Where have I said any of this, WN? Seriously, you've done drunk the kool aid, and it scares me that you don't see it.

Great. I'm glad that is not your position. As I said, if you want to discuss the research I'm happy to do so.

Post #35 in this thread.

It's #37 which always gets my hackles up

Guys stop shouting him down but pointing out what he posted.

Well, like I said from the outset, I think the studies build a fairly strong case, but I think it would be informative to use a broader selection of "white" sounding names than Greg, Mathew, etc., which are super common, and add more exotic "white" names that tend to stick out. Are you aware of any studies like that?

I'm not trying to diss your social sciences bro, but it's weird when I see people claiming they have "empirical evidence" which is direct evidence, and then quoting studies that are merely interpreting empirical data using indirect inferences. Those aren't the same thing, and are worth distinguishing, though not a reason to reject the conclusions of the studies.

Like I said, the problem is you don't understand what "empirical" means, and your epistemology is narrow to the point of being useless.

Mods: would you mind moving this whole conversation to a new thread? I'll write a longer response to you later, I'm going to play mini-golf right now :P

"Merely interpreting empirical data"

Pretty sure I know what "empirical evidence" means, and so does everyone else here, which is why I balked at the term.

Upthread, a poster claimed there is empirical evidence the job market is discriminatory, and anyone who challenged that evidence is either racist or stupid. This, of course, implies the evidence is empirically measured and the issue is scientifically settled, just like the mass of the planet, or who won the last election .

And of course, you as a scientist, know the difference between direct, empirical evidence, and a theory that hopes to be proven (or rather, not proven wrong) by empirical evidence. Therefore, you also know it's neither a racist nor stupid thing to question such evidence, the studies, and test the theory fully, in fact it is the smart and scientific thing to do. You do know this, right? Because I think that is a much better conversation.

Agree especially with respect to P. The website of my profession (ActuarialOutpost.com) has a crap Politics section. Any other site I've been to also have awful Politics sections. 2+2's is by far the best. The moderators deserve a lot of thanks for doing a great job for a thankless task. I wasn't initially thrilled with the change of PU to P7, but it seems like P is less infected by low-content, dumb, angry trolls since the change.

I'm confused. Have you just seen people calling Juan et al's bluff on this and thought you'd have a go?

You thought "I'll ask for research, that'll get them" and then got confused that it didn't work just as well?

You are totally missing the point. Why might "black" sounding names imply class, political background of parents, etc? You seem to think that it's not racial discrimination if somebody looks at a typically black name and says "Ew, that person is probably poor." You want to argue that they are simply discriminating against poor people. But the connection from "Black name" to "poor" is exactly the issue of concern. That's where the discrimination comes in.


It seems quite plausible that southern names on resumes would show a pattern of discrimination. But the same thing would be true in that case. It would show clear anti-southern or anti-rural bias.

Let's imagine somebody walks into an interview looking for a job. The interviewer notes that this person is black and thinks "This person is probably poor and uneducated. I won't hire them."

It would be absurd to argue that this scenario is anything but racial bias.

And I just want to point out how conservatives (and whatever FoldN is ) are reversing the burden of proof here. The null hypothesis isn't that the job market is a meritocracy with no discrimination. Given the history of this country, the null hypothesis should be that discrimination exists.

So, can appledude prove that no discrimination exists? Waiting...

AppleCrumble, you didn't answer my questions.

theres been plenty of studies on this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ning-callbacks

as ususal. lol "conservaties".

if i was moderating this forum, i would delete the "as ususal. lol "conservaties" part of your post.

and then i would make some comment about the rest of your post. i would take some position just to further the conversation.

that's what i would do if i was moderating this forum.

Thanks for sharing this while steadfastly shying away from making your positions clear on all the racist and bigoted posts.

But anyway, you would pretty quickly tire of cleaning up all the posts if you were still trying to avoid banning people.

my position on racist and bigoted posts is they should mostly be allowed as long as there is real discussion taking place around them. that position was unpopular and admittedly, probably naive on my part.


i'm commenting where i like in this thread because my name is in the title. when someone puts your name in a thread title, you can pick and choose what you like to address as well.

What sort of valuable discussion can be brought to the topic of ****** and jew and *** bashing, etc.? Like if I think jews are cockroaches, or if I think all blacks need to be shipped to an island, or if I think ******s shouldn't be in the country, and I express that and the post stays up, what's the discussion going to be like? Have you ever visited 4chan's /b/?

That could've been any Mat.

That's all fine and no hard feelings, just don't lolz at conservatives.

i said mostly. a person just saying they hate a different group because they are in that group obviously doesn't add anything and was forbidden by me on the first day of this forum.

Could you give examples, either hypothetical or concrete, of racist of bigoted posts you think would be appropriate? I'm just trying to get a sense of the line, as you see it.