, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
:lol Why do you need a study? Look up the legislation and find where it says Affirmative Action is needed because minorities are inferior, if that's really why you believe it was introduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
lol circular argument. this is where we started.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
minorities are not hired at a fair rate and studies have confirmed that this is strictly because of their being in a minority
"Your brand of racism is way worse than ours."
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
I don't believe you. How many minorities are well spoken? Do you think a white speaking like a hillbilly will be hired over a well spoken black with all other factors equal? Perception is everything and it goes beyond race and color. Most who are being passed up for jobs are due to other factors beyond race. the problem is, most these are cultural, and largely follow race. However... It is not because of race!
with IDENTICAL resumes, people with minority sounding names were called back for interviews at a significantly lower rate. that is before they ever spoke. again, the resumes were printed identically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
your belief or lack of belief here is inconsequential. does it matter if i dont believe that 1+1 is 2 ?
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...ely-get-respo/
So now you don't want to listen to studies. Make up your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
Do you think a white speaking like a hillbilly will be hired over a well spoken black with all other factors equal?
LOL, in Texas and other parts of the south? Um, yeah.
Do explain.Quote:
Perception is everything and it goes beyond race and color. Most who are being passed up for jobs are due to other factors beyond race. the problem is, most these are cultural, and largely follow race. However... It is not because of race!
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Quote:
Though we have interpreted our results in terms of racial differences, we actually manipulate only the
name on the resume. While these names clearly signal race, perhaps they also signal some other personal
characteristics. More specifically, one might be concerned that employers are inferring social background
from the personal name. When employers read a name like “Tyrone” or “Latoya,” they may assume that the
person comes from a disadvantaged background. In the extreme form of this social background interpretation,
employers do not care at all about race but are discriminating only against the social background conveyed
by the names we have chosen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
70% of all Americans are racist. I have learned this through my travels around this country. Tbqh
Wildcobra is dead right
Wild Cobra
:lmao very next sentence... gotta stop cherry-picking a couple of sentences out of a document that long, it just looks bad on your behalf
"While plausible, we feel that some of our earlier results are hard to reconcile with this interpretation.For example, in Table 6, we found that while employers value “better” addresses, African Americans arenot helped more than Whites by living in Whiter or more educated neighborhoods."
Hey. Deny it all you want. The study says what I have been about perception and/or culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Any good study has caveats and margin for error. You don't claim that those represent the conclusion of the study.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
the study in the very next sentence says that their earlier results are hard to reconcile with your interpretationQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
They are saying that could be what the study reflected. To say it is perception of race and ignoring it might be perception of culture is your denial. Not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Why if your idea it is "race only" is wrong?
Study: "The results of this study show that the pennies in the fountain are likely from children throwing them in, however, it's possible that some of them may have been accidentally dropped by adults."
Wild Cobra: "See? According to this study, children don't throw pennies in fountains!"
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Grasping at straws now?
i guess he's following your leadQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
No, that's a fictional example to illustrate your confirmation bias. Grasping at straws is what you just did with the study you were so proud to find.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I do applaud you for actually taking some time to look up anything that might support your theory, though. It's a step in the right direction.
I'm not grasping at straws. Before the study was linked, I already pointed out culture (social background) over race as what I believe most this bias is based on. I quoted that part because it supported my contention.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
What if you put in hillbilly names vs. black names? What would the results be?
The study itself confirms the results may have been based of perceived culture (social background) rather than race. To use your confirmation bias and exclude every possibility but race, is your bias.
Is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Serious question. If you were a slave, and I were a master...
Would you want to be owned by an abusive master, or a master that believed in rights and treated you well.
Can you say that any of the founding father abused their slaves? What if I bough as many slaves as I could to protect them from others brutality. Does that make me an evil slave owner?
Who's excluding possibilities here besides you? No one's saying every hire is made with racial bias. Just a significant number, and that's what affirmative action combats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You're basically claiming it doesn't happen.
This has nothing to do with slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by resistanze
Goodbye shithead.
you dug through a 40 page study, found one sentence you liked, and are clinging to it... despite the fact that the very next sentence undermines it. that is grasping at strawsQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
:lmao I just thought one of your countless fucking retarded takes on racism was appropriate tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'm claiming there are other factors outside of race. There are still a few real racists out there, but this study doesn't prove diddly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Again, what if the white names were hillbilly names vs. the black names used. Is it your contention the hillbillies would get a greater callback rate still? Still get the 1 in 10 vs. the 1 in 15?
Who decides what a "hillbilly name" is vs. a black name, and which of those represents a poor cultural background? You're basically saying having a black-sounding name puts you in the same potential pool as white trash and you don't think there's anything wrong with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The study specifically used the names Tyrone and LaToya. DO you believe those names represent a poor cultural background, and if so, why?
What say you about minorities like asians where there is reverse discrimination? where the average accepted asian (college) applicant has to score hundreds of points higher on test scores and an asian applicant with the same test scores as a white applicant (much less a black or latino) in essence has no chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
By the same means they determined the black and white names.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
I see you didn't read the study!
It doesn't matter what I believe. This study was done in two cities, outside of my cultural norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
You should read the study. Right now, you look foolish.
You mean the study we were talking about before? In the Politifact article? I did read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The study that we are now talking about is an imaginary study that you came up with, where "hillbilly" white names are substituted for normal white names. I'm asking you to quantify how researchers would select "hillbilly"-sounding names.
Jesus, you can't even follow your own line of questioning.
Yes, the study is linked in the Politifacts article. You should read the study instead of being spoonfeed by Politifacts, their agenda dribble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
The study says how they selected the names. They can select hillbilly names the same way.
Yes, based on demographic information from the Office of Vital Records in the California Department of Health Services. How long do you suppose they've been collecting data on whether someone was born to hillbilly parents or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Then they tested the response of the names, before implementing them in the resume study. They can do the same testing to pick hillbilly names.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
This was a study that was designed to test a premise without eliminating all known variables. The conclusions cannot be considered valid without weeding out the other possibilities.
You do understand the scientific method, right?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rocess.svg.png
Before the conclusions of such a study can be considered valid, the other possibilities must be tested for and included or excluded. The other hypothesis of social culture was mentioned, but not tested. Therefore, the hypothesis it is race may be invalid.
I contend it is invalid, though it is my belief, and have no proof of it.
How about these for the four boys and girls names?
Bobby Joe
Homer
Roscoe
Wilbur
Bambi
LeAnne
Mary Lou
Norma
Think these might have adverse effects or not?
Took you long enough... but glad we have that settled. Now, moving on to your hypothetical...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
How about these for the four boys and girls names?
Bobby Joe
Homer
Roscoe
Wilbur
Bambi
LeAnne
Mary Lou
Norma
Think these might have adverse effects or not?
Probably some, but it depends on the job and the employer.
Would your study also filter "black" names to use names that specifically sound like those of poor blacks? Because right now you're comparing names pulled from specific socioeconomic status to names pulled only by race. Not really apples to apples.
I started doing some name research, and don't think the names were so randomly selected. Unconscience bias can take place.
The names used:
Jamal Jones...
There was a Jamal Jones arrested for murder in 1999, in Chicago, just before the study. Chicago was one of the two cities used.
Greg Baker...
There was a 2000 article in Chicago about a a teacher/coach named Greg Baker that did positive things in the community.
I didn't find anything on the other two names before July 2001, but google searches drop a lot of things over the years. Just the same, i think it's safe top say exact name matches trigger unconscious bias as well, as to good and bad impressions.
See my prior post on news and names.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
I think they should have excluded a well publicized black name arrested for murder, and the white name honored for community deeds.
Please don't tell me that didn't bias the results at all...
I can say with a pretty high level of confidence that hiring managers rarely if ever exclude applicants from getting a callback based on a Google search revealing a different person with the same name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
That is the way he works. Confirmation bias and sophism personified.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Lots of appropriation of Western European culture going on in this thread.
That isn't what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
It's pretty annoying trying to debate someone who hasn't a clue. The names were in the news. The memory could easily be unconscious, and affect the results with all else equal. Unless you can rule such things out...
:lol and you were talking about grasping at strawsQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
salon.com? :lolsmh RG
Honestly, I thought that's what you might have meant, but it's even dumber than the Google search scenario. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
My mistake. I'll try again. I can say with a pretty high level of confidence that hiring managers rarely if ever exclude applicants from getting a callback based on a subconscious recollection of a news story about someone with the same name.
God you are an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
I am pointing out other possibilities. It is not I that is stuck on only one viewpoint. Even the study says the numbers could be other than race, but no... you only acceopt the numbers are due to race.
How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Are you a mind reader?
How do you know how a person chooses if all other factors are equal?
Who knows. Maybe they actually remember the year old story as well, and his to make a decision somehow. Maybe it is conscience...
I really can't hope to have a serious conversation with someone who thinks it's highly plausible that someone named Jamal Jones didn't get a callback because of a subconscious recollection of a news story, and that this example disproves racial discrimination in hiring practices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
You can't get over the fact that I see other possible alternatives. I am not stating any as fact like you are.
You are in denial that there could possibly be something other than racism.
You are closed minded.
Is your head as hard as a diamond?
I've already said there could be other reasons on a case-by-case basis. But, see, that's why these studies look at over a thousand cases. That's where patterns are found. You're questioning the findings of the entire study based on the POSSIBILITY that one or two examples COULD have been something else. And you still don't see why that's ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
No. I added possibilities. The study itself said the causes may have been perceived environment rather than perceived race. When you failed to acknowledge that fact, I added a few.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
You simply do not have an open mind. You have a bigoted viewpoint that racism is the only conclusion.
I pity your lack of open mindedness.
For Snakeboy
Goddamn this thread.
This is why you don't argue with WC on merit and go straight for the 'youre a gibbering moron' tactic. Insert aphorism about arguing with fools.
For RandomGuy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
The problem is sometimes with you is that you think when someone shows alternate possibilities, they are presenting them as facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
You are a total dumbshit!
Actually many are probably a lot like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
White, angry, low wage earners looking to blame their favorite convenient entity Big _________ for you.
Is this supposed to be your example of holding Democrats feet to the fire?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Given this theme: I am presenting the possibility that you are a gibbering moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Heh, not only that it was an internet poll.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadlyDynasty
Still fun to play with.
To be fair:Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Not really. It was one of the first search results, and I thought it was funny.
The kind of evidence you want will take quite a bit of sifting and effort. I'm not entirely sure I have the time available to get it. It is, though, my responsibility to support my claim that I do hold Democrats accountable when they err. The problem with finding that is that what search terms do you use to find it?
As I said in the other thread, I am willing to make the effort, if I thought you were intellectually honest enough to be critical of Republicans when they fuck up. You do a similar search for anything critical you have said, and I would be a lot more willing to try.
What I can say, without a search is that I don't mind criticizing Democrats when they do something I don't like. If you prefer, I can find something in current events and offer a simple critique. I generally support most Democratic positions though, so it might have to be limited to simply finding something stupid said by a Democrat, which I am sure is out there.
"We flood communities with so many guns, that it is easier for a teen to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book."Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
shitty, fantasy take, as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
:lol:hatQuote:
Originally Posted by spankadelphia
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DMX7
Kornacki: Racial Attitudes Of Blacks From Trump Supporters Not Far Off From Clinton Supporters
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...upporters.html
Anybody who makes company with White liberals & White conservatives alike knows it's not a question of whether one isQuote:
Originally Posted by rmt
more racist than the other, but how/when it manifests itself.
Good number of these liberals would start shaking like a chihuahua if approached by a Black dude in a hoodie. :lol
You mean like Cuban crossing to the other side of the street if he sees a black guy in a hoodie on his side of the street?Quote:
Originally Posted by mingus
I guess you can say that, but at least he has the balls to speak the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by rmt
Who do the people on this board think they're kidding?
In my case, I cross the street when I see ANY male.Quote:
Originally Posted by mingus
This thread is peak Wild Cobra.
Probably the right thing to do. Too many cases of harassment, assault etc. against women by men/animals of any color going on. My cousin was gangraped a year ago. Don't just automatically give your trust to any man, let 'em earn it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rmt
Yes, but it's been well established you live in a constant state of fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by rmt
Sounds an awful lot like you're telling this woman what's best for her. Thought that was a purely conservative thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
What I have never understood is why this need to pretend there aren't obvious differences in the races? Why act like they are the same?
Compare Asia to Africa.
She said ANY male.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnerific
I think I'll follow Mingus' common-sense advice than worry about whether my fear level is acceptable to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher