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

[Loren Pechtel]

The data on names vs educational level is solid. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it go away.

Your double standard is showing - uncritically accepting the results of social science that are consistent with your beliefs while hand waving the results that do not.

More importantly, your point is irrelevant to the discussion about the cv study since the educational levels were identical - only the names were different.

But has that study been replicated since 2004?

Doesn't matter--the important thing is the study that did try to control for the educational level of names--and found the black/white difference went away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm just saying it's discrimination based on low-education names rather than on race. Once again, race turns out to simply be a proxy for socioeconomic status.

There is literally so much evidence of racism being at least a factor, from a whole raft of studies of different types made over time, much of it that you have been shown previously, that it's just embarrassing to read your incessant nonsense.

Granted, the amount may be less than some assert, but that's all. Less than some claim. Not by any means a non-existent factor, or explained away by socio-economics instead, which are inter-related in any case.

The problem is again and again and again we find evidence of supposed racism turns out to be about socioeconomic status--and we find the researchers committing the same sin over and over. We know it's a big problem, any research that fails to consider it these days isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Yet when we see research that does try to consider it we find the racism goes away.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm just saying it's discrimination based on low-education names rather than on race. Once again, race turns out to simply be a proxy for socioeconomic status.

There is literally so much evidence of racism being at least a factor, from a whole raft of studies of different types made over time, much of it that you have been shown previously, that it's just embarrassing to read your incessant nonsense.

Granted, the amount may be less than some assert, but that's all. Less than some claim. Not by any means a non-existent factor, or explained away by socio-economics instead, which are inter-related in any case.

The problem is again and again and again we find evidence of supposed racism turns out to be about socioeconomic status--and we find the researchers committing the same sin over and over. We know it's a big problem, any research that fails to consider it these days isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Yet when we see research that does try to consider it we find the racism goes away.

I'm so glad there's a place to come where I can watch a man on the internet trying to overturn the net outcomes of decades of scientific investigations using only the power of brainfarts.

Loren, overall, you're talking rubbish. End of. The racism does not go away, because unfortunately there is still racism out there, both active and pre-built-in to the systems. Sorry if that's ruined your inane fantasy.

Do me a favour. Please don't reply to this. The existence of your disgraceful, pathetic racism denial is not a debatable topic imo, and it's just irritating to even have to read about it any more than can be avoided.

 

[laughing dog]

Not one of my analogies was of that form. Like, not a single one....

Sure Jan.

Iodine tablets makes (not is or means) creek water drinkable, so iodine tablets are drinkable.

Justifying previous moronic analogies with another moronic analogy is not a convincing tactic.

 

[laughing dog]

But has that study been replicated since 2004?

Doesn't matter--the important thing is the study that did try to control for the educational level of names--and found the black/white difference went away.

Of course it matters. So we have many studies that show there is a black/white difference and one that does not. While it is possible all the other studies got it wrong and the one that confirms with your kneejerk biases got it right, a rational disinterested person might think that it is the other way around.

 

[Jarhyn]

But has that study been replicated since 2004?

Doesn't matter--the important thing is the study that did try to control for the educational level of names--and found the black/white difference went away.

Of course it matters. So we have many studies that show there is a black/white difference and one that does not. While it is possible all the other studies got it wrong and the one that confirms with your kneejerk biases got it right, a rational disinterested person might think that it is the other way around.

Not only that, but it is using Name as a proxy for education. It is using circumstances of birth and law instead of the thing actually being measured.

It does not matter what you call it, it carries with it all the evils of using someone's skin to make the same determination, or their gender, or their genitals, or their sexuality.

It is prejudice, of the unethical kind, no better than ageism, sexism, racism, or any other such thing.

 

[Trausti]

I don’t know that the 2004 resume study was replicated to address its flaws. But it is so curious that those convinced it showed implicit racism are those who waive off the explicit discrimination against Asians and Whites in university admissions.

 

[Emily Lake]

More importantly, your point is irrelevant to the discussion about the cv study since the educational levels were identical - only the names were different.

But don't you understand? It's not about race, it's about education! It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a person with a "low education" sounding name, which just "happens" to be black, is an inferior prospect, even if that specific "low education" named person has a very high level of education!

 

[laughing dog]

I don’t know that the 2004 resume study was replicated to address its flaws. But it is so curious that those convinced it showed implicit racism are those who waive off the explicit discrimination against Asians and Whites in university admissions.

A babbling "whataboutism" reflects more on the writer than on the intended targets.

 

[Emily Lake]

Since the intent is what makes the action moral or immoral so of course the thought is moral or immoral.

I disagree... albeit with some nuance. An act can be either immoral or moral, as judged by the moral framework of the society within which it occurs. Intent adds an additional element to that act. Killing someone in defense of another tends to be my go-to example for this. Killing someone is still an immoral act. That it is in defense of an innocent doesn't make that act moral - it doesn't make it good that you killed someone. What it can do, however, is negate the degree of immorality and produce a neutral result.

Someone might hypothetically have an excellent intention when they rape another... but that is not at all going to make the rape a good thing. A poverty stricken person might have very good reasons to justify stealing from another, but that doesn't make their theft a good thing.

Consider morality on an elementary number line, from negative infinity to positive infinity. Acts are defined as have a location on that line, with moral acts having a positive position, and immoral acts having a negative position. Intent then acts as a multiplicative agent, effecting the magnitude of the act... but it cannot flip the sign. At best it can neutralize it to zero.

That's a fairly long way of saying "the lesser evil is still an evil".

 

[Emily Lake]

I don’t know that the 2004 resume study was replicated to address its flaws. But it is so curious that those convinced it showed implicit racism are those who waive off the explicit discrimination against Asians and Whites in university admissions.

I don't waive it off. In some cases I think it's overzealous, in others I think it's a justifiable step necessary to correct a prior injustice that has long-term generational effects.

Affirmative Action does discriminate in favor of minorities and women. In most cases, however, I think that it's a justifiable and necessary step that needs to be taken in order to solidify the shift in mindset needed to overcome social biases. In the same way, we need overrepresentation of minorities and homosexuals in films and TV shows, especially when they are not centered in those shows, in order to overcome subconscious biases. We need portrayals of gay couples that are about them being gay, to help shift the ingrained stereotypes and show that gay people are just people.

 

[Emily Lake]

I do remember years ago having a fairly similar discussion with Loren regarding women's equality. IIRC, his position was that the wage gap was no bid deal, it's just because women take time off to have babies. When I pointed out that women who DO NOT have babies ALSO get paid less, he seemed to think that was okay, because it's reasonable for an employer to assume that a female employee *might* have a baby, and thus she wasn't as good an investment as a male employee would be.

This really doesn't seem to be a different argument.

 

[laughing dog]

I do remember years ago having a fairly similar discussion with Loren regarding women's equality. IIRC, his position was that the wage gap was no bid deal, it's just because women take time off to have babies. When I pointed out that women who DO NOT have babies ALSO get paid less, he seemed to think that was okay, because it's reasonable for an employer to assume that a female employee *might* have a baby, and thus she wasn't as good an investment as a male employee would be.

This really doesn't seem to be a different argument.

No, it is based on the same premise - generalizations based on race or gender or names that sound like someone is low class are rational short cuts in decision-making except when they harm white men.

 

[Metaphor]

Not one of my analogies was of that form. Like, not a single one....

Sure Jan.

Iodine tablets makes (not is or means) creek water drinkable, so iodine tablets are drinkable.

Justifying previous moronic analogies with another moronic analogy is not a convincing tactic.

It was your original statement that was moronic. My analogies of your statement make that clear to people who can reason and are being honest.

 

[laughing dog]

Sure Jan.
Justifying previous moronic analogies with another moronic analogy is not a convincing tactic.

It was your original statement that was moronic. My analogies of your statement make that clear to people who can reason and are being honest.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Metaphor]

Sure Jan.
Justifying previous moronic analogies with another moronic analogy is not a convincing tactic.

It was your original statement that was moronic. My analogies of your statement make that clear to people who can reason and are being honest.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

The aircon helps me sleep at night, during summer at any rate.

 

[J842P]

I don’t know that the 2004 resume study was replicated to address its flaws. But it is so curious that those convinced it showed implicit racism are those who waive off the explicit discrimination against Asians and Whites in university admissions.

I don't waive it off. In some cases I think it's overzealous, in others I think it's a justifiable step necessary to correct a prior injustice that has long-term generational effects.

Affirmative Action does discriminate in favor of minorities and women. In most cases, however, I think that it's a justifiable and necessary step that needs to be taken in order to solidify the shift in mindset needed to overcome social biases. In the same way, we need overrepresentation of minorities and homosexuals in films and TV shows, especially when they are not centered in those shows, in order to overcome subconscious biases. We need portrayals of gay couples that are about them being gay, to help shift the ingrained stereotypes and show that gay people are just people.

It also discriminates *against* minorities who have suffered serious, generational injustices. But ok.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is again and again and again we find evidence of supposed racism turns out to be about socioeconomic status--and we find the researchers committing the same sin over and over. We know it's a big problem, any research that fails to consider it these days isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Yet when we see research that does try to consider it we find the racism goes away.

I'm so glad there's a place to come where I can watch a man on the internet trying to overturn the net outcomes of decades of scientific investigations using only the power of brainfarts.

Loren, overall, you're talking rubbish. End of. The racism does not go away, because unfortunately there is still racism out there, both active and pre-built-in to the systems. Sorry if that's ruined your inane fantasy.

Do me a favour. Please don't reply to this. The existence of your disgraceful, pathetic racism denial is not a debatable topic imo, and it's just irritating to even have to read about it any more than can be avoided.

Sure there's racism, the question is how widespread it is--and if it's as widespread as the left says why can't the researchers find it without ignoring whether their data is right or not?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But has that study been replicated since 2004?

Doesn't matter--the important thing is the study that did try to control for the educational level of names--and found the black/white difference went away.

Of course it matters. So we have many studies that show there is a black/white difference and one that does not. While it is possible all the other studies got it wrong and the one that confirms with your kneejerk biases got it right, a rational disinterested person might think that it is the other way around.

We have many studies that show it while failing to control for socioeconomic effects. We have one that does control and doesn't see the effect--that shows all the other studies failed to consider a critical aspect of the issue and thus are worthless.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

More importantly, your point is irrelevant to the discussion about the cv study since the educational levels were identical - only the names were different.

But don't you understand? It's not about race, it's about education! It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a person with a "low education" sounding name, which just "happens" to be black, is an inferior prospect, even if that specific "low education" named person has a very high level of education!

Humans are humans. Instead of taking the approach that one study did of avoiding the low-education names, how about the reverse--use low-education white names also and see what happens.