Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 What evidence do you cite that refutes the study done by an industry expert? I know....none. Just your unqualified opinion based on your saying it was the case. Color me convinced. There seems to be a lot of that going around.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) There seems to be a lot of that going around. It's an epidemic. Refute evidence from scholarly studies as illegitimate because they don't support a preconceived notion or conclusion. Edited September 1, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz
Mickey Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 We fought a war against you people for oiur freedom. That's what the song is babout and that's why we stand. It's as a sign of respect for that flag and those men who fought opression to give us our freedom. Yeah! And if you don't wear a flag pin you don't love America and you are disrespecting the troops. If you don't have a flag hanging from your porch, a stars and stripes license plate frame and a pack of red, white and blue condoms in your wallet you are an unamerican, unpatriotic, disrespectful, soldier-hating worthless piece of trash who is not half the American I am. Really. I mean it.
stony Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 Go USA! Everybody here that wants to squash the imperialistic bastards of Costa Rica should watch some soccer. Pulisic is the real deal! Happy Friday!
RaoulDuke79 Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 It's an epidemic. Refute evidence from scholarly studies as illegitimate because they don't support a preconceived notion or conclusion. I suppose you can pick and choose whatever source you want to make a point. I'll gonwith this one https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/si/tech-media/2017/08/31/colin-kaepernick-nfl-ratings-cbs-study-sean-mcmanus%3fsource=dam
Azalin Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 http://buffalonews.com/2017/08/31/cameron-jefferson-heckled-bills-fan-fist-roster-spot-remain-air/ It's the National Anthem. Stand and show your respect. It's not a time to call attention to yourself or whatever your individual cause is. This is probably the only time you will hear that guys name other than on the cut list. If you don't know what to do during the National Anthem look at Eric Wood in the photo. I swear if any Bills player doesn't stand for the National Anthem and the team does nothing about it I will not support this team any longer. Who is with me? I understand why you feel this way, but as much as we may not care for some peoples' methods of protest, as long as he's not hurting anyone, damaging any property, or violating any NFL rules, then he has every right to express himself as he sees fit. We have every right to react however we choose, provided we do so lawfully.
Augie Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 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. Again, you didn't answer both parts of the question. OK, I get that you want to question the study (for some reason). Do you really believe that this is NOT a real thing?
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 I suppose you can pick and choose whatever source you want to make a point. I'll gonwith this onehttps://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/si/tech-media/2017/08/31/colin-kaepernick-nfl-ratings-cbs-study-sean-mcmanus%3fsource=dam Your own link doesn't really support your argument all that much. It provides more evidence that it didn't affect the ratings. McManus of CBS said it probably was a factor but didn't know how much either way and when he discussed the factors he mentioned three others that weren't anything to do with the Kaep situation.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) I suppose you can pick and choose whatever source you want to make a point. I'll gonwith this one https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/si/tech-media/2017/08/31/colin-kaepernick-nfl-ratings-cbs-study-sean-mcmanus%3fsource=dam The link you provided doesn't support the claim by x54soldier that Kaep was a big factor in the ratings decline. Your own link doesn't really support your argument all that much. It provides more evidence that it didn't affect the ratings. McManus of CBS said it probably was a factor but didn't know how much either way and when he discussed the factors he mentioned three others that weren't anything to do with the Kaep situation. Exactly “We did research and it was relatively proprietary research, to be honest with you,” McManus said. “But I think if you look at some of the reasons why NFL viewership was down last year, that is a reason that’s mentioned by a fair amount of viewers. It is something they don’t find attractive or they find don’t compelling in coverage of the football game. How big a factor it was? I don’t really know. But it was one of the factors that I think perhaps led to the slight decrease in ratings last year.” McManus said he believed the biggest factor in last year’s decline was news coverage of the election, particularly in the primetime windows. “That was an important factor,” he said. Edited September 1, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz
3rdand12 Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) I support Cameron Jefferson.I have read his reasonings via his quotes. May his God watch over him and may he be blessed. Go America! Go Humanity! and hell yes Go Bills!! we all know Thomas Jefferson was a great Man and founding Father. Who had relations with his slaves. Not a perfect world. Lets keep an open mind about each person. Edited September 1, 2017 by 3rdand12
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 Again, you didn't answer both parts of the question. OK, I get that you want to question the study (for some reason). Do you really believe that this is NOT a real thing?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.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 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. A solution looking for a problem. Sounds just like the Voter ID laws you support based on flimsy claims of voter fraud.
Augie Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 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. OK, I won't ask yet again if you think this is a real thing. I give up. I don't need a study to question or review, I know it's real. How prevalent? That's the only question.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 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. In your mind I guess all studies based on questionnaires are invalid because the researchers can't be sure the people filling them out actually read the question
RaoulDuke79 Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 The link you provided doesn't support the claim by x54soldier that Kaep was a big factor in the ratings decline. Exactly I guess we fundamentally disagree over this. I'm not spending any more time on it today. Let everyone do what they feel inclined to do. Carry on.
grinreaper Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 A solution looking for a problem. Sounds just like the Voter ID laws you support based on flimsy claims of voter fraud. Find a link to this in the "There's No Voter Fraud " thread: More than 14,000 votes were cast in Chicago during the 2016 general election than there were voters to cast them, based on separate figures released by the Chicago Board of Elections, the chairman of the Chicago Republican Party has reported. Chris Cleveland told the Chicago Wire that "on a whim," he filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the board, which provided him with a list of 1,101,178 people who voted in the general election. An earlier post on the board's website said that 1,115,664 votes had been cast. Chris Cleveland, chairman, Chicago Republican Party “There should never be more votes than voters,” Cleveland said. “Every ballot cast should be recorded against a registered voter.”
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 OK, I won't ask yet again if you think this is a real thing. I give up. I don't need a study to question or review, I know it's real. How prevalent? That's the only question.Based on what evidence do you know it's real? Gut feeling and instinct? Are you a true believer? In your mind I guess all studies based on questionnaires are invalid because the researchers can't be sure the people filling them out actually read the questionIn a world where resumes are no longer filtered and read by people, but rather are filtered through an algorythm, questions related to whether or not a study is valid because it's researchers don't know if the names on the resumes were actually read when their entire premise hinges on whether or not the names on the resumes were actually read is kind of a big deal, don't you think?
Kelly the Dog Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 Based on what evidence do you know it's real? Gut feeling and instinct? Are you a true believer? Your glaring flaws are not flaws at all. They're extremely weak. One of yours is the names Williams and Jones are not really black names and could be white is completely irrelevant. The first names are the ones that were in question not the last names. All of the white and black last names were generic and they used the most common generic names for both races. It was the first names by far that would show the difference. Like Jill vs Lakisha. Jill Kelly versus Lakisha Jones. The idea that they discounted ones that would hold in house interviews, well duh. That would eliminate the whole idea of the study. It HAD to be a totally blind test. The idea that the researchers couldn't be sure the people read the names on the applications was discussed above. That's nonsense.
Augie Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 Based on what evidence do you know it's real? Gut feeling and instinct? Are you a true believer? I was in the hiring and firing business in the low country of SC for a couple decades. I hired hundreds and fired dozens, and more importantly, I watched what my counterparts were doing. More recently, I've worked in the high end rental housing market in Atlanta. When Shamiqua will go to great lengths to hide her first name, despite being a corporate attorney for a Fortune 500 company, it's because of the reality, not the perception. I play tennis several days a week at a park where I am usually the only white guy there all day. I don't need a study you approve of to know what I know. Feel free to delude yourself that racism does not exist. (And for the record, it can and does go both ways.)
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 I was in the hiring and firing business in the low country of SC for a couple decades. I hired hundreds and fired dozens, and more importantly, I watched what my counterparts were doing. More recently, I've worked in the high end rental housing market in Atlanta. When Shamiqua will go to great lengths to hide her first name, despite being a corporate attorney for a Fortune 500 company, it's because of the reality, not the perception. I play tennis several days a week at a park where I am usually the only white guy there all day. I don't need a study you approve of to know what I know. Feel free to delude yourself that racism does not exist. (And for the record, it can and does go both ways.) So you're a true believer, and in addition to that a lousy clairvoyant. I'll ask you to source where I claimed that racism or racists don't exist?
Recommended Posts