@no1marauder saidThe market decides what services are worth. It wouldn't be bothersome that you felt you knew better if you were willing to treat all people equally. However, you already professed that you in your infinite wisdom can take away a job from one person and give it to another person simply because you feel certain races deserve scare resource more than other.
It's his religion; it doesn't require evidence.
The mere fact that people get paid different rates for the same work depending on where they do it refutes his religious belief. Wage rates are based on bargaining power and bargaining power is usually determined by social, legal and cultural factors having very little to do with the actual value of the work.
People w ...[text shortened]... was worthless and eventually caused a global economic meltdown. Similar examples are almost endless.
@quackquack saidWhat part of the evidence that I showed you did you miss? It shows that injustices continue to exist and that laws meant to equalize opportunities have had limited effect because of systemic racism and discrimination. Your hiding your head in the sand and ignoring this is convenient for you because you do not bear the cost of this injustice, but that is hardly the case for those victimized by it. There is no "principal of freedom" that says people must suffer from economic disadvantage due to prejudice, whether that bias be overt or covert, intentional or ingrained due to racist stereotypes.
Your refusal to allow the law to treat all people equally literally violates the most fundamental principal of freedom in our country. Instead of assuming injustices, find specific violations and remedy them. You refuse this method even though it would treat everyone equally because you know your are exaggerating injustices. Once we decide groups get preferences it nev ...[text shortened]... u rather have minority groups beholden to you for privileges then giving individuals actual justice.
@quackquack saidYour hypocrisy is astounding; it is systemic racism and discrimination that takes away a job from members of minorities based on stereotypical prejudices has I have shown by academic research. There is no impersonal "market"; hiring and other economic decisions are made by human beings with all the baggage they bring to bear on such decisions.
The market decides what services are worth. It wouldn't be bothersome that you felt you knew better if you were willing to treat all people equally. However, you already professed that you in your infinite wisdom can take away a job from one person and give it to another person simply because you feel certain races deserve scare resource more than other.
Your fairy tale economics has real consequences for those effected by prejudice.
1 edit
@suzianne saidFor one, you never proved that the target of the racist remark, "karen", is
Wrong. People on the right in this forum are called out as racist because they are racist. And if, by chance, they are not actually racists, then they are racism apologists and guilty of "accessory to racism".
What part of 'You don't wanna be called a racist, then don't be a racist' do you not get?
Calling someone a Karen is not racism. You thinking it is, is just, ...[text shortened]... I'm not seeing how you're missing this point. I can only assume you don't want to see this point.
a racist, so that is just a lie. Do you suppose that someone calling an african
american a dumb ape *makes it so*? No, it doesn't. Your prejudice is quite startling.
This is yet another time a lying liberal has accused someone of being a racist
for no other reason than you hate her. That's all. I keep catching you doing
this frequently. Gee, I wonder why.
The term karen is a pejorative and you know it. Everyone knows it and it is why
this story made the focus in the news in the first place. It is meant to demean
someone but not just anyone. It is meant to demean a white woman.
RACISM.
pure and simple.
@suzianne saidThat's the prob with the left, they do not get it wrong, if they say it is, it must be. It is not possible for them to not dictate the language used.
In fact, the only people I see in this forum carelessly throwing the word "racist" around are those on the right. Those on the left are just calling it as it IS.
You see, I hate the far left and I hate the far right, but sure as all hell I do not see the right demanding they are right in there language usage and much as the nit picking, hair splitting interpretations of the left.
The left is far more insistent that they are " right ", in there usage of language, just as you have done here.
Both far left and right are both self righteous d@3cks. I am an extreme moderate.
@no1marauder saidMy solution is to treat everyone equally before the law. It is shocking that any human being would advocate allocating things differently. You have no desire to find a specific act of prejudice (probably because you can't) and you have no desire to find out whether a specific person actually lost an opportunity (again because you can't). You just want to assume everyone is prejudice and give limited opportunities to certain groups and take them away from others. No one should support this sort of twisted garbage.
Your hypocrisy is astounding; it is systemic racism and discrimination that takes away a job from members of minorities based on stereotypical prejudices has I have shown by academic research. There is no impersonal "market"; hiring and other economic decisions are made by human beings with all the baggage they bring to bear on such decisions.
Your fairy tale economics has real consequences for those effected by prejudice.
4 edits
@quackquack saidI don't normally repeat posts but because you can't seem to absorb real world evidence and/or desire to keep deliberately lying by claim I have none:
My solution is to treat everyone equally before the law. It is shocking that any human being would advocate allocating things differently. You have no desire to find a specific act of prejudice (probably because you can't) and you have no desire to find out whether a specific person actually lost an opportunity (again because you can't). You just want to assume everyon ...[text shortened]... certain groups and take them away from others. No one should support this sort of twisted garbage.
""This study investigates change over time in the level of hiring discrimination in US labor markets. We perform a meta-analysis of every available field experiment of hiring discrimination against African Americans or Latinos (n = 28). Together, these studies represent 55,842 applications submitted for 26,326 positions. We focus on trends since 1989 (n = 24 studies), when field experiments became more common and improved methodologically. Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos. We observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire."
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114
The methods are discussed here:
"We chose field experiments as a sample because they are widely regarded as the most valid method to assess discrimination. They generally come in two major types: Résumé audits, done through the mail or online, submit fictitious résumés with equivalent qualifications and ethnically identifiable names. And in-person audits — done with trained pairs of testers, white and nonwhite — have participants apply for jobs. By examining the rates of callbacks, or invitations to job interviews, for white and nonwhite applicants with equivalent qualifications, these studies provide high-quality measures of rates of discrimination in hiring."
https://hbr.org/2017/10/hiring-discrimination-against-black-americans-hasnt-declined-in-25-years
Well? How does your "treating everyone equally before the law" remedy this type of pervasive discrimination? It hasn't for more than 50 years, when do you expect it will start to?
It doesn't and you don't want it to because you want the system to discriminate against minorities, don't you? The system already "give[s] limited opportunities to certain groups and take[s] them away from others" and you're fine with it.
@earl-of-trumps saidKaren is a racist remark?
For one, you never proved that the target of the racist remark, "karen", is
a racist, so that is just a lie. Do you suppose that someone calling an african
american a dumb ape *makes it so*? No, it doesn't. Your prejudice is quite startling.
This is yet another time a lying liberal has accused someone of being a racist
for no other reason than you hate her. That ...[text shortened]... an
someone but not just anyone. It is meant to demean a white woman.
RACISM.
pure and simple.
The girl’s name?
Oh pray tell, I shiver in antici
pation (old Rocky horror gag)... how?
Do you mean calling someone whose name is Karen “Karen” is racist?
Kunta Kinte is not racist, but Karen is?
Does this include Catherine (Karen is short for Catherine) or Caitlin (which is Scottish for Catherine) or Kate?
But, uh, why?
Or am I missing out on another great American debacle???
@no1marauder saidHow does this prove racism, this could just as easily be seen as the white candidates were more suitable.????
I don't normally repeat posts but because you can't seem to absorb real world evidence and/or desire to keep deliberately lying by claim I have none:
""This study investigates change over time in the level of hiring discrimination in US labor markets. We perform a meta-analysis of every available field experiment of hiring discrimination against African Americans or La ...[text shortened]... limited opportunities to certain groups and take[s] them away from others" and you're fine with it.
If the best for the job was a white candidate then?? maybe they are discriminating against less suitable applicants.
1 edit
@jimmac saidRIF:
How does this prove racism, this could just as easily be seen as the white candidates were more suitable.????
If the best for the job was a white candidate then?? maybe they are discriminating against less suitable applicants.
"Résumé audits, done through the mail or online, submit fictitious résumés with equivalent qualifications and ethnically identifiable names. And in-person audits — done with trained pairs of testers, white and nonwhite — have participants apply for jobs. By examining the rates of callbacks, or invitations to job interviews, for white and nonwhite applicants with equivalent qualifications, these studies provide high-quality measures of rates of discrimination in hiring."
The research shows that even where traditional qualifications are equivalent, blacks get calls for interviews substantially less than whites. Maybe you have a better explanation than overt or ingrained prejudice but I can't think of one.
@shavixmir said"Karen" is a meme that represents entitled, racist middle class white women who complain a lot, are demanding and are always "asking to talk to the manager" to get employees in trouble for not submitting to her will.
Karen is a racist remark?
The girl’s name?
Oh pray tell, I shiver in antici
pation (old Rocky horror gag)... how?
Do you mean calling someone whose name is Karen “Karen” is racist?
Kunta Kinte is not racist, but Karen is?
Does this include Catherine (Karen is short for Catherine) or Caitlin (which is Scottish for Catherine) or Kate?
But, uh, why?
Or am I missing out on another great American debacle???
@athousandyoung saidOh well we’ve definitely got ‘Karen’s’ in the UK then. I’m not sure if any or all of them are racist but we definitely have ‘Karen’s’. We need a male version though, maybe ‘Keith’.
"Karen" is a meme that represents entitled, racist middle class white women who complain a lot, are demanding and are always "asking to talk to the manager" to get employees in trouble for not submitting to her will.
@quackquack said‘In a land far away there lived a kind and wise king and his people loved him’
People are paid based on the value of their work. Some people contribute little and earn little others contribute a lot and are paid based on their contributions. Your false statements to the contrary don't change reality.
@kevcvs57 said"Karens" show their racism in that they often call the police when they see blacks in affluent areas, even if the black person owns a home there or is legally using business facilities.
Oh well we’ve definitely got ‘Karen’s’ in the UK then. I’m not sure if any or all of them are racist but we definitely have ‘Karen’s’. We need a male version though, maybe ‘Keith’.
@no1marauder saidThe choice is simple: we could use my suggestion and have the law treat people equally or we can use your suggestion and abandon equality before the law because you saw a field study. And, with all due respect, only a fool would allow a dictator, like yourself, to implement a plan where people are hired and/ or keep their job because of their race and not their qualifications. We have all sorts of laws and courts so your options are simple: actually prove a hiring decision was discriminatory or stop questioning it. Racial preferences are never justified.
I don't normally repeat posts but because you can't seem to absorb real world evidence and/or desire to keep deliberately lying by claim I have none:
""This study investigates change over time in the level of hiring discrimination in US labor markets. We perform a meta-analysis of every available field experiment of hiring discrimination against African Americans or La ...[text shortened]... limited opportunities to certain groups and take[s] them away from others" and you're fine with it.