No it isn't but it's not a thread for attacking posters so don't be surprised if posts get deleted.

I think Joe got nuked for dunking on Mat.

The state of your favorite topic, social justice, is where it is because of the crowd of people who have gathered behind it. It's partially responsible for the current state of political disarray in this country. I'm sure they'll all just dismiss this hoax and throw that publication under the bus, just like they do everyone who ends up having second thoughts about their tactics, or who embarrasses them by not having a clue wtf they're talking about, and they'll continue on ignoring what the world thinks of them until there's nobody left to carry the mantle. Or maybe the cause can be salvaged somehow, when all the douches grow up.

You didn't really get my position, which is mostly my fault. I didn't say anyone who questioned the evidence was stupid or racist. I said that anyone who DENIED it was either stupid or racist. Questioning is fine. Pointing out weaknesses is fine. But that's not what I'm talking about, which is why I used a specific word to describe what is essentially knee-jerk gainsaying of anything that contradicts the view that racism is a thing of the past.


What's interesting is that not only do the people who claim that racial discrimination does not exist lack even the pretense of rigor, they also never try to prove their hypothesis with any experiment or anything more than broad appeals to "we had a black president." See the accumulated posts of Toothsayer for examples.

We can agree that there is a lot of crap science.

This post is an example of why you're a terrible poster.

You seem to have repeatedly and intentionally misstated the original poster's comment that someone needs to be stupid or racist to deny the evidence.

You have posted several times that it is reasonable, and even part of the scientific process, to question and challenge the evidence.

But you do yourself a disservice by mischaracertizing the original comment. Doing so tends to make someone look devious and disingenuous.

Maybe so, but around here JAQing off is the same as denial. Everyone knows this. It's certainly not a place to challenge the studies presented, and I'm only hoping that academia still is.

chezlaw's new thing is that after people make fun of him for blatantly allowing horrible racism in his forum he goes back, deletes the posts, and pretends they were never tolerated in the first place, like he just overlooked it.

The constant lying is again, the sort of thing that the admins maybe should've had more a problem with than any sort of political leanings. But chezlaw has the one specific political leaning that gets a lot of flaws overlooked.

You don't know what "challenging the studies" means in academia.

FoldN, why is that? Why are you emotionally invested in hopes and dreams that some ****ing alt-right social scientists will finally debunk the lie of institutional racism?

You cannot stop telling on yourself lol go back to ****ing SMP

Edit: also, I do deny that we have empirical evidence the job market is racially discriminatory. This is what WN and I were discussing. We have empirical evidence that may support the theory that the job market is discriminatory, but that evidence may be interpreted in more than one way. There is also empirical evidence in other studies (see freakinomics) that suggests names have zero effect on economic outcomes of people. This is empirical evidence that should be reconciled against that presented in the resume studies. There may be further evidence to be collected that confirms or disconfirms the theory.

The journal that published this was a pay-to-publish journal. The scandal says a lot more about that model of scientific publishing than it does about "social justice" research.

It would be interesting to see if a journal that doesn't require payment would accept a nonsense paper like this one. I wouldn't bet against it given how terrible and intentionally convoluted a lot of academic writing is.

Yep, speaking the truth can be terrible for those who don't want to hear it.

If by speaking the truth you mean crying all the time and throwing in whataboutisms, sure, you really got me there.

The freakonomics paper gives several theories as to how these two papers can be reconciled. The most convincing to me is that names would only have an effect at the stage of resumes. So a black person with a white name might make it past a resume screener, but not an in-person interview.

Race is the factor discriminated against, not names.

That's inferred, however, if even govt agencies and companies who are bound to certain hiring criteria based on diversity (meaning they are striving to hire a at least a certain number of minorities) demonstrate the same callback rate, and they do, then perhaps there is something beyond race involved. Freakonomics suggests class, politics of parents, and I think a few other things. I'm not sure if they considered something as simple as uncommon names stick out and distract from the body of the resume in ways common names dont.

Have they ever run a resume study with stereotypical black names against stereotypical white trash names (Candy, Brandi, Bambi, etc) or idiotic misspelled white names?

That's an excellent point actually.

These. People. Cannot. Stop. Telling. On. Themselves.

You know this is what that phrase means right? It's not an "around here" thing.

I think it means "just asking questions"? So to bring it back to the topic of the thread, if someone wants to question anyone in here who carries the torch for some social justice cause, or challenge any of the studies presented, they are immediately accused of JAQing off, racism, being conservative (same thing) etc. etc. This is demonstrated in this very thread.

I'm personally convinced there is some degree of racism in the job market, which along with many other historical reasons justifies affirmative action programs. I hope they are not necessary for ever. That does not mean I think all of these issues shouldn't be subject to strong criticism both within academia and the public sphere, something that appears to many people is simply stupid and racist. Judging by the constant reports of intimidation on campus of anyone who doesn't tow the line, I think it's fair to be concerned academia is going through some version of what happens on these forums.

FoldN, from St Louis, believes it's theoretically possible that there might be at least a tiny little smidgen of racism still out in the wild. But needs more evidence.

Here's a better article outlining the way "blasphemy" laws are beginning to take hold on some campuses. http://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/05/...ks-witch-hunt/

I think comments like the above are good indications of the demented thought processes that lead to the sort of brainwashing that has been going on for sometime in the social justice community.

The phrase "just asking questions" but even more so the term "JAQing off" refers to the technique used to frame accusations/denials/general trolling in the form of mere questions. The person doing it doesn't actually care about the answers rather than the insinuation the question carries.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

Right, and that is all anyone is ever doing when they ask questions about your religion. From the article above: