TakeYouToTasker

I question, as should you and everyone else, anything that comes your way as the spear tip of an agenda. This case is not special or different. I pointed out a non-comprehensive list of problems with the study, and since those presenting the study are making a positive assertion with it, the burden of proff falls to them. The inability to account for the (glaring) flaws leaves me unconvinced. Further, anyone who is convinced by the study linked, without demanding answers to the problems posed, is reporting to confirmation biases, and is seeking out a problem to fit their solution. As opposed to a solution to fit their problem.

When the study in question notes in it's own weaknesses that they have no idea if the employers ever saw the names on the resumes in an employment environment where automated processes have replaced human review, amongst other critiques? In a study that attempts to link name preference to racism at the expense of all other reasons for the discrepancy, and doesn't account for unusual "white" names, or ethnic "white" names in the process? Yes, I have my strong doubts.

/facepalm Your first link is the study I linked the original content of, direct from the source. You second is a broken link which leads nowhere.

You didn't link any study in the post I've been responding to. Please re-link, if you don't mind, so I don't have to go back through the thread searching for it. Also, before I dig into that study, which I will, can you tell me if it accounts for any of the issues I described about the other study?

If this is the study you're referencing to make your point, and I assume it is because it's the one everyone references, it has many problems. First of all the study admits, amongst many other issues listed on page 8 under "weaknesses of the experiment" that they have no idea if prospective employers were looking at the names of the candidates at all. Then there's the problem that all surnames listed as "white" are Irish or Anglo, making no room for Slavic, Germanic, etc; and that "white" names outnumber "black" names nearly 2-1, and that at least two of the "black" names (Jones and Williams) are so common and racially intertwined as to be meaningless, and the study ignores businesses which ask for in-person appearances. The study also makes no room for the fact that any bias demonstrated, if bias is demonstrated, could be anything other than racial. It doesn't account for unusual names that could be considered "white" (again, the study itself states that it is unknowable if the names on the resumes are even looked at, which to me would seem important for such a study), or the type of household which might place some importance on a strange or unique name, and what their upbringing may have looked like. With that in mind, I'd be very curious about the acceptance of a resume for "Rainbow Smith", "Renegade Lee Harris", or "Odin Howard"; three names of white people I know (last names changed to protect their anonymity).

Of course it has nothing to do with innate ability. Here in the United States, there are no racial barriers to accumulating wealth. The problems are cultural and socio-economic, which isn't to say, of course, that there weren't racial barriers in the past. There undeniably were, and the legacy of slavery and later Jim Crow certainly impacts the starting point of black Americans today. With that said, we've erased those institutional barriers, and what is left boils down to individual decision making, and those decisions have incredibly meaningful intergeneration impacts. Like wealth, poverty is a gift you can give to your children. The three leading causes of intergenerational poverty in America are, in order: single motherhood, not graduating from high school, and not holding a job. You'll note that the rates of these three behaviors are massive in the black community; and racist white people are not the reason large amounts black Americans are failing in these areas. Black Americans are not worse, or less intelligent, and they have agency. They are perfectly capable of making their own good decisions. Black men and women do not need to be having children out of wedlock at a rate 72%, and the fact that they do isn't the fault of white people, nor is the fact that only 59% of black males graduate from high school. This is a cultural problem, and cannot be solved by white people for black people. In fact, perversely incentivized by a government which rewards women for not having a husband and partner, these trends are growing now in the white community as well.

Then I'll leave it to you to explain what inherent feature of blacks makes them incapable of accumulating wealth, what inherent feature of whites makes them extra-capable of accumulating wealth, and finally how so many extra-capable whites find themselves in poverty, and so many incapable blacks become wealthy?

No, actually. The stats here do lie. They are telling lies of omission with the purpose of buttressing a narrative in favor Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign. The data is intentionally incomplete. An honest accounting of data, seeking to inform, would have included reported crime rates by race, socio-economic status of the offender, the types of crimes etc, and would have told a much different story. Were you aware, for instance, that New York City's much maligned "stop and frisk" policy actually under targeted blacks as a percentage of the population based on the amount of crime committed by that demographic?

No, the justice system does not favor white people. The justice system favors wealth. Wealth and white are not synonyms. I give everyone the opportunity to make their case, or to explain their point or purpose.

Manipulated data. The overwhelming majority of drug sentences are plead down to possession charges, with other charges being dropped in the process. The unfortunate truth is that drug use and crime are a socio-economic issue, and because of past injustices and misguided social engineering black Americans are more likely, as a percentage of their demographic, to be poor. Poor people are more likely to commit crimes, and many of those crimes are plead down to drug charges.

You'll note that I haven't labeled any individual a racist. You'll also agree, I would think, that actual racists exist, and that those actual racists who do exist have a purpose and a process. I have outlined a purpose and a process being used by actual racists. There are zero inconsistencies in what I've said here. Do you take umbrage with any of that?

Dumb thing to say, but in no way indicative of systemic racism, or even racism in the officer who said it. In a vacuum, sure. But nothing exists in a vacuum. It's far more likely that this officer was deescalating a situation using sarcasm. Because he's a human being, and human beings do things like that. Was it stupid? Absolutely. Especially in the current environment where victims are afforded hero status, and social justice warriors are finding racists under every rock. But actually racist? Highly unlikely. Hence the problem with the protests. If this is your evidence of a systemic problem, I have good news for you: your problem doesn't exist.

Yeah, quite sure given that I'm the guy who said it. In fact, if you keep going through the exchange (publicly available to you in this thread at zero cost!), you'll see that I'm explaining why this is a poor avenue for argument, both for being a logical fallacy, and for being indistinguishable from those folks actually doing exactly as I said for the reason I said. You'll note that I was explaining, as opposed to accusing. But then, you knew that already. By the by, what would be so hilarious to you? Don't parse words, come right out and say it.

No, you're not. So consider yourself corrected.

No, I'm not accusing you of that. I don't know you nearly well enough to do so, and even if I did, this isn't the appropriate place. What I will say, however, is that even if this is not your intention, and I doubt very much that it is, functionally it's exactly the same.

It's absolutely a fallacy. In fact, it's the definition of a particular fallacy. The effort used to discredit Brown is a fairly disgusting tactic used to silence or discredit opposition, and in this case is being used to "keep Brown on the plantation". You see, Jim Brown has committed a thought crime. He holds an improper position for a black man, and therefor must be brought to heel. The problem is, that there is no logical critique of Browns position which would circumvent debate, and Browns opposition isn't interested in debate. They are interested only in crowning themselves from a position of moral superiority (which they lack), without having to go through the process of having their views vetted, and having to defend their positions from others. So instead they engage in personal attacks, and say that Brown shouldn't be listened to because of some bad things he's done in the past. Never mind his decades of activism, and level of expertise and person experience with the subject. He must be silenced. That's not how honest debate works.

Yes, they have the right to terminate him for his protest. There is a narrow list of things you aren't allowed to be terminated for, and that's not on the list. Nice work though, with being ignorant and dismissive of relevant facts.

First of all, he's speaking to what he perceives to be injustices. That debate is far from over, and many, myself included, don't think these injustices are real. That said, no, he does not have the right. He has the privilege, which can be denied to him at any time by his employer. If he had the right, no one could deny it to him. What he is doing is making a political statement, and he's using his employer as a platform to do so. To give you an example of how far this can be curtailed, Curt Schilling, while he was playing in Boston, in a non-team related event, was prohibited from endorsing a Republican Presidential candidate as a member of the Red Sox. He was able to do it as long as no affiliations were mentioned because the owners of the team did not wish to lend their property to his cause. Again, no he does not. See above.

He's does not have the right to use his employment as a platform to do so, only the privilege, assuming his employer grants it. If he does so against his employers wishes, his employer has a right to deny him that platform, because the employer owns the platform, and he does not.

I'll task you with explaining what Jim Brown's past transgressions have to do with his morality as relates to his stance on this issue? He also dedicates his life these days to helping inner city youth escape the gang lifestyle. By your logic, wouldn't that automatically lend moral weight to his position? Or perhaps people should stop engaging in logical fallacies, attempting to marginalize Brown's stance by bringing up completely unrelated issues.

Cross-posted from another thread: I'd say that Jim Brown is a human being with warts and flaws just like the rest of us, and that he has done some bad things in the past. I'd also so that that his work with youth trying to escape the gang life has probably impacted more lives in a life-changing positive way than his prior transgressions did negatively. I'm curious though, why that matters. Are you trying to say that Jim Brown's opinion doesn't matter because of unrelated things in his past? If that's the case, can you please give me your comprehensive list of sins that disqualifies you from being heard, nullifying the value of your position on other matters. If not, I'd like to know what the point of bringing Jim Brown's past into the matter has to do with this specific argument, other than an attempt to engage in logical fallacy by Poisoning the Well, silencing dissent through character assassination.

Why aren't they properly saucing your flats? But they are getting good coverage on you drums? They're doing something weird with your food. Change wing joints IMHO.

I !@#$ed your dad too.

I !@#$ed your dad.

It's not that. It's that they aren't generating any depth on their bench because they're losing the national argument all the way down to the state and local levels of government. Individuals tend to serve in their city legislatures before their state legislatures, and in executive roles before gubernatorial positions. That's how they develop their brands, and get name recognition. Republicans control 32 state houses and 33 state legislatures. Democrats aren't filling these positions.