Grunch.


Holy ****.

My arguments have always depended on such. There has been no change in this regard.

I have never claimed that the negative impact is "confined to a particular race". In fact, as I've pointed out no less than twice previously, my very first response to you in this thread linked you to a post in which I discussed the fact that the results could be taken to demonstrate a "weird name" bias, or a social class bias, and not just a racial bias:

I don't think it's my fault that you apparently can't be bothered to read my posts even though I've pointed out that you have misunderstood them multiple times. You're still accusing me of taking a position I've literally never taken, back to the very first post of mine in this thread. To be clear, when I wrote that first post I hadn't seen the 2008 study. I'm glad to have it, and I think it provides useful context. You are still grossly mistaken, and I think culpably so, for continuing to misrepresent me after being corrected so many times previously.

I love your posts but lol at thinking nomad will be able to comprehend this.

congrats

Congrats wil.

Jeez, man. I'm not trying to misrepresent you, and apologies for not reading all your other posts on this matter, and possibly misreading those you've made to me. I know how that feels, as it's happened to me in plenty of threads where I've held multiple conversations. Perhaps it was wrong to word it as though you were retreating from a position you hadn't taken, and I'll happily take that back.

I'm not trying to pin you down and prove you wrong individually, I'm trying to understand why so many people advocate in such a way that it's like pulling teeth to get even the most reasonable advocates to question the merit of their assumptions.

Doesn't the EEOC definition you posted require racial descrimination be to a "particular race"? Hasn't the 2008 study thrown that assumption into question with regard to these resume studies? Where, then, within these resume studies, can you point to racial discrimination, explicitly, or as we have been arguing all along as you say, in outcomes?

Thanks. He's perfect. Fun times.

Wow, nice job wil!

Killer. If I had a boy, I'd name him willie, after the world's first tank:

Let's look at it again....


A = Black People

B= Christianity

C= The name Shanika


I can comprehend what an association fallacy is. Not only that, but the poster is also inadvertently trivializing the actual origins of American black names (which has more to do with erasing the funk from Slavery from their names, than it does Christianity).

Okay nomaddd, could you please define "Christian name"?

I don't deserve much credit, it's not like I put in much work. I will say, though, I'm batting a thousand. Tried twice, got pregnant twice. I'm never doing that again.

Hah, I didn't know that. Interesting.

"Black" names being equal to "Christian" names is very interesting. For some reason it sounds like a generalization, though.

I see a claim of an association fallacy, however the association that an America black woman named whatever will probably be a Christian is understanding the probability of an American woman identifying Christian and an American Black woman identifying Christian, both which appear to be the conclusions about the probability of meeting a black American woman who is a Christian and are reasonable sound based on what is known about demographics. So what is or was the conclusion derived using the claimed fallacy? Where is the guilt trip and the trivialization of the origins of American black names?

The issue is not what is, or is not precisely a Christian name. The issue is, Shanika was not derived from Christianity. It has no origins with Christianity, just as X is not a Christian name, even though 85% of all people named X are Christians.

Got to discriminate against them before someone else does.

This guy just GTO'd racism.

Because by claiming Shanika was born out religion diminishes one of the primary reasons it gained usage in the US, as with other typical black American names that gained prominence.

You think I'm making a case to do that. I'm merely pointing out a serious issue. If you are in business, and you have two options....one option is slightly or significantly riskier, but the reward is the same if they pan out, which one do you choose? This is the real reason you have to end discrimination.

Conservatism is becoming the new liberalism of 30 years ago.

We are in for an interesting ride, folks. Strap in.

I did not see that claim being made. It's kinda off track from discussions on what employers may think when they see different names of prospects?

Q: Shanika is a Christian name?

A: Yes.

You are right, the guy simply stated its Christian because its a black name, because 85% of black people Christians.

The point I made is, religious bias could be playing a role in the results of the study. I do not know to what extent, just as we do not know what extent racial bias plays a role....as we do not know any sort of "unique name bias" that may be playing a role.

Are you quite sure the claim supposed made was as such and particularity absolute?

If it's a Christian name, obviously is has to derive from Christianity, or it would not be a Christian name. If it's a Christian name, it has to have origins in Christianity. So, when he says yes, yes, I infer that is what he is saying.

Not really. He is saying most people with that name are Christians.

Yes, I know. It does not make the name Christian. I asked explicitly if he thought Shanika was a Christian name, his answer was explicitly yes.

Are you looking at that through a lens of Christian exclusivity?