Racism- Sotomoyor

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: n yusef
I think this thread demonstrates that identity informs ideology. How many people of color deny the existence of systemic racism and its counterpart, white privilege? How many white people do the same? How many men deny the prevalence of sexism compared to women?

How can one claim to be capable of understanding the positions of entire groups of people, while rejecting the existence or prevalence of systems that are an obvious aspect of their realities? Racism and sexism pervade our society and indeed, this message board. Every other post I read is about how emotional and irrational women are, or how illegal Mexicans (all Latinos are assumed to be Mexican) are taking your jobs and stealing your healthcare. If I showed these posts to any women or people of color I know, they would see the same thing. Yet, many white men here see no sexism or racism.

There is an obvious disconnect, and that is precisely why the SCOTUS--and other political positions and institutions--needs to be diverse.

excellent point.

It should be made clear...BOTH sides of the aisle seek to make the SCOTUS diverse.

Reagan actively sought a female nominee. GWB selected harriet meirs.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

1.) If you want to discount the employment study, that's fine. You're going to have to explain yourself though.

They changed background data. They willingly corrupted a completely possible direct comparison by changing unnecessary variables to the question at hand.

How were their methods 'very clearly dishonest'?

Nothing stopped them from using identical qualifications with only the names being different outside of a political motivation.

It passed review just fine for one of the most prestigious organizations for economic research on the planet

You mean political idealogical organization, not economic. The study was also exceptionaly narrow in scope even given its's profoundly flawed methodology.

2.) You obviously didn't read the housing study either. All of the people participating in the study were volunteers with fictitious backgrounds, but whites were treated better. (you could even say preferentially). Are you attempting to argue that minorities have different and much higher standards for satisfaction in real estate transactions than whites? If so, what are you basing this on?

I did read the housing study- no quantification was placed on standards, no evidence to disparity in services given, nothing except level of satisfaction based on the perception of treatment. Given that the people participated looking for racial inequality, having volunteers carrying out the study with not scientific method provided for the results by default makes the study completely invalid before seeing any results.

3.) People in general are more likely to shoot black people than white people

Ranomly selected people were more likely to in a video game- try and focus on the reality instead of reaching a rather staggering degree.

While the researchers admit that it is possible police officers would behave differently I can find no evidence to suggest that this should be so.

In a video game? Honestly, I'm far more likely to shoot green people in a game then I am black, just I have been trained that black people are often allies, while green people are almost never on the same side. What exactly does that prove in the least? In a video game setting randomly selected people in a very narrow segment of hand chosen areas showed a disparity- how much of one would help a lot in narrowing down how those particular people in those very narrow areas responded to racial differences in a video game where you were supposed to shoot people.

I like how you cherry pick a single statistic from a group of information that overwhelmingly shows racial discrimination and decide that a single outlier somehow changes this conclusion? Blacks account for 35 percent of drug arrests, but 74% of people sentenced to prison for it. Nah, no institutional racism there!

What was the economic breakdown? Hard core racists, which you very clearly are(I would reccomend people look the word up before displaying ignorance ), may see things entirely based on race, but what was the comparitive breakdown of socio economic standings amongst those statistics? A guilty plee counts as a conviction, and furthermore pleading to a drug case will normally result in minimal if any jail time. Again, the racial differences in themselves don't mean a whole lot without corresponding numbers comparing the economic levels, but it wouldn't shock me if superior legal advice resulted in more people of a certain skin tone taking a plea.

Your disagreements with the studies appear to basically be "Well, I think it's crap" without any supporting evidence for why, along with a general ignorance that comes from just skimming the abstract without actually spending the time to read it.

I'm quite familiar with sound research methodology and economic trends are what I handle for a living. Political groups using methodology that would be laughed out of any respectable High School are certainly not something I would be relying on to back my discourses.

Huh, so now the NBER is a 'political, ideological organization'? Or did you just mean that's what they studied? They explicitly state that they are concerned with the study of economics and the NBER is a nonpartisn, nonprofit organization. 'Political group'? What? You are simply factually incorrect.

Your idea as to what would have made the job applications study 'better' is completely illogical and would have rendered the study worthless. You want them to use identical resumes? Since they were submitting multiple resumes to the same job ad, what would happen in reality is that the person screening the applications would see two of the exact same resume, only with different names, and any person with a modicum of intelligence would throw them both out as they would assume fakery. (correctly) Furthermore, the resumes were randomly assigned with more than 5,000 resumes sent to more than 1,300 job postings. Far more than enough to ensure that the assignments were truly random. It's not a methodological problem in the slightest.

If you're actually familiar with research methodology, it obviously isn't in any social science setting. Laughed out of high school, eh? What happens in high school when two kids submit the exact same homework?

As for your critique of the housing study, all I can say is 'huh?' again. You most certainly didn't read the study, because you only mentioned analysis in the abstract. Not only is the 'satisfaction' measure completely valid but there most certainly WAS evidence of disparity in services given, as detailed in the section on 'steering'. There was also a section on how black renters were told of housing availability less often than whites, both absolutely measurable standards. (among other things) No quantifiable what?

If you actually read the study as you claim, you obviously didn't read it very well. In all honesty we both know you're full of shit. At best you read it in a cursory search for something you could use to discredit it. When someone calls you out for not reading something, they have given you another chance to read it before you continue your claims. Next time you should use that chance.

I'll deal with your other accusations on the other studies later. I'm very glad you think I'm a 'hard core racist', but I'm willing to bet you're basing your ideas on that on similar poor research and crappy reasoning as you have in your analysis these studies. Feel free to explain yourself though.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

You don't think there's an inherent advantage in the fact that kids born into families with money to send them to college and live in areas with good schools are overwhelmingly white, while kids born into poor families are overwhelmingly black?

The majority of poor people in this country are white, it isn't even close.

Whites receive preferential treatment in employment.

From that laughable, at best, study-

The catch was that the authors manipulated the perception of race via the name of each applicant, with comparable credentials for each racial group.

And what were those modifications? As a study this one is discounted instantly by very clear dishonest methods from the outset.

Whites receive preferential treatment when searching for housing.

Nothing in that 'study' indicates anything resembling that, minorities have lower satisfaction when dealing with metropolitan real estate agencies is closer to the truth.

Blacks are more likely than whites to be killed by police, even in identical circumstances.

Did you read that link, at all? Actually, I guess what I should say here is you must have linked the wrong thing altogether. That article dealt with having random people playing a videogame, not a study about police shooting other people.

Blacks get stiffer drug penalties for the same crime

On the other hand-

? For all but the most severe offenses, whites were most likely to be convicted, but least likely to be sentenced to prison.

From the same article you linked. Whites are the most likely to get convicted. Hard core institutional racism right there.

Whites are only 1/3rd as likely to be searched by the police when stopped.

I guess that is the most accurate you linked, the others to be as kind as possible are laughable, although that completely ignores where they were pulled over and why. I would wager that you would get a far larger spread if you seperated it out by level of wealth then skin color.

oops

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

oops

Probably should have read further before posting, eh? Amazing that the guy who didn't read the studies was able to find problems with the studies that he just made up.

 

[theeedude]

Well, if Republicans want to stick to position that she is racist and defend that position to voters (including Hispanic voters they need to win anything nowadays), then I think all I can say, you go, guys!

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: brandonb

Originally posted by: n yusef
Racism and sexism pervade our society and indeed, this message board. Every other post I read is about how emotional and irrational women are, or how illegal Mexicans (all Latinos are assumed to be Mexican) are taking your jobs and stealing your healthcare. Yet, many white men here see no sexism or racism.

Many white men do see sexism and racism, they just don't bring up in public. Typically white men can't stand up for themselves or their race, and cower to someone calling them a "bigot." They just avoid the can of worms or the heat in the kitchen. I don't.

I work in a field where I can see who is stealing my healthcare. And I'm sorry to say, illegal mexicans are stealing our healthcare. I work in bill collections. I can give you statistics from a major hostpital in the Minneapolis area, which has a high hispanic and black demographic. Luckily their files include ethnic origin, and SSN# I can tell you the % of minorities vs whites who pay their bills, and which % of hispanics with no SSN are in bill collections. Over 80% of collections is minorities, and over 50% is mexicans. 50% of them have no SSN. To find Juan Gonzalez with no SSN and to collect money from him just isn't going to happen.

We even joke about doing collections for this hospital in my workplace, saying the demographics there are horrible and they have no chance in collecting money. Then they compare to a white area, such as Duluth, and compare to a hospital there, and its much easier to collect.

Is that racism on my part, my companies part, or just a fact? I'm sorry to say, minorities don't pay.

What's ironic though, the areas which have no ability to collect also have the highest paying insurance. That hospital in Minneapolis, to collect from insurance is way more profitable than collecting from the Duluth hospital. In the end we collect about the same...

Why is that? Why do benefits/social programs pay more for minorities, and white people have to pay on their own (and usually do compared to other races)?

You can imagine what Californias like. I'm suprised they don't go bankrupt....oh wait.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: n yusef
Did any of the white-privilege deniers read my post, where I linked to a study proving that having a white-sounding name made you 50% more likely to be called back than someone with a black-sounding name, with an identical resume?

Text

I read it and I believe it's accurate. I know I'm guilty. I have, at times, made a conscious effort to hire minorities but I have also passed over resumes which I assumed to be of a certain race. Most often it was done to meet a racial diversity quota which was an unwritten expectation of my employer at the time.

From my own experience, I've had more problems with black employees than whites, hispanics, and asians combined. That doesn't mean that all AA employees are bad but it will factor in if I'm skimming resumes and I don't make an effort to focus directly on the qualifications.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Huh, so now the NBER is a 'political, ideological organization'? Or did you just mean that's what they studied? They explicitly state that they are concerned with the study of economics and the NBER is a nonpartisn, nonprofit organization. 'Political group'? What? You are simply factually incorrect.

How much of a platform does NBER give for peer critique of findings? 80 years ago they were an honest research organization, that is far removed from the truth these days. I apologize if you were taught that political idealism is more important then accuracy in research, I understand that is a common theme amongst poli sci majors these days, but it doesn't change reality.

Furthermore, the resumes were randomly assigned with more than 5,000 resumes sent to more than 1,300 job postings. Far more than enough to ensure that the assignments were truly random.

Random except for the fact that they were completely invalid on their face. You can not introduce variables on an intentional basis and even try to pretend that your research has any validity at all. Anyone with any research experience at all knows this. There is plenty of statistical games you can play to get your research to say what you want without having to rig the data in advance.

If you're actually familiar with research methodology, it obviously isn't in any social science setting.

My wife is working on her doctorate in poli sci, one of her main focuses is on racial relations in modern settings. Their is pleny of evidence of racial inequities in the world built on research, but it apparently isn't the sort of thing you are interested in.

Laughed out of high school, eh? What happens in high school when two kids submit the exact same homework?

The homework is thrown out at least, even in public schools. Suspension and expulsion are the result at the more elite schools.

As for your critique of the housing study, all I can say is 'huh?' again. You most certainly didn't read the study, because you only mentioned analysis in the abstract

What more can you say outside of the abstract?

In particular, whites were more likely to receive information about available housing units, and had more opportunities to inspect available units.

They did not allow the people to speak in advance or afterwards, which means they were not given talking points or conversational guidelines. Furthermore, they tested results in different markets for whites, hispanics, blacks, asians and native americans. How can you analyze anything that absurd with anything but abstracts? Introduce hundreds of floating variables which could be controlled if the researchers were interested in honest analysis, give a very vague and utterly non scientific summation without controlled inquiry factors? The research you quote is laughable.

There was also a section on how black renters were told of housing availability less often than whites, both absolutely measurable standards.

If the preamble, talking notes and conversational guidelines were all followed, none of which were present in this study. If they had sampled the same realtors, same economic climates, same regions and same cities in this study, none of which were followed.

If you actually read the study as you claim, you obviously didn't read it very well. In all honesty we both know you're full of shit. At best you read it in a cursory search for something you could use to discredit it. When someone calls you out for not reading something, they have given you another chance to read it before you continue your claims. Next time you should use that chance.

Or perhaps you should look into proper methodology on research and how controlling variables is of the utmost importance, introducing as many floats as you can is exactly the opposite of what you do for accurate research.

You quote an extremely non scientific study of how typical civilians respond to a video game as evidence that cops shoot black people more often, and question my analysis? Perhaps you aren't displaying your proper form, but it would appear that you are rather out of your league in this discussion.

I'll deal with your other accusations on the other studies later. I'm very glad you think I'm a 'hard core racist'

Your pushing of race as a factor where there is no evidence at all to support your claims is a good starting point. Your quoting of a study on civilians playing video games where they are supposed to shoot people somehow being proof that cops shoot black people more often is another. The latter in particular is a rather extreme example of idealogical racism. For that matter, getting back to your jobs research they made adjustments based on race to adjust for cultural differences, the notion that race is a determininig factor of culture is also an example of racism by definition. You speak in a racist tone, you try and spread racist propaganda, and you quote racist research. Being a racist doesn't mean you hate any particular group, but what I have seen you exhibit is an attempt to explain societal issues with race as the main issue first. Race is actually a miniscule factor in this country compared to many other regions in the world, including a good deal of Europe. Poorly done research by political activist groups are doing nothing to better the perception, more disturbingly they are only prolonging inequity as resources that could be used to deal with the actual real issues(education being the biggest factor) are instead being used to curtail a 'serious issue' that is seriously overblown today.

 

[OCGuy]

LOL @ the resident racists. It is always the same idiots.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Your pushing of race as a factor where there is no evidence at all to support your claims is a good starting point. Your quoting of a study on civilians playing video games where they are supposed to shoot people somehow being proof that cops shoot black people more often is another. The latter in particular is a rather extreme example of idealogical racism. For that matter, getting back to your jobs research they made adjustments based on race to adjust for cultural differences, the notion that race is a determininig factor of culture is also an example of racism by definition. You speak in a racist tone, you try and spread racist propaganda, and you quote racist research. Being a racist doesn't mean you hate any particular group, but what I have seen you exhibit is an attempt to explain societal issues with race as the main issue first. Race is actually a miniscule factor in this country compared to many other regions in the world, including a good deal of Europe. Poorly done research by political activist groups are doing nothing to better the perception, more disturbingly they are only prolonging inequity as resources that could be used to deal with the actual real issues(education being the biggest factor) are instead being used to curtail a 'serious issue' that is seriously overblown today.

Without getting into arguments about methodology, I find great fault with this paragraph.

How is eskimospy racist? Particularly, what makes his racism "ideological?" From my understanding, "ideological racism" is a term used to describe an ideology like that of the KKK or the European nationalist parties. eskimospy presents a very common progressive position, and one that should be recognizable to you, or at least to your wife, if she is studying race at the PhD level.

Finding racism where you do not does not make him a racist, it just makes him find racism where you do not. eskimoyspy's posts have not fulfilled any definition of racism that I have ever encountered. Furthermore, what is a "racist tone?" How is this research racist, besides the fact that you called it racist? Could you provide your definition of "racism," because there are many and you are being very vague.

How is the assumption that race is a determining factor of culture racist? It's just fact. Racial groups have distinctive subcultures. Individuals can decide reject this culture, but as a very accurate generality, race is a major factor in determining culture.

Finally, with what authority do you claim that race is a "minuscule factor in this country?" Just because you consider it a "minuscule factor" does not make it so, and does not make it so for everyone. Have you considered that race may not be such a "minuscule factor" to people of color? Have you realized that to call race "seriously overblown" demonstrates your whiteness? The vast majority of people of color disagree with this assessment. Are we all wrong? Who are you to decided which issues are "actual" or "real?" What are your qualifications? Why should I believe you over my own life experiences, those of every person of color I know, and the writing of many wise people of color?

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: OrByte
wait wait... so all of the hoopla over her comment about her being a Latina judge she was at a CONFERENCE about being a LATIN Judge at the time!?!??!

holy crap.

here is another of her comments at the same conference:

America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl" -- a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity - is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puertorriqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.

So...I guess since she loves being a Latina she is racist because she....loves being Latina?!

you people that think she is racist for her comments need to grow the fvck up.

So if John Roberts or Sam Alito had said "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a Latina women who hasn't lived that life" you wouldn't have had any problem with that?

I would agree with him.

A wise white man with the richness of his experience would make a better decision maker than anyone that hasn't lived that life.

Meaning: Someone not wise and with no richness in his or her experiences. Whether that be a latina woman or a black man or whatever.

Maybe you (And others that are feigning outrage) weren't REALLY reading the quoted comment eh?

Perhaps it's you who needs to read the quote again, since what you claim to agree with is not even close to what Sotamayor actually said. She didn't just compare someone with rich experiences with one who has none, she expressly compared white men with Latina women, with the implication that being a Latina woman gives one an advantage in terms of wisdom and experience when compared to a white man.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: newnameman
Perhaps it's you who needs to read the quote again, since what you claim to agree with is not even close to what Sotamayor actually said. She didn't just compare someone with rich experiences with one who has none, she expressly compared white men with Latina women, with the implication that being a Latina woman gives one an advantage in terms of wisdom and experience when compared to a white man.

You don't think that race or gender impart any perspective on the world? This thread proves otherwise--primarily, that many white people deny the existence or prevalence of racism in America.

Let me quote myself:

White men do have less experience than other people in certain situations. For instance, how many men, white or otherwise, have experience being a thirteen year-old girl? The SCOTUS recently heard oral arguments on a case about a thirteen-year-old girl who was strip-searched by her school because she was accused of possessing ibuprofen. The male Justices thought nothing of this, and compared it to stripping in the locker room of a gym class.

In Justice Ginsburg's words, "They have never been a 13-year-old girl," Ginsburg said. "It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: newnameman
Perhaps it's you who needs to read the quote again, since what you claim to agree with is not even close to what Sotamayor actually said. She didn't just compare someone with rich experiences with one who has none, she expressly compared white men with Latina women, with the implication that being a Latina woman gives one an advantage in terms of wisdom and experience when compared to a white man.

You don't think that race or gender impart any perspective on the world? This thread proves otherwise--primarily, that many white people deny the existence or prevalence of racism in America.

Good job replying to something that's not even close to what I wrote. Nice strawman.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: newnameman
Perhaps it's you who needs to read the quote again, since what you claim to agree with is not even close to what Sotamayor actually said. She didn't just compare someone with rich experiences with one who has none, she expressly compared white men with Latina women, with the implication that being a Latina woman gives one an advantage in terms of wisdom and experience when compared to a white man.

You don't think that race or gender impart any perspective on the world? This thread proves otherwise--primarily, that many white people deny the existence or prevalence of racism in America.

Good job replying to something that's not even close to what I wrote. Nice strawman.

It's not a straw person. If one thinks that race and gender impart perspective and inform one's worldview, it's not a stretch to say that a Latina has some wisdom and experience (such as that of being a thirteen-year-old girl) that a white man does not have.

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: newnameman
Perhaps it's you who needs to read the quote again, since what you claim to agree with is not even close to what Sotamayor actually said. She didn't just compare someone with rich experiences with one who has none, she expressly compared white men with Latina women, with the implication that being a Latina woman gives one an advantage in terms of wisdom and experience when compared to a white man.

You don't think that race or gender impart any perspective on the world? This thread proves otherwise--primarily, that many white people deny the existence or prevalence of racism in America.

Good job replying to something that's not even close to what I wrote. Nice strawman.

It's not a straw person. If one thinks that race and gender impart perspective and inform one's worldview, it's not a stretch to say that a Latina has some wisdom and experience (such as that of being a thirteen-year-old girl) that a white man does not have.

And by that logic a white man would have some wisdom and experience (such as that of being a thirteen-year-old boy) that a Latina woman would not have. That wouldn't make the white man's experience any better or richer, nor would it necessarily lead to "better conclusions" as Sotamayor claims. It would simply be different.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Huh, so now the NBER is a 'political, ideological organization'? Or did you just mean that's what they studied? They explicitly state that they are concerned with the study of economics and the NBER is a nonpartisn, nonprofit organization. 'Political group'? What? You are simply factually incorrect.

How much of a platform does NBER give for peer critique of findings? 80 years ago they were an honest research organization, that is far removed from the truth these days. I apologize if you were taught that political idealism is more important then accuracy in research, I understand that is a common theme amongst poli sci majors these days, but it doesn't change reality.

Furthermore, the resumes were randomly assigned with more than 5,000 resumes sent to more than 1,300 job postings. Far more than enough to ensure that the assignments were truly random.

Random except for the fact that they were completely invalid on their face. You can not introduce variables on an intentional basis and even try to pretend that your research has any validity at all. Anyone with any research experience at all knows this. There is plenty of statistical games you can play to get your research to say what you want without having to rig the data in advance.

If you're actually familiar with research methodology, it obviously isn't in any social science setting.

My wife is working on her doctorate in poli sci, one of her main focuses is on racial relations in modern settings. Their is pleny of evidence of racial inequities in the world built on research, but it apparently isn't the sort of thing you are interested in.

Laughed out of high school, eh? What happens in high school when two kids submit the exact same homework?

The homework is thrown out at least, even in public schools. Suspension and expulsion are the result at the more elite schools.

As for your critique of the housing study, all I can say is 'huh?' again. You most certainly didn't read the study, because you only mentioned analysis in the abstract

What more can you say outside of the abstract?

In particular, whites were more likely to receive information about available housing units, and had more opportunities to inspect available units.

They did not allow the people to speak in advance or afterwards, which means they were not given talking points or conversational guidelines. Furthermore, they tested results in different markets for whites, hispanics, blacks, asians and native americans. How can you analyze anything that absurd with anything but abstracts? Introduce hundreds of floating variables which could be controlled if the researchers were interested in honest analysis, give a very vague and utterly non scientific summation without controlled inquiry factors? The research you quote is laughable.

There was also a section on how black renters were told of housing availability less often than whites, both absolutely measurable standards.

If the preamble, talking notes and conversational guidelines were all followed, none of which were present in this study. If they had sampled the same realtors, same economic climates, same regions and same cities in this study, none of which were followed.

If you actually read the study as you claim, you obviously didn't read it very well. In all honesty we both know you're full of shit. At best you read it in a cursory search for something you could use to discredit it. When someone calls you out for not reading something, they have given you another chance to read it before you continue your claims. Next time you should use that chance.

Or perhaps you should look into proper methodology on research and how controlling variables is of the utmost importance, introducing as many floats as you can is exactly the opposite of what you do for accurate research.

You quote an extremely non scientific study of how typical civilians respond to a video game as evidence that cops shoot black people more often, and question my analysis? Perhaps you aren't displaying your proper form, but it would appear that you are rather out of your league in this discussion.

I'll deal with your other accusations on the other studies later. I'm very glad you think I'm a 'hard core racist'

Your pushing of race as a factor where there is no evidence at all to support your claims is a good starting point. Your quoting of a study on civilians playing video games where they are supposed to shoot people somehow being proof that cops shoot black people more often is another. The latter in particular is a rather extreme example of idealogical racism. For that matter, getting back to your jobs research they made adjustments based on race to adjust for cultural differences, the notion that race is a determininig factor of culture is also an example of racism by definition. You speak in a racist tone, you try and spread racist propaganda, and you quote racist research. Being a racist doesn't mean you hate any particular group, but what I have seen you exhibit is an attempt to explain societal issues with race as the main issue first. Race is actually a miniscule factor in this country compared to many other regions in the world, including a good deal of Europe. Poorly done research by political activist groups are doing nothing to better the perception, more disturbingly they are only prolonging inequity as resources that could be used to deal with the actual real issues(education being the biggest factor) are instead being used to curtail a 'serious issue' that is seriously overblown today.

Hey, I'm working on my Ph.D in poli sci too. Small world, eh? Your ideas about how research is conducted in a social science setting are baffling to say the least. I don't even know where to start.

I can't possibly fathom how you would think they introduced new variables in the race and employment study. So what if they added things to the resumes? It couldn't matter less, because the efficacy of a particular resume wasn't the variable being tested. Every name had an equal chance of being paired with every resume, therefore the actual content of each resume was meaningless. To say they were somehow invalid on their face is simply false. They could have added in witty limericks and drawings of Marvin the Martian and it wouldn't matter. You just don't know what you're talking about. The fact that you don't understand why you can't submit two identical resumes to a job ad is incomprehensible. In such a case anyone who is actually paying attention would throw all those resumes out as fakes. This really isn't that hard. It's not perfect, but you can't be perfect in social science. That's why you have a large n.

As for your ideas on the housing study, they're also nuts. Each pair did visit the same realtor, how many pairs would you want to visit the same guys? They confined the study to specific geographical areas as well, but that is actually a limiting factor on its explanatory power, not a plus. Do you know what paired testing is? Do you even understand what the study is attempting to measure?

I noticed how you conveniently ignored that you were busted on not reading the study, by the way. This was once again proven by your complaint that they didn't have a standardized conversational procedure... which the study specifically mentions that they did. (hell, the guidelines are even included in the PDF) Once again, I highly encourage you to actually read what you are attempting to discredit. It might even help you come up with some valid criticisms instead of the wild flailing you're doing now. If nothing else, it would prevent you from embarrassing yourself further and I think we can both agree that's a good idea.

Paired studies involving minorities and non-minorities means that when one person visited a realtor, the other person did too. Since they were studying these effects nationwide, you would not want to keep revisiting the same realtors time and time again, because that would be a fantastic waste of resources. The racism of individual real estate organizations was not what was being measured, and so to do that would once again have been completely illogical. Your ideas on what would improve these studies would completely destroy them or render them inviable.

I guess I should have known that you would be nuts after you decided that the Urban Institute and NBER were ideological institutions attempting to push an agenda, I mean you know better than Housing and Urban Development, your wife is a political science grad student after all. Calling these groups 'political activist groups' does nothing to discredit them, but a lot to discredit you.

It's nice to see that your idea of why I'm a racist pretty much followed exactly what I predicted. Racism is actually defined as considering race to be a primary, or THE primary determining factor, not simply a factor. Everyone knows that your perceived race has SOME impact on your life, just the degree to which it does is what is open for debate. I never stated anywhere that I considered race to be the primary factor, in fact as you mentioned several times socioeconomic status is a far more powerful determinant than race. That doesn't mean that race has no effect as several people in this thread have stated however, and that's what I was arguing against. Why do you think I was talking about race in this thread? Maybe because this thread was about racism, and to talk about its effect on society I don't have to list all the other things that affect you more first. Furthermore, nowhere do these studies claim that race is the primary determinant, but I will forgive you for this mistake as it seems that your definition of racism was simply flawed.

You jumped into this conversation before you were ready, and with very shallow (and factually wrong) critiques of studies by prestigious institutions, partially caused by your failure to read the subject material before commenting. Then you start foaming and frothing, calling people racists, etc. Is this really necessary? It's just tiring really.

EDIT: TL;DR version: You still haven't actually read the studies you're complaining about, your ideas for how to conduct social science experiments are either self defeating or impossible to implement, and you drew a whole bunch of unwarranted conclusions about what I think. I'm sure you're a smart guy, but all the intelligence in the world won't help you pass a test if you haven't read the book. I suggest you do so.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know fat white guys with Aspergers syndrome is one of the fastest growing minorities in this country and by far the majority of members in this and other Anandtech Forums.They also tend to be Republicans and resent other minorities.

Hmmm...kind of sounds like someone here.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You know fat white guys with Aspergers syndrome is one of the fastest growing minorities in this country and by far the majority of members in this and other Anandtech Forums.They also tend to be Republicans and resent other minorities.

Hmmm...kind of sounds like someone here.

Birdie num num?

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Don't get me wrong, I think that she will make a fine cheif justice and most of her statements suggest that she will make judgments based on law not politics. That said, I am getting a bit irritated at the openly racist statement coming out of some folks lately. She states that her experience as a latino female would lead to wiser choices than that of a white male. Flip those demographics and every one would be on you like flies on dung.

Why is it acceptable to assert that as a white male, I am privileged and culturally biased. I have had no special advantages. I went to public school in a mixed race suburb. I worked my way through school. Neither, I or any of my ancestors ever owned a slave.

Reverse racism is just as bad as racism.

Well first of all if you read her statement in context it is talking about the value of experience, not how whitey sucks.

Second of all, you most certainly have had special advantages for being white, you just haven't been aware of it. Study after study shows that there are explicit, institutional advantages for being white. They aren't your fault, but you should be aware of them.

Reminds me of my first wife. She was rejected for entrance into a particular Masters degree program, and the counsellor suggested she re-submit her app to reflect she is hispanic (mother is Portugese), so she did. She was accepted.

Many advantages to being white I guess, huh?

You make a good point...but you have to admit that a majority of people who have been through masters programs are probably white.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: mattpegher

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: mattpegher

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Don't get me wrong, I think that she will make a fine cheif justice and most of her statements suggest that she will make judgments based on law not politics. That said, I am getting a bit irritated at the openly racist statement coming out of some folks lately. She states that her experience as a latino female would lead to wiser choices than that of a white male. Flip those demographics and every one would be on you like flies on dung.

Why is it acceptable to assert that as a white male, I am privileged and culturally biased. I have had no special advantages. I went to public school in a mixed race suburb. I worked my way through school. Neither, I or any of my ancestors ever owned a slave.

Reverse racism is just as bad as racism.

Well first of all if you read her statement in context it is talking about the value of experience, not how whitey sucks.

Second of all, you most certainly have had special advantages for being white, you just haven't been aware of it. Study after study shows that there are explicit, institutional advantages for being white. They aren't your fault, but you should be aware of them.

I contend that those studies are biased, as I have nothing in this world that I have not worked very hard for.

I don't doubt that you've worked hard to get where you are. Regardless, you are alleging a wide ranging conspiracy among numerous different researchers ranging from private citizens, academia, even research done by the federal government. You are claiming they are all using biased methodology? That's quite an extraordinary claim, on what evidence are you basing this?

I base it on my life experiences. Throughout my life, I have been held to a standard that has been modified for those who fit certain demographics. I have had to pay every cent of my education (still paying) while many others recieve grants and scholarships that are based on race or gender.

I donot contend that others do not recieve the negative impacts of racism from "white male" society, but that to move beyond racism, we must avoid all racism even reverse racism. Two wrongs do not make a right.

whether or not you have to pay is based on income..not race (FAFSA)

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: n yusef

I wrote an entire post on a broad thesis and you responded to a small segment of one subpoint. I won't derail this thread with a discussion of healthcare or undocumented immigrants.

Awesome. Like I haven't heard that response before. The typical "When I have no defense, I'm just not going to respond, and keep spinning spinning my bullshit, even though people continue to poke holes into my argument."

Read 2 posts down from you, Craig can say something intelligent! Craig has my respect.

In response to Craig:

Originally posted by: Craig234

You wouldn't trade places for all the tea in China with one of the poor Mexicans, illegal or legal, who are far more impoverished than you are, but you are 'the victim'.

Let's not waste the time as you might want to react with how the inequities are so fair as you try to defend your advantage - it's nonsense and ugly.

That's a form of racism, when you look at the poor hordes of another race and see not opportunity for improvement and equality, but lesser people who should be poor.

You are absolutely right.

But I don't think its racism to turn a blind eye to other people's problems. It's called, white men cannot support the weight of the world on their shoulders. We are 60% (and shrinking) of America. With the amount of money we have, and give out in aid (either domestically or foreign) for all types of programs just can't happen anymore. Not because of any racial reason, but because it just can't be sustained. We are the ones who provide that, remember, all minorities are poor and disadvantage. We're footing the bill here.

With white men losing power (not that I care, Sotomoyor can be elected, I have no problems with it), things are generally going to get worse for us. Obama, Sotomoyer, fine, whatever. Doesn't really affect me much. But at some point we'll reach a saturation point, and things will start to change. Obama = Change, he's right. Not necessary the change I want. So far nothing has really changed much in my life. Maybe it never will.

I know some people on here don't care if white men lose power and are forced down a peg on the totem pole, while others go up. Its a fact of life. Is it racism to want to preserve your quality of life and to appoint people into power who are part of your culture group? Apparently it's ok when a hispanic is appointed, but to say I want a white man there is racism. Is it wrong for white's to want to sustain their quality or life and to remain where they are at on the totem pole? Poor illegal immigrant mexican's can fend for themselves, they jumped the border with nothing but the clothes on their back, they have to figure out what to do to survive. They took that risk, I didn't...

I'm in the position to say that if someone believes white's should move down a peg on the totem pole just because they are white is wrong... And some are saying that should happen. That's just as racist as me wanting to preserve my white culture and quality of life.

Don't confuse "the victim" with wanting to preserve.

Oh, and I should mention so nobody is confused. I do consider myself a racist, and I don't think it's a bad word. No, I don't think harm should be done to another race. I mainly just want to live around people of my own kind. And according to stat's we all share that feeling, generally.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Don't get me wrong, I think that she will make a fine cheif justice and most of her statements suggest that she will make judgments based on law not politics. That said, I am getting a bit irritated at the openly racist statement coming out of some folks lately. She states that her experience as a latino female would lead to wiser choices than that of a white male. Flip those demographics and every one would be on you like flies on dung.

Why is it acceptable to assert that as a white male, I am privileged and culturally biased. I have had no special advantages. I went to public school in a mixed race suburb. I worked my way through school. Neither, I or any of my ancestors ever owned a slave.

Reverse racism is just as bad as racism.

Well first of all if you read her statement in context it is talking about the value of experience, not how whitey sucks.

Second of all, you most certainly have had special advantages for being white, you just haven't been aware of it. Study after study shows that there are explicit, institutional advantages for being white. They aren't your fault, but you should be aware of them.

Reminds me of my first wife. She was rejected for entrance into a particular Masters degree program, and the counsellor suggested she re-submit her app to reflect she is hispanic (mother is Portugese), so she did. She was accepted.

Many advantages to being white I guess, huh?

You make a good point...but you have to admit that a majority of people who have been through masters programs are probably white.

Remove the restrictions of Affirmative Action and watch Asians take the lead.

Should Colleges Have Quotas for Asian Americans?

Chin said "Chinese and ALL Asian Americans are PENALIZED for their values on academic excellence by being required to have a HIGHER level of achievement, academic and non-academic, than any other demographic group, especially Whites, in order to be admitted to Harvard, the Ivies and the other Elites in this zero-sum game called admissions based on racial preferences."

This may not be intended as a quota system, but Chin says it sure looks like one. He notes that in the 1980s some colleges, particularly Stanford and Brown, looked hard at their admissions decisions and discovered they were turning down many Asian American applicants while accepting white applicants with virtually the same characteristics. The Brown report admitted to "cultural bias and stereotypes," like the oft-heard canard that Asian American students have 1600 SAT scores and play the violin, but don't do sports.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
I am not saying that these things do not exist, but it is not on large enough scale to make real difference in life outcomes.

That's awfully white of you to say. :roll:

Originally posted by: charrison
Well like I said there may be some bias, but not enough to really matter. Dont commit crime and you wont get any jail time. Have good credit and you will find someone to get loan from. There is always going to bias and racism no matter what we do.

What a cop-out. "Let's just give up, because there's nothing we can do." :thumbsdown:

Actually, the more I think about it, the more Charrison's responses in this thread really prove Sotomayor's point. Which is this: if I was setting out to learn about what it's like to suffer discrimination, racism and bigotry in America, I certainly wouldn't go ask some white guy.

I am willing to bet that I am far more colorblind than any of the libs on this forum. Racism is largely dead in this country and all people should be treated fairly. Lets not assume one is better than another for any skin deep reason.

That WASN'T my point. My point was that if I wanted to know what it was like to experience bias, racism, bigotry and intolerance, I certainly wouldn't go ask a white dude about it. Meaning you. I wouldn't ask YOU, because YOU have NOT experienced it. Get it?

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: mattpegher

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: mattpegher

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: mattpegher
Don't get me wrong, I think that she will make a fine cheif justice and most of her statements suggest that she will make judgments based on law not politics. That said, I am getting a bit irritated at the openly racist statement coming out of some folks lately. She states that her experience as a latino female would lead to wiser choices than that of a white male. Flip those demographics and every one would be on you like flies on dung.

Why is it acceptable to assert that as a white male, I am privileged and culturally biased. I have had no special advantages. I went to public school in a mixed race suburb. I worked my way through school. Neither, I or any of my ancestors ever owned a slave.

Reverse racism is just as bad as racism.

Well first of all if you read her statement in context it is talking about the value of experience, not how whitey sucks.

Second of all, you most certainly have had special advantages for being white, you just haven't been aware of it. Study after study shows that there are explicit, institutional advantages for being white. They aren't your fault, but you should be aware of them.

I contend that those studies are biased, as I have nothing in this world that I have not worked very hard for.

I don't doubt that you've worked hard to get where you are. Regardless, you are alleging a wide ranging conspiracy among numerous different researchers ranging from private citizens, academia, even research done by the federal government. You are claiming they are all using biased methodology? That's quite an extraordinary claim, on what evidence are you basing this?

I base it on my life experiences. Throughout my life, I have been held to a standard that has been modified for those who fit certain demographics. I have had to pay every cent of my education (still paying) while many others recieve grants and scholarships that are based on race or gender.

I donot contend that others do not recieve the negative impacts of racism from "white male" society, but that to move beyond racism, we must avoid all racism even reverse racism. Two wrongs do not make a right.

whether or not you have to pay is based on income..not race (FAFSA)

I beg to differ. My parents were certainly not poverty level but low middle class. I was able to earn about 4 grand a year to pay for undergrad while living in my parents home. They were not able to contribute to my education, being just barely able to afford to raise, feed and house the family, on a paycheck to paycheck basis. They certainly were not able to contribute to Medical school for which I borrowed 130k. I recieved no assistance except a few federally subsidized loans during undergrad, which anyone can get. No scholarships no grants. I have seen many minorities who have had their education subsidized by grants and scholarships for which I was not eligible. Correct me if I am wrong but didnt Sotomoyor recieve significant assistance in her educational expenses, how did she pay for yale.
I know she got a scholarship for princeton, but who gave it to her was it entirely merit based. I know several valedictorians with 1400 sats who couldn't go to princeton, one who's brother was an assistant professor at the university.

 

[alphatarget1]

I don't think she is racist. I do think it's a very bad choice of words coming from a judge.

If she said something along the lines of "a person who grew up in a well off family" instead of "white male" there would be no issue.

As for racism, I don't think any of us are arguing that racism does not exist in this country. My opinion is that policies such as affirmative action and welfare in its current form has no place in this society, and it has been an utter failure to improve socioeconomic gap amongst our different ethnic groups. I blame that on liberals who implemented them without thinking things through.