The costs of gay marriage

[Stoked]

I just realized that you have nothing serious to say and no point to make. Your'e just messing with me.

I mean, if you were being serious, the point would have so ludicrously stupid and counter-factual that I would have suspected someone else stole your account.

Yes I am messing with you but you did make that arguement. Colton just flipped it on you and I find that very funny.

 

[One Brow]

I think we are using different terms for private. I am using it as any person, business and/or organization not funded by the public or government thru tax money, subsidies, grants...

I agree. However, in addition to public funding, the law recognizes a status known as a public accommodation, that is, you offer your services to the public at large. If you want to discriminate, don't pretend to offer your services to the public at large.

 

[One Brow]

Yes I am messing with you but you did make that arguement. Colton just flipped it on you and I find that very funny.

How was it "flipped" on me? You say that as if I wouldn't want that standard applied to me. It should be applied to me.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Actually, your criticisms show both, in part by asking questions clearly addressed in the study on race. Further, they show that you feel the need to questions methods you have no knowledge of. It's quite clear why you keep saying that other people see what they wish to. It's projection.

https://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109

Yes my criticism do show both, but my hesitancy is and was well founded. As I read through your links, specifically the princeton one, I still see how it does not paint a full picture and can see how half a picture can appear much different than reality.

First off the main focus of this study is race, with the workplace being the "place" to study it and an added factor of criminal record thrown in.
While the study covered 1407 jobs, they used 6 teams and 13 testers, and while sometimes they use data from everything to prove a point, they mainly only report on 2 teams of 3 as well as some of the experiences and accounts from team members. Based on your direction One Brow, I will throw out any experiences written by these people as anecdotal just as my experiences and conversations with friends is also anecdotal.

The race of the testers is huge in what they attempt to do, and they specifically point out the race of the people hiring in their negative stories, but I see no data about the race of all of the hiring managers. Despite your attempt at humor in saying race of the people hiring doesn't matter because they are looking at the capabilities of the job applicants, it is obviously important enough to mention from the testers and Devah Pager and Bruce Western who did the analysis and writeup, but not important enough to include completely in the research. If every single person doing the hiring was white, that would be much different than 30%. If all of the positive responses for the black testers were from black hiring managers that throws another wrinkle into things. Also skin color of hiring managers can affect an applicant's body language. If they are more comfortable with a person of their own race, it will show in their body language and will make for an easier interview. If there is discomfort, it will come through. It's a two way street, despite your protests that only the skin color of the applicant matters, and it shows you have not really thought things through.

I'm not seeing the information for the other 4 teams. If there were 13 testers and 6 teams and we only saw info on 6 testers and 2 teams, that leaves most likely 3 teams of 2 and one team of 1?

This study proves only one thing for me. There are still individual cases of discrimination out there. It does not prove to me that it is widespread and does not prove anything else conclusively despite your jumping on the bandwagon and using it as scripture.

Because the capabilities of the job applicants are being determined by the managers doing the hiring, not the other way around.

Matters for what? If skin color affects how one person judges the competence of another, then it will have a big effect on managers judging job applicants, but little on applicants since they are not judging managers.

See above. Zoom back a little on the telescope. Sometimes to make sense of the detail you are zoomed in on, you need to look at the whole picture to see how the detail fits in.

What you think or feel doesn't change how your actions are perceived, it's internal. It can still affect how you choose your actions.

So, let me get this right... the gospel according to One Brow. It does not matter one bit what I think or feel. The only thing that matters is what other people think or feel about my actions. Self awareness, self control, and being comfortable in ones own skin means nothing if other people call your actions into question. Worry less about doing what you feel and think is right, but worry more about what people perceive you to be. It's all about perception and putting on a show for those around you. Don't be true to yourself, be true to what everyone else around you wants you to do and be. Change and shift with the tides and whims of what people want and think are important, don't change and shift according to your own convictions. Basically pull up anchor and go wherever the tides of the masses want to drag you?

Good.

I'm not so irony-impaired that I have missed seeing it in your last two posts. I'm choosing to treat them seriously, anyhow, since you seem to think that your irony also contains some legitimate points or mirrors what I am saying in some fashion, and fails in that spectacularly.

It doesn't matter what you think about your posts and actions. All that matters is the way I perceive your posts and actions, and I find that I am spot on and that you are hypocritical and play word games. Again, according to you it does not matter what you meant, or what you think... the only thing that matters is how I see it.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

This is merely a tu quoque designed to distract from my subject change. Mentioning my faults doesn't change my opinion of you.

I won't get what I want if I don't push for it. So, it's unlikely I'll stop pushing.



You're welcome. I am sure you will hear more of them in the future because I tend talk around in circles. As for your analysis of my reasoning skill and perspective, you should question them. I welcome it. You should also question your own, as I do mine. I think this conversation would be much more productive if you questioned your own reasoning skills and and then adopted mine.



At times, yes. I understand I am a bigot for not being tolerant of your views.



I have no doubt that is your understanding, even though I have said multiple times in this thread, and every recent thread other on similar topics, that I struggle with the same cognitive shortcuts and prejudices as everyone else. Perhaps you can explain why, even though I have stated multiple times that I am no different in this regard, you think that I feel I am different even though I act as if I am different?



You gave up trying to explain your position to me in the other thread without my making a single critical comment or pointed question (I asked a clarifying question that was obviously obtuse and meant to annoy rather than understand). If I were to guess at your motivations, it would probably include among them that you realized you couldn't justify your position to someone who is obstinately opposed religious belief, and therefore such criticism was inevitable. I agree this was likely, because I claim you hold misogynistic beliefs that you rationalize through your religion. My statement that your beliefs are misogynistic is a lack of understanding of your position, it comes from a surface level understanding of your position with absolutely no acceptance of faith or belief in communication with God. I can pretend I understand your position and call it ugly through my ignorance, but pretended understanding.



What about my actions (I presume you mean posts) would be different, if I felt that understand your position is important, but still strongly disagreed with that position, versus my current posting? What about my actions would be different if I treated you as a reasonable adult who held an ugly belief, versus my current posts? And I understand that my treatment of your views is exactly the opposite of what I expect from you toward my views.



IN one sense, you are correct. I will keep posting against racism, sexism, etc., and in particular post debating people who defend it, trying to persuade them to not be racist, sexist, etc. I don't wish to railroad people, but I won't let wrongness go unchallenged in an effort to be pleasant or well-liked (meaning I will railroad if I feel I must). In part, that's because there is never a way to challenge perceived racism, sexism, etc. that is considered polite. No matter what you say or how you say it, the person accused will always call out your impoliteness. Always.



I often confuse "dismiss" with "disagree". I never dismiss you intentionally, but it is part of my culture and hard to see. I will try to make more of an effort to make that clear.



The thing is, you were, and are, wrong about me being coy but are still right because it's all about what you perceive and not what is actually true. Even in this very thread, when colton said my words were hateful, my response was to evaluate that and try to find a way to say what needed to be said in a less hateful way but couldn't. Ten, or five, years ago I probably would have reacted differently. I still need to do better. However, I described how I have behaved in the past (at least, at times) and how I think I should behaved. Nothing coy about it. Frankly, if somebody points makes a really good point, I tend to pretend I don't know what they are talking about and try to move on. You free yourself of many things by assuming I am unreasonable.



I'm 90% sure you're joking here. However, for the other 10%, I'll treat it seriously.

I apologize that I used a poor word choice. While "kid" has no connection to childhood when used as a verb, I can see where in this discussion, you would have made that connection. I apologize for lifting you up in that fashion. I'll use other words from here on out, to make sure that I don't offer that impression again.



You are are correct, I would have decided that when I told my kid no. However, as I want to be seen as a freethinker, I have also committed myself to appearing to reevaluate my decisions based upon new input when someone else is around and then disagreeing with it after a bit of pretend thought. So, when I have new input that I have no reason to distrust, I reevaluate, disagree/dismiss, then continue on my charted course.



Why do you assume this about me? I guess you are telling me what you see based on my posting habits and conversation and deflective maneuvering. (I could be wrong, of course).



I never claimed I wouldn't say anything. IIRC, I claimed I might discuss it if I disagreed.

I had not thought about that. I agree we should be talking about the same thing, to the best degree possible. Could we start with one clarification? Are you saying you think there might be a difference in what we as racist/sexist/etc. actions, or are you saying that we disagree with the standard that makes those particular actions an act of bigotry, as opposed to, e.g., negligent or or ignorant (or both)?



Could you offer an example?

I'm deciding if this is an actual point we can discuss or if it is a red herring. I'm leaning toward actual point so will address it.

Yes, I'm surprised you finally addressed this after all of this time.
How about this, because you have been accusing people of making racist, bigoted, or misogynistic actions, recap for me your whole list and we will go from there.

I'll keep trying to improve if anyone is watching.



The whole point of why I would use a child in your analogy was that the child themself would not have the rational capacity to decide for themself when to buy candy bars, so you, as the adult, have to decide for them, AFAICT. So, there's no insult to children when I say you should be comparing disadvantaged groups to children. it's avoiding the insult, one with a long and deep cultural history, of saying the disadvantaged groups don't know what's best for them. But I am clearly intentionally avoiding the fact that the example had nothing to do with the child in the example, but had everything to do with the definition of abuse and how it could be defined differently between the accuser and the person accused.



You like being called a child of God, yes I can see that. My eyes have been opened and I can now see how being compared to a child in many ways is a good thing and I will no longer immediately jump to the conclusion that it is a negative thing.



The alternative is that you could go around offending people without intending to do so. My own thought is that you don't want to give offense, even unintentionally. I could be wrong and often am. I also understand that people need to be less sensitive and need to find less ways to take offense when there is no offense given. I will try to stop finding offense in everything around me. Thanks



You're welcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NCpyfSchNM

 

[Stoked]

How was it "flipped" on me? You say that as if I wouldn't want that standard applied to me. It should be applied to me.

And yet you were amazed when Colton showed you an example of you doing just that. If you want it applied to you then dont act stunned when it is.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

And yet you were amazed when Colton showed you an example of you doing just that. If you want it applied to you then dont act stunned when it is.

 

[Stoked]

OH I know. I just enjoy watching Brows fake surprise about it. Then some awesome spin that amounts to nothing.

 

[One Brow]

And yet you were amazed when Colton showed you an example of you doing just that. If you want it applied to you then dont act stunned when it is.

Amazed?

Never mind, you're just messing with me. Let me know if you have a point to make.

 

[One Brow]

Honestly, it's amusing that people think I'm being strange for acting in the manner I say people should act.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Honestly, it's amusing that people think I'm being strange for acting in the manner I say people should act.

The manner you say people should act? Oh, you're just kidding around again.

You are such a joker.

 

[One Brow]

Yes my criticism do show both, but my hesitancy is and was well founded. As I read through your links, specifically the princeton one, I still see how it does not paint a full picture and can see how half a picture can appear much different than reality.

Half? You're being far too generous. More like a thousandth, if that. It's one study in one city over one summer. Raqcism occurs in every city, every season, every year.

First off the main focus of this study is race, with the workplace being the "place" to study it and an added factor of criminal record thrown in.

Team 2 had the criminal record thrown in. Team 1 did not. Their data was complied separately.

While the study covered 1407 jobs, they used 6 teams and 13 testers, and while sometimes they use data from everything to prove a point, they mainly only report on 2 teams of 3 as well as some of the experiences and accounts from team members.

They never use data from all 6 teams, except for those specific numbers of 13 and 1407. Every graph present the results of an individual team. the other teams results were expected to be coveThat might have been clearer to you had you read the first footnote.

Based on your direction One Brow, I will throw out any experiences written by these people as anecdotal just as my experiences and conversations with friends is also anecdotal.

Actually, I said anecdotes do not combine to make data. Your friends struggling to find jobs is not data. The anecdotes in this study are not data, but this study also has data.

The race of the testers is huge in what they attempt to do, and they specifically point out the race of the people hiring in their negative stories,

Story on starting on page 3: race of another applicant mentioned, but not hiring manager
Story on starting on page 4: race of hiring manager not mentioned
Story on starting on page 7: race of hiring manager not mentioned
Story on starting on page 8: race of hiring manager mentioned indirectly, by reference to the the homogenity of the the enitre mangement staff, but not directly

Again, it's clear why you think other peole read what they want to see into things. It's projection.

If every single person doing the hiring was white, that would be much different than 30%.

Why? Be precise.

If all of the positive responses for the black testers were from black hiring managers that throws another wrinkle into things.

For that too happen, about one third of all the hiring managers would have had to be black, to account for blacks being hired at half the rate on a preferential basis. Based on demographic data in management, do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

Also skin color of hiring managers can affect an applicant's body language.

The study accounted for that, remember?

They were chosen on the basis of their similar verbal skills, interactional styles and physical attractiveness. Additionally, testers went through a common training program to ensure uniform style of self presentation in job interviews.

You're obviously grasping at straws, looking for any reason you can thibnk of to discredit this study.

... and it shows you have not really thought things through.

Considering you can't even present the content of the paper with any degree of accuracy, your accusation rings hollow.

I'm not seeing the information for the other 4 teams. If there were 13 testers and 6 teams and we only saw info on 6 testers and 2 teams, that leaves most likely 3 teams of 2 and one team of 1?

I think testers have been on more than one team.

This study proves only one thing for me. There are still individual cases of discrimination out there. It does not prove to me that it is widespread and does not prove anything else conclusively despite your jumping on the bandwagon and using it as scripture.

I wasn't aware that decades of research could be fairly characterized as a "bandwagon", and I have never treated this study as more than one among many, and the product of human flaws. I don't need a Scripture in my life, and it I didn't, it wouldn't be a study.

However, you do need one, don't you?

See above. Zoom back a little on the telescope. Sometimes to make sense of the detail you are zoomed in on, you need to look at the whole picture to see how the detail fits in.

I've been in the whole picture for long time now. Do you really think this study is an anomoly of some sort?

So, let me get this right... the gospel according to One Brow.

No, only the realization that humans are not telepathic. They can't read good intentions in your mind, nor mine. So, only your actions determine how you get perceived. It's obvious to anyone who doesn't bury their head in ther sand.

Self awareness, self control, and being comfortable in ones own skin means nothing if other people call your actions into question.

Self control leads to a change in action, and so can self-awareness. You can be too comfortable in your own skin, if it mean you act like a jerk to others.

Worry less about doing what you feel and think is right, but worry more about what people perceive you to be.

AKA The Golden Rule.

It's all about perception and putting on a show for those around you.

I was unaware that being considerate was just a show for you. I have heretofore thought that being considerate was a goal of yours.

It doesn't matter what you think about your posts and actions.

Exactly. If you say my words are hurtful to you, than I need to accept that they are, even if I don't mean any hurt by them. It's my responsibility to weigh that injury caused and make sure I do as little as possible. I'm honestly surprised if you don't agree.

All that matters is the way I perceive your posts and actions, and I find that I am spot on and that you are hypocritical ...

Until you name the hypocrisy, the action I recommend for you but do not attempt myself, the stand I set out for you but ignore myself, your accusation of hypocrisy is itself a word game.