They don't think that at all. The truth is that (without naming names) there aren't any conservatives here capable of arguing their case intelligently and honestly.

Links to empirical evidence that the job market is racially discriminatory?

Do you not think that's a bit of an indictment of your forum? That it doesn't attract any intelligent conservatives?

Have you ever made any sort of effort to attract intelligent conservatives to the forum?

You don't want an echo chamber do you? Surely you want your views to be challenged and debated amid the crossfire of intellectual argument and counterargument?

This is how it begins.

1) Conservative asks for evidence of discrimination

2) Leftist puts forward graph or chart displaying a demographic disparity - for instance, fewer women or minorities being in certain positions of power

3) Conservative argues that this alone doesn't provide evidence of discrimination. Sure, this disparity might be caused by discrimination, or it might be caused by something else, but the disparity alone doesn't mean that discrimination was the only thing that could account for it.

4) Leftist argues that if discrimination isn't the answer to why a lower percentage of black people pass whatever exam or a higher percentage of black people are in jail, then the only explanation would be that they are less intelligent/more criminally inclined by their nature. Therefore, to argue that disparities in demographic distribution aren't evidence of discrimination is by its very nature racist.

I was actually just questioning the term "empirical". It's rare to find emperical evidence on issues like this, which is why it's so difficult to prove conclusively.

This foolishness always amuses me. First this...

LOL@ "far leaning liberals" & "far left". When we ask WTF these alleged categories are we universally get gibberish. Simple stuff like... what % of USA peeps are a part of the "far left" ??

And this. What new or changed rules in a third politics forum would attract these elusive intelligent conservatives? What, in particular, is currently stopping this 'crossfire' from sparking now in both Alta Politards and here in Baja Politards ??

I discuss two recent studies in this post. I think the difference in methodology and results is interesting.

See also this study, from the same year. I can probably get the full text and post it if you'd like. There is also well known study from 2002. This article provides a useful overview of research into discrimination in employment, housing, credit and consumer markets, as well as a useful discussion of the methodologies.

Also, I don't have links handy but I think if you want to disentangle the way racial disparities in income and wealth are created in the US you have to take into account problems in education and the effects of mass incarceration as well.

should have said more forced change. with the original experiment of unchained i had sincere hopes the forum might attract a bunch of new people that didn't like the other politics forum, not just those who had been kicked out.

when that failed, i just had fun watching different moderators give the place a whirl. now i just don't see the point in trying anything different. you won't change my mind on that issue anytime soon, so you'll have to deal with the guys you got.

Thanks, I've seen those. I think they build a fairly strong case, and are certainly utilizing experimental data, but would you call that empirical evidence? For instance the resume studies aren't directly measuring racial discrimination, they're making inferences based on black and white sounding names.

They are empirical studies by definition.

Also I suggest reading the methods sections if you have doubts that they adequately demonstrate discrimination.

Hold on now dont make me lol social science.

That's not good enough for you, but BruceZ pointing out how only black kids walk in the middle of the street was enough evidence for you to defend for months as the cold hard truff.

Bad gimmicks should be banned.

They should have never unbanned you.

What methods do you think should be used to investigate the possibility of racial discrimination in employment?

My impression is that you are leaning way too hard on some sort of philosophical skepticism, as though the only evidence that would count is some kind of mind reading that could prove malicious intent on the part of the people evaluating resumes. But discrimination is not a measure of intent, but of outcome.

The studies empirically measure outcomes in which every variable is controlled except for the names of the applicants, which strongly signal race. There is no "inference" to discrimination, discrimination is measured, precisely because the experimental setups allow other variables to be controlled, which is precisely what AppleCrumble complained liberals never do.

Anyway, if you think that is insufficient I would challenge you to describe a methodology that would be better and also feasible. You need to reconsider your epistemology, although I would note that in the past you've had no problems accepting explanations from far weaker evidence for conclusions you prefer.

The only evidence that counts for these douche nozzles is evidence that supports their own POV. Like observing how only black kids walk in the middle of the street cause they said so.

Boom. Told you.

Maybe you should look up the word "empirical" and get back to us.

Again. Told you.

Hiring manager's job is to discriminate, and that is what is being measured empirically. Race is infered from the names. You're a scientist and so it's unnecessary for you to infer my motive is to discredit this research, like the turds in here who always float up to make such inferences. You get the difference, so you must understand infering "black" and "white" sounding names imply only race, and not say class, polictal background of parents, etc., would not be very scientific.

Freakonomics does a pretty good summary of the various positions on importance of names. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-...radio-podcast/ I wonder if there are any compartive studies using "white" sounding names like Billy-Bob or Kaitlyn, Star and Moonbeam, or foreign sounding sames?

Apple crumble I suggest you actually read the research presented since it directly refutes your claim

Foldn: you asked for empirical evidence. I provided some, along with analysis. I can help you understand it even but not when you've decided in advance to reject it. My suggestion is that you shouldn't ask for evidence if you're unprepared to engage it meaningfully.

Are you kidding me? I haven't rejected it.

See WN, I can understand when a regular douche on the internet like [above] assumes challenging a study is the same as rejecting it, but it disturbs me when someone like you falls into that mindset. It worries me that these studies may not be getting their just criticism in the world of academia, for fear of the hounds of hell like [above].

I don't know what to call your reaction ("is that even empirical?") but reflexive dismissal. Your challenge is completely ungrounded in any real understanding of how we should investigate these topics scientifically. You don't appear to understand what empiricism is. Basically, the impression I get is that you don't know enough to understand why your "challenge" is ridiculous.

Seriously though, I think it would be a useful exercise to think about what sort of study design would meet your approval. I also think it might be useful to think about how these studies should be interpreted in your opinion, especially in the context of the other available information and history. I'd be happy to discuss your interpretations with you, probably in another thread, but try to do more than just say "oh but that doesn't absolutely establish 100% an intent to discriminate on the basis of race therefore meh it establishes nothing", because that's not a reasonable position to take.

See the thing is I've observed which evidence you decide to swallow and which you decide to spit, and let's just say it's telling.