Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Racial Discrimination (previously Mat: Its time for a conservative forum) Racial Discrimination (previously Mat: Its time for a conservative forum)

07-11-2017 , 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomaddd
Um...are you telling me Shanika is a Christian name? How do you know that name is not passed over for religious purposes, while at the same time making the argument it's because it's a typical black name?
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
Yes. It's a name common to African Americans, about 85% of whom are Christians, a rate higher than for the general American population. It is not exactly uncommon knowledge that most black Americans are Christians.



I think you should re-read my point (3) from the previous post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomaddd
I ignore it becasue....



contradicts it. You want the study to be used in conjunction with reasoning to correlate race. Cool, go for it but answer this question:

How do you know the people are not simply rejecting non-Christian names? In order to answer this question, it is 100% irrelevant that 85% of black people are Christians. Ironically, it is also 100% irrelevant to answering the question that "Shanika" is a typical black name.
Grunch.


Holy ****.
07-11-2017 , 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
The reason I believe the 2008 study may refute what you've said is that having conceded class/uniqueness/political orientation/etc, have not been adequately controlled for to leave only race, your arguments now depend on a definition of racial discrimination based solely on outcomes, per the EEOC
My arguments have always depended on such. There has been no change in this regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
But if that study's findings are correct, there are probably at least as many white folks named Jethro and Tammy-Lynn who don't get call backs as Jerome and Tanika, perhaps even more if you consider a country of 5 to 1 white/black there are so many more white people with uncommon names than black people. So the negative impact cannot be considered in any way shape or form confined to a "particular race", at least using these resume studies.
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
I discuss two recent studies in this post. I think the difference in methodology and results is interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
Another possibility is that names like DeShawn trigger expectations about socio-economic status that are highly correlated to race but don't entirely reduce to race. The authors of the first study tried to use local addresses to signal socio-economic status (cf. p. 12), but it may be that the connotations of "weird sounding first name" overwhelmed that.
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.
07-11-2017 , 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
It's important to my argument that I'm not proposing this as some kind of abstract philosophical position on nominalism. I'm proposing it in the context of social science research, in which definitions like this have to be operationalized. In fact, my procedure for categorizing names is identical to the one used by all the studies, where the social categories in question are "white", "black", "male", and "female". So, for example, from the first and most well-known 2003 study:
I love your posts but lol at thinking nomad will be able to comprehend this.
07-11-2017 , 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
my son was born a few days ago
congrats
07-11-2017 , 06:09 PM
Congrats wil.
07-11-2017 , 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
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.

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?

Last edited by FoldnDark; 07-11-2017 at 07:06 PM.
07-11-2017 , 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Crispen
Forum banter aside, real talk, wil: Grats on baby
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey
congrats
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerodox
Congrats wil.
Thanks. He's perfect. Fun times.
07-11-2017 , 09:50 PM
Wow, nice job wil!

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

07-11-2017 , 09:54 PM
Quote:
You seem to have ignored my actual argument in favor of just baldly reasserting your position, while misrepresenting mine. You will note for example that I have not claimed that the name Shanika has any particular semantic connection to Christianity. Instead, the bulk of my post is an argument in favor of a use-based classification scheme over a semantic-content-based scheme in the context of the given research goals.
Let's look at it again....

Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
Yes. It's a name common to African Americans, about 85% of whom are Christians, a rate higher than for the general American population. It is not exactly uncommon knowledge that most black Americans are Christians.

A = Black People

B= Christianity

C= The name Shanika

Quote:
An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. Two types of association fallacies are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association.

Quote:
Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey
I love your posts but lol at thinking nomad will be able to comprehend this.
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).
07-11-2017 , 09:58 PM
Okay nomaddd, could you please define "Christian name"?
07-11-2017 , 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Wow, nice job wil!
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.

Quote:
Killer. If I had a boy, I'd name him willie, after the world's first tank:
Hah, I didn't know that. Interesting.
07-11-2017 , 10:01 PM
"Black" names being equal to "Christian" names is very interesting. For some reason it sounds like a generalization, though.
07-11-2017 , 10:06 PM
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?
07-11-2017 , 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey
Okay nomaddd, could you please define "Christian name"?
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.
07-11-2017 , 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomaddd
In case you missed it, I'm aware that racial discrimination occurs.

You bringing up HUD has led me to consider this:

If I'm looking at a tenet as an investment, or as a means of income, would it be wiser to go with someone who will not be discriminated against? As in, a black person is more likely to be unfairly incarcerated, or fired from their job unfairly, leading to unemployment, leading to inability to pay bills.

If all things are equal with the person, is it fair to say the risk profile of a black home buyer is riskier than a white person due to the discrimination a black person will face during their day to day lives?

Is it wrong to select a white person simply becasue they will face less discrimination than a black person? I think this is an interesting question. If I'm a landlord, should I ignore this risk for the greater good?
Got to discriminate against them before someone else does.

This guy just GTO'd racism.
07-11-2017 , 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
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?
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.
07-11-2017 , 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87
Got to discriminate against them before someone else does.

This guy just GTO'd racism.
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.
07-11-2017 , 10:29 PM
Conservatism is becoming the new liberalism of 30 years ago.

We are in for an interesting ride, folks. Strap in.
07-11-2017 , 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomaddd
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.
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?
07-11-2017 , 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
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.
07-11-2017 , 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomaddd
Q: Shanika is a Christian name?

A: Yes.

You are right, the guy simply stated its Christian because its a black name, because black people are 85% Christians.
Are you quite sure the claim supposed made was as such and particularity absolute?
07-11-2017 , 10:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
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.
07-11-2017 , 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomaddd
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.
07-11-2017 , 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey
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.
07-12-2017 , 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomaddd
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?

      
m