Black non-criminals almost as good as white criminals

[TroutBum]

I can't even get the overtechnical corrections of the hyperbolic correction right? I was fully sober when writing that too...

Right.

 

[franklin]

Right.

I'm a big fan and would love to see the work you could do on that post. TIA*



*by Advance, I mean advanced exit.

 

[Bronco70]

I wouldn't expect a guy who doesn't know the difference between a rainbow and a koke to be able to decipher human racial variance.

 

[TroutBum]

There are a lot of big words here, and I'm getting nervous. Talk to you all later!

 

[One Brow]

So get this, I've got a black dude for a client and when he calls, I can't understand a freaking thing he says. I have to ask him to repeat himself probably 10 times a conversation. Let's assume that I'm hiring someone to answer my phones and this guy calls or comes in for an interview. There is no way I'm hiring him to answer my phones. So, does this make me a racist?

Yes, because you seem to think being black is somehow relevant to this situation (not to mention that, if the person involved was raised in American, How they speak in a working capacity can be completely different from how they speak as a customer).

 

[One Brow]

I did think that it was a little presumptuous of them to think they could pick out three equally presentable characters.

Oviously, they could not choose blacks to be as presentable as whites. All they could do was control for things like cleanliness, clothing, literacy, grooming, etc.

I'd like to see felon v. felon v. felon and a few other mix and matches, just for fun. And maybe the racial makeup of the job interviewers would be interesting.

I agree, that would be interesting, and I'm not going to pretend the results of this study are absolute, definitive, or anything more than generaly indicative.

 

[One Brow]

The crux of my post was, I believe things like Affirmative Action just increase prejudice where it already exists. That is an indictment of those prejudices, not of AA.

My point was that a different aspect of those prejudices would decrease. Prejudice does not exist on a binary scale.

If there were more black doctors because the road to becoming a doctor was made easier for blacks than others, simply for the purpose of increasing the number of black doctors, and people knew it, it wouldn't change the minds of those who harbor prejudice.

1) Regardless of how difficult or easy it is to be a black doctor, those who are already actively prejudiced would assume such doctors are inferior. Those whose prejudice is more passive, or based on a lack of experience, will be lessened by being served by a competant black doctor much more than such prejudices would be increased by some abstract concept as "affirmative action". It is jhuman nature to to treat anecdotal experience as being more valuable than statistics or abstract concepts.
2) Making a small section of the road easier, in recognition of the greater difficulties on the rest of the road, is not making the road "easier".

But if there were more black doctors because they were given the same opportunities, that probably would (hopefully) change some of those minds.

Unfortunately, one man's "same opportunities" is another mans "easier road".

 

[One Brow]

In all seriousness I would love to see this same study performed on african american business owners, or indian, or jewish, or mexican, or Israeli, or Turkish. I just find it extremely prejudiced to assume or act as if caucasians are the only race that is prejudiced against other races.

There was not one word in the study about the races of the employers, that I recall.
1) I see no reason to think the results would be significantly different on any block-selected, randomely chosen group of employers with proportaional selection by race/ethnicity. If you think blacks, Indians, Jews, etc., don't all feed from the same set of cultural sterotypes that feed the minds of whites, yo udon't understand what racism really is.
2) That you assume since these are all employers, they must all be white, I suggest you look carefully at yor own set on assumptions.

 

[One Brow]

I can't even get the overtechnical corrections of the hyperbolic correction right? I was fully sober when writing that too...

You mean, changing "in them" to "around them"? My pleasure.

 

[BluesRocker]

Wow! A lot of racist people here

 

[Stoked]

Wow! A lot of racist people here

Go Blues go! Ride that horse! Ride it boy! WOOT WOOT

 

[franklin]

You mean, changing "in them" to "around them"? My pleasure.

I'm aware of Aztec, Zapotec, Mixtec, Olmec, and Toltec, but not Mexican. Are you trying to say something I'm not catching?

 

[The Shocker]

*by Advance, I mean advanced exit.

By advanced exit, you mean violently explosive diarrhea?

 

[franklin]

By advanced exit, you mean violently explosive diarrhea?

You're dying to talk about your stink fettish, eh?

 

[The Shocker]

You're dying to talk about your stink fettish, eh?

You have no idea.

 

[BluesRocker]

Franklin is the shocker.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Franklin is the shocker.

Whose Franklin?

 

[One Brow]

Mexicans have hispanic in them. They are not a hispanic race. That race comes from the other side of that great big ocean Saltair is built next to.

Since you asked for more detail, "Hispanic" is based on the culture where you are raised, not your genetic heritage. If two Swedes moved to Mexico/Nicaragua/Argentina/etc., then had a child and raised them there as a part of the general population, that child would be Hispanic.

 

[franklin]

That is incorrect.

 

[One Brow]

That is incorrect.

According to whom?

I mean, I'm just basing this based on the reporting requirementsfor the federal government, which 1) make ethnicity orthogonal to race, so you can be white/Hispanic or white/non-Hispanic, black/Hispanic or black/non-Hispanic, etc., and 2) link Hispanic to being immagrant or first-generation from an American country south of the USA. So, I could be wrong. I'm just curious what your source is for so stating.