After emancipation, reconstruction and every other law that was passed to help black people get past the hate of the white man and his total disregard for those laws, white privilege is still rules the day.
|
|
After emancipation, reconstruction and every other law that was passed to help black people get past the hate of the white man and his total disregard for those laws, white privilege is still rules the day.
I'm a white man and I love the black ****. Call me Bobby Kennedy.
as a white man i feel privileged to get my **** wet in a black girl's ****.
Reconstruction was arguably more destructive to blacks than anything done since. It caused an explosion of anger that turned into racism--and it was done to punish slaveholders. The worst thing for blacks and southerners was Lincoln's ****assination.Originally Posted by bruthaman
LoL with all the set asides affirmative action and minority preferences your still failing.
All those Uncle Thomas white guilt idiots shucking and jiving for their race baiting poverty pimp masters is hilarious.
The following users like this post: Gonzo
Not a hate crime.
The following users like this post: Gonzo
TLDW.... let me guess though, mostly bull****?
Dude sounds like Bruthaman.
White privilege? In 2013? What universe are you living in, Bruthaman?
It takes a real ****hole to think that being a white male doesn't kick ****.
I like it so much I wouldn't trade places with Barrack Obama.
It kicks about as much **** as being a black or latino or asian male.
I have never gotten pulled over for driving while black or jaywalking while brown. Can't say the same for a lot of minorities.
OOO you can do better than that. I bet a lot of minorities can say the same thing as you but hey you're white so they still have a chance I guess.
Papers, please.
Being male is arguably a bigger advantage today than being white.
False accusation.
Race is essentially irrelevant (except to Liberals who cant stop thinking about it) in our society. Social cl**** and culture are the deciding factors.
6 users like Sancho's post: DHF, EufaulaSooner, greensooner, JDShellnutt, oucub23, Tundra
Agreed.
And how many of those that have been were blatantly pushing their legal boundaries daring someone to "come at me bro!"?
That's right . . . nobody knows for sure.
what are you doing out of the kitchen?
I don't necessarily have a problem with this statement. But you are essentially saying race is irrelevant, race is a deciding factor.
So many people in the lowest social cl**** are minorities. Yes, people can climb out but it is not common.
Did you know that it takes weeks longer (if at all) for someone with an "African" sounding name to get a callback on a resume compared to someone with a white name? Things like that take their toll on a race of people and continue to doom many of them to a lower caste here in america.
Since I'm not another race or gender, how much "kick ****" do I have to compare it to?
I would venture to say it kicks **** to live in an advanced society, regardless of gender and/or race.
The following users like this post: KCRuf/Nek
If race was essentially irrelevent, Republicans would be comprised racial and ethnic groups that mirrored their percentage in society at large instead of being one or two failed attempts at disfranchising those groups from being in the dustbin of history.
What is an "African" sounding name?
http://www.babynames.org.uk/african-...baby-names.htm
http://names.mongabay.com/data/black.html
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
Don't be willfully dense.
My wife and I have talked about this several times. It seems that names tend to set a path for kids. It's not exclusive to race though.
If this were true, then why do people who put that they were in a traditionally black sorority or fraternity not get call backs either?
It actually is exclusive to race when hiring managers are twice as likely not to call someone back with an african american looking/sounding name given equal qualifications to a white named candidate. That's meaningfully exclusive to race.
On edit: Of course that was determined by a vetted and replicated scholarly study and not a conversation between spouses on a couch, so take it for what it's worth.
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
I worked at OU in the mid 2000s. I lived in Noble which is basically an all white town. I had several black friends come over to my house fairly frequently. Virtually every single one of them was pulled over by the Noble police on Etowah road on the way to my house after they pulled off of highway 77.
It was obviously racial profiling. I guess the police didn't think black people belonged in Noble.
What about when parents name their kids Oranga-jello and Yellowa-jello? Does that have an effect on the hiring process when they grow up?
The following users like this post: Gonzo
we don't like your kind around here boy?
In attempting to behave like a pretentious ****, you missed the point I was making. If the 'white' name is redneck sounding, he's likely going to suffer the same issues.
This is the point I was making. What are the call back frequencies between a kid named Laquan and a kid named Moonbeam? Or not even moonbeam--what about Bobby Joe, or Bubba? Are there a lot of Billy Bobs on Wall Street? Or Betty Sues? Why not?
Do you have a study to cite for this? When faced with evidence, why can't you accept that there is still institutional racism today and we can always strive to improve?
Also, if it were not exclusive to race, why do members of historically black Greek organizations also struggle to get call backs if they list membership on their resume?
Threats to validity my friend. I haven't been presented evidence, beyond someone saying, 'Studies show.' My background doesn't allow me to accept that as gospel. I need to know what the study tested. What names were used? Was there a research bias? Were they comparing a name like Shaniqua to a name like Joe? Have they done comparisons of names like Joe to names like Bubba? How about Shaniqua to Bubba? If so, have they done controls as well for gender discrimination? If so, what did those studies find? Most research is so poorly done that it's invalid--and even when the research itself is valid, the conclusions drawn from it many times aren't. This is the same thing Mallen and I bumped heads about with the gun accidents stat a few weeks ago.
I have a Korean buddy who used to drove a beat up civic when he first bought land out there on Etowah. He said he got pulled over all the time until all the cops recognized his car and knew who he was.
I believe it. Of course we are talking about a police department who had an officer who killed somebody while shooting at a snake in a tree.
I will also say that my friends were all told that they "crossed the center line" and were all questioned and released without incident
If I weren't on my phone I would post the 42 page study by Marriane Bertrand (University of Chicago) and Sendhil Mullainathan (Harvard) titled Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination. I had to read this in management cl**** at OU.
Here is the abstract
To demonstrate they are mistaken and their conclusions are wrong, the very least you should have to do is cite another peer reviewed study refuting my source.We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is ****igned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list Equal Opportunity Employer' in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social cl****, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.
As much as an **** (I chuckled at it though) as Aldebrand sounded like, he is right. This is a study done by two respected professors from two very well respected universities. You were just hanging out on a couch with your wife.
I don't think there is a shortage of William Robert's on Wall Street. There probably aren't as many Elizabeth Susan's but that due to more a gender discrimination issue.
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
That would make sense if the people who want to vote for a living were spread evenly among the various racial and ethnic groups... but they arent. Again, a reflection of culture.
Last edited by Sancho; 02-07-2013 at 12:48 PM.
Once again though, are there studies comparing Jamal and Bubba? My point is that there are preconceived opinions that accompany names--and it's not exclusive to race. I'm not arguing that Greg doesn't have a better shot than Jamal--I'm saying Greg also has a better shot than Bubba. I'd also like to see comparisons between Jamal and Bubba.
You're reading things that I'm not typing.
Take it a step further--the study is alleging racial discrimination in the labor market. Doing so based on names is an inherently flawed model. If you want to do that, have two guys both with generic names apply for the same job, the only difference being the check mark on the race line. That's a more valid racial flag than names--b/c there is a psychological component to names that I'm addressing.
Why? First it's all based on color and now it's name?
Which is it?
Kids with some of those names are doomed to get beat up . . .
You can make a similar statement about small town cops pulling over this type of car or that type of car if they don't recognize it or the driver regardless of their color . . . happens all of the time.
Racism of all kinds still exists today and unfortunately will always exist. Folks of color will be treated differently, folks of lesser means/education will be treated differently, "ugly" folks will be treated differently, stupid folks will be treated differently, fat folks will be treated differently, women will be treated differently, etc.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
