White Fragility author Robin DiAngelo was paid 70 percent more than a black woman for the same job

[Trausti]

No kidding. You should make friends with John McWhorter, if you aren't already bosom buddies.

My view, as I've said, is that while that view may be true, it's only true up to a point. It's only one factor. The idea that whites are, also, at the same time, culpable or at least complicit, or at least in denial (eg about systemic racism), is also true, up to a point.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but you focus only on the former; the part where people of colour are to blame for their own problems.

Which is why I've always thought of your perspective as skewed.

If there is that much systematic racism why do the researchers keep resorting to garbage research?

The race business is too lucrative to care about little things like proof.

 

[laughing dog]

No kidding. You should make friends with John McWhorter, if you aren't already bosom buddies.

My view, as I've said, is that while that view may be true, it's only true up to a point. It's only one factor. The idea that whites are, also, at the same time, culpable or at least complicit, or at least in denial (eg about systemic racism), is also true, up to a point.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but you focus only on the former; the part where people of colour are to blame for their own problems.

Which is why I've always thought of your perspective as skewed.

If there is that much systematic racism why do the researchers keep resorting to garbage research?

The race business is too lucrative to care about little things like proof.

Is that jealousy or experience speaking?

 

[Trausti]

The race business is too lucrative to care about little things like proof.

Is that jealousy or experience speaking?

Oh, jealousy. Their shtick is impressive. Preach nonsense, make $$$. If someone notes that it’s nonsense, call them names. Count on laughing dog to support the cult.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there is that much systematic racism why do the researchers keep resorting to garbage research?

That's pathetic on every level. And false.

Nice strawman though, 'that much systematic racism'.

Loren, you're clearly a racism denialist, specifically via minimisation, and as such and for that reason, you are to some extent complicit in and an accessory to racism, even if you are not racist yourself.

Again and again I see research which ignores the elephant in the room--whether the effect they are seeing is simply a proxy for socioeconomic status. If there's really so much racism why are they unwilling to do this simple test of whether it's real or not?

 

[Trausti]

If there is that much systematic racism why do the researchers keep resorting to garbage research?

That's pathetic on every level. And false.

Nice strawman though, 'that much systematic racism'.

Loren, you're clearly a racism denialist, specifically via minimisation, and as such and for that reason, you are to some extent complicit in and an accessory to racism, even if you are not racist yourself.

Again and again I see research which ignores the elephant in the room--whether the effect they are seeing is simply a proxy for socioeconomic status. If there's really so much racism why are they unwilling to do this simple test of whether it's real or not?

Is there any Critical Race Theory "research" that survives replication?

 

[Trausti]

It's like they took all the worst parts of Christianity; or they're reviving Maoist struggle sessions. Either way, it's cultist bullshit.

 

[Trausti]

Again and again I see research which ignores the elephant in the room--whether the effect they are seeing is simply a proxy for socioeconomic status. If there's really so much racism why are they unwilling to do this simple test of whether it's real or not?

Is there any Critical Race Theory "research" that survives replication?

Here's a classic. [Not parody.]

Black Anality

In turning attention to this understudied and overdetermining space — the black anus — “Black Anality” considers the racial meanings produced in pornographic texts that insistently return to the black female anus as a critical site of pleasure, peril, and curiosity.

 

[ruby sparks]

Again and again I see research which ignores the elephant in the room--whether the effect they are seeing is simply a proxy for socioeconomic status.

Yes, I am in no doubt, having tried to interact with you extensively on previous occasions, that that is pretty much always what you think you see. But the problem with that is that it merely says something about you, not the material.

If there's really so much racism why are they unwilling to do this simple test of whether it's real or not?

A lot of the research is good, and thorough, and has been presented to you many times over. It is only you who refuses to accept what it clearly shows.

Again with the 'so much racism' strawman. Did I claim an amount? No.

 

[laughing dog]

The race business is too lucrative to care about little things like proof.

Is that jealousy or experience speaking?

Oh, jealousy.

I thought so.

Their shtick is impressive. Preach nonsense, make $$$.

You preach nonsense, but apparently no $ - hence the jealousy.

If someone notes that it’s nonsense, call them names. Count on laughing dog to support the cult.

The irony of your illogical response is duly noted. Is it because I do not embrace your cult? Because if you had read this thread, you'd know I have little to no truck with Ms. DiAngelo's views.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again and again I see research which ignores the elephant in the room--whether the effect they are seeing is simply a proxy for socioeconomic status.

Yes, I am in no doubt, having tried to interact with you extensively on previous occasions, that that is pretty much always what you think you see. But the problem with that is that it merely says something about you, not the material.

If there's really so much racism why are they unwilling to do this simple test of whether it's real or not?

A lot of the research is good, and thorough, and has been presented to you many times over. It is only you who refuses to accept what it clearly shows.

Again with the 'so much racism' strawman. Did I claim an amount? No.

I refuse to accept any research that ignores obvious potential proxies, especially when those proxies have been shown to matter in some cases.

To do otherwise is to conclude that ice cream causes rape.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, I am in no doubt, having tried to interact with you extensively on previous occasions, that that is pretty much always what you think you see. But the problem with that is that it merely says something about you, not the material.



A lot of the research is good, and thorough, and has been presented to you many times over. It is only you who refuses to accept what it clearly shows.

Again with the 'so much racism' strawman. Did I claim an amount? No.

I refuse to accept any research that ignores obvious potential proxies, especially when those proxies have been shown to matter in some cases.

To do otherwise is to conclude that ice cream causes rape.

That is utter nonsense. Empirical research in the social sciences cannot prove anything and never could. It simply is an attempt to find evidence that is not inconsistent with a hypothesis.

Of course, there are always potential proxies in social science research since it is usually impossible to control for all possible influences. So that permits all such research to be uncritically hand-waved away.

 

[Trausti]

Everything is racist. Every. Damn. Thing. Denying that everything is racist means you're a witch, err, I mean a racist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, I am in no doubt, having tried to interact with you extensively on previous occasions, that that is pretty much always what you think you see. But the problem with that is that it merely says something about you, not the material.



A lot of the research is good, and thorough, and has been presented to you many times over. It is only you who refuses to accept what it clearly shows.

Again with the 'so much racism' strawman. Did I claim an amount? No.

I refuse to accept any research that ignores obvious potential proxies, especially when those proxies have been shown to matter in some cases.

To do otherwise is to conclude that ice cream causes rape.

That is utter nonsense. Empirical research in the social sciences cannot prove anything and never could. It simply is an attempt to find evidence that is not inconsistent with a hypothesis.

Of course, there are always potential proxies in social science research since it is usually impossible to control for all possible influences. So that permits all such research to be uncritically hand-waved away.

While you can't address every possible proxy you should address elephants in the room. Specifically, socioeconomic status.

 

[Jarhyn]

That is utter nonsense. Empirical research in the social sciences cannot prove anything and never could. It simply is an attempt to find evidence that is not inconsistent with a hypothesis.

Of course, there are always potential proxies in social science research since it is usually impossible to control for all possible influences. So that permits all such research to be uncritically hand-waved away.

While you can't address every possible proxy you should address elephants in the room. Specifically, socioeconomic status.

Of course! And in so doing ignore all the actual factors that led to that status... Such as racism.

 

[ruby sparks]

That is utter nonsense. Empirical research in the social sciences cannot prove anything and never could. It simply is an attempt to find evidence that is not inconsistent with a hypothesis.

Of course, there are always potential proxies in social science research since it is usually impossible to control for all possible influences. So that permits all such research to be uncritically hand-waved away.

While you can't address every possible proxy you should address elephants in the room. Specifically, socioeconomic status.

Of course! And in so doing ignore all the actual factors that led to that status... Such as racism.

Not only that, but many studies control for it. And he's been shown them. It's pathetic.

 

[laughing dog]

That is utter nonsense. Empirical research in the social sciences cannot prove anything and never could. It simply is an attempt to find evidence that is not inconsistent with a hypothesis.

Of course, there are always potential proxies in social science research since it is usually impossible to control for all possible influences. So that permits all such research to be uncritically hand-waved away.

While you can't address every possible proxy you should address elephants in the room. Specifically, socioeconomic status.

If my memory serves me correct, I have seen you hand wave away results that do not depend on socioeconomic status (black sounding names on cvs get fewer call backs than non-black sounding names with the same cv) and complain about how studies do control for socioeconomic status.

 

[Jarhyn]

That is utter nonsense. Empirical research in the social sciences cannot prove anything and never could. It simply is an attempt to find evidence that is not inconsistent with a hypothesis.

Of course, there are always potential proxies in social science research since it is usually impossible to control for all possible influences. So that permits all such research to be uncritically hand-waved away.

While you can't address every possible proxy you should address elephants in the room. Specifically, socioeconomic status.

If my memory serves me correct, I have seen you hand wave away results that do not depend on socioeconomic status (black sounding names on cvs get fewer call backs than non-black sounding names with the same cv) and complain about how studies do control for socioeconomic status.

Or even invents reasons it's "really a good thing. Really." Like when home buyers were redlined based on race despite having the same script and purchase qualifications and the excuse was MaYbEy ReDlInInG WiLl PuT TheM wItH ThEIr OwN cOmmUnITy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is utter nonsense. Empirical research in the social sciences cannot prove anything and never could. It simply is an attempt to find evidence that is not inconsistent with a hypothesis.

Of course, there are always potential proxies in social science research since it is usually impossible to control for all possible influences. So that permits all such research to be uncritically hand-waved away.

While you can't address every possible proxy you should address elephants in the room. Specifically, socioeconomic status.

Of course! And in so doing ignore all the actual factors that led to that status... Such as racism.

The factors that lead to it are irrelevant.

Or do you think doctors should treat auto accidents with the application of seat belts?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is utter nonsense. Empirical research in the social sciences cannot prove anything and never could. It simply is an attempt to find evidence that is not inconsistent with a hypothesis.

Of course, there are always potential proxies in social science research since it is usually impossible to control for all possible influences. So that permits all such research to be uncritically hand-waved away.

While you can't address every possible proxy you should address elephants in the room. Specifically, socioeconomic status.

If my memory serves me correct, I have seen you hand wave away results that do not depend on socioeconomic status (black sounding names on cvs get fewer call backs than non-black sounding names with the same cv) and complain about how studies do control for socioeconomic status.

Reality: Black-sounding names are associated with substantially lower educational levels.

 

[Emily Lake]

Reality: Black-sounding names are associated with substantially lower educational levels.

You're right. They're associated with lower education. They are not, however, correlated with lower education. And they are not causally related with lower education.

At the end of the day, there is a measurable difference in response rates to the exact same CV and resume dependent only on the perceived blackness of the name at the top. That difference exists due to an association that is discriminatory and based on subconscious biases in most cases.