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
Racism simply means that you take race into consideration. As far as seperating 'progressives' and the European nationalist parties, do a bit of research into the situation in France for a simple example.
How is this research racist
1) They entered the study defining their demographics and observations around race, not sampling data and seeing how it correlated to all factors
2) They adjusted resumes for cultural differences based on race, text book definition of racism
How is the assumption that race is a determining factor of culture racist? It's just fact.
You are also a racist. Please explain what cultural factors apply to a given race. Geographic placement determines culture in a significantly more profound manner then race ever could. This isn't a matter of my perspective, all of recorded history agrees on this point.
Have you realized that to call race "seriously overblown" demonstrates your whiteness?
Not in the least, it simply avoids ignorance.
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?"
Go to Germany in the 30s or 40s, go to the middle east today, head to France as a Muslim, or most of Europe for that matter. Am I saying that there are not hostile racists in the US? Of course there are, the assumption that this is a level of institutional power and supported in any meaningful way is rather absurd. Obama had more white people vote for him then black- that is the reality of the current situation in this nation. Yes we still have ignorant hostile racists in this country, both of the David Duke and the Lous Farrakhan variety.
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?
Anecdotal never proves societal, no matter who experienced it.
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?
Right there, you failed. You lack proper analytical skills for the topic at hand.
The fact that you don't understand why you can't submit two identical resumes to a job ad is incomprehensible.
They made the less cultural normal sounding names also have differences in their resume based on a supposed cultural difference.
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?
White people tested 25 markets, blacks tested 16. Perhaps math isn't your strong point, but I can tell you right now with absolute certainty that means they didn't visit all the same realtors. This is clearly spelled out in their paper, did you not read it?
Paired studies involving minorities and non-minorities means that when one person visited a realtor, the other person did too.
Whites tested 9 markets that blacks did not in that study, 15 that hispanics did not. I am fully aware of what a paired study entails- I can only assume if you are studying what you claim that you did not read the study. They made no secret of the flawed testing they used.
Racism is actually defined as considering race to be a primary, or THE primary determining factor, not simply a factor.
Not exactly.
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.
You acknowledge this yet the studies you quote do not. I can take any backwoods redneck and send him to a realtor saying he has a MBA from Harvard and send him to a realtor, that in no way means that he will be treated close to the same as would an actual MBA.
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?
Based on scientific method the studies are profoundly flawed, I have explained why. If you don't understand the difference between the numbers 16 and 25 I would reccomend some math courses. The study you quoted linking civilians playing video games as proof cops were more likely to shoot black people is far more of an insult to you then anything I could possible come up with. The fact that you yourself have now backed down and admitted that socio economic factors are more important then race is telling in itself. Anyone with the slightest level of knowledge on the topic knows that in the US socio economic factors are far more important then race, by a rather staggering amount. This is certainly not the case everywhere in the world, even in the 'progressive' nations.
Isn't it possible that the people that actually did the study(ies) know the same stuff you do and did a better job of collecting data than you would?
In this case absolutely not. One of the studies cited used civilians playing video games to prove cops shot real people. That doesn't require you to be published to spot the issue.
After all...they are the ones publishing studies, you (or your wife) are still learning about it.
My wife has already been published, I don't work in the poli sci field, but I am quite familiar with research methodology. The last paper my wife had published required a trip to Europe in order to complete her research(based on racial relations). What these people have done is published a political activist document under the pretense of research. If you have spent any time dealing with poli sci, you would realize that this is rather common.
I just remember statistics from high school
Heh, then you should know that you don't create floats that are completely unnecessary. Supposed paired testing with differences in the amount of markets tested? It doesn't work like that. Comparing resume success while changing backround data to skew for 'cultural differnces'? And then the study showing cops are more likely to shoot black people, that is akin to me auditing GM and proving that Visa filed false claims. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.