OT: Mizzou black football players taking a stand

[upstater]

This is cherry picking. My comment was directed toward the dominant black culture and its severely detrimental effects. Successful black people in America generally are not proponents of the dominant black culture.

No, your comments were directed at black students who are protesting. Own it, don't backtrack.

 

[TasteofUConn]

No, your comments were directed at black students who are protesting. Own it, don't backtrack.

To clarify - my comments were directed to the socio-economic state of black americans. Of course that applies to the students, as well.
Not sure what you think I'm not owning - I thought I was pretty clear.

 

[TasteofUConn]

But I find the whole idea that we white people can ignore the lived experiences of black people and merely tell them to "work harder" insultingly dismissive.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not telling them anything. My thesis is very simple. If you look at the very poor socioeconomic condition of blacks in America, the substantial cause of that condition are the choices that black people make. Racism certainly is a cause, but it's not the main cause.

What is dominant black culture? What is white culture? Those terms don't really make any sense to me.

Dominant black culture: education not valued, women not respected, emphasis on appearance, emphasis on being "respected", violent, misogynistic rap music, use of ghetto slang rather than standard English, view LEO as enemy.
Dominant white culture: 2.5 kids, dog, house, job, 30 year mortgage, education valued, view LEO as like-minded.

Not saying one is better than the other. I frankly could care less, as I don't fall within either - but it's clear that culture affects behavior and decision making greatly.

Lastly, the study was not a dissertation. It was a peer reviewed scholarly article published in American Journal of Sociology

So you haven't read it?

 

[upstater]

To clarify - my comments were directed to the socio-economic state of black americans. Of course that applies to the students, as well.
Not sure what you think I'm not owning - I thought I was pretty clear.

This is what you wrote: "The tolerance given to these self-indulgent, delusional, faux-victims will be replaced by an irrepressible hostility, and all will revert to the mean. Black people have mostly themselves to blame for where they have put themselves in modern America."

Such racist drivel that I can see why you would disown it. Nice try.

 

[TasteofUConn]

I'd say, though, that going through the peer review process gives it a lot of credibility: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/pager_ajs.pdf

Peer reviewed by whom? Other like-minded sociologists who know that they'll be black listed (the irony!) if they dared to challenge it?
Okay so I read it. Do you realize that all of her conclusions were based on 2 white men and 2 black men who applied for jobs? Frankly, I expected the pseudo-science to be bad, but not this bad.
At best, this paper is anecdotal. At worst, it is simply people with an axe to grind using pseudo-science to try to make their point.
With only 4 participants, the study is fatally flawed for lack of n number. Further, there is no indication about who knew what. Sending out 2 black men for interviews who are aware that the point is to show institutional racism is laughable.

But this is how it works in our society, where most people can't rationally assess anything beyond which Kardashian has the biggest ass.

PhD with an axe to grind rigs a pseudo-science "study" to support what she believes. Sends out 4 people, concludes 200 million whites are twice as likely to be called back as 40 million blacks.
Sympathetic CNN splashes headline "blacks called back at 1/2 the rate."
Guy on message board cites to irrefutable "study" that "proves" institutionalized racism favors white felons over blacks.

So TZZN - are we now going to continue having a rational discourse? By which I mean, are you going to acknowledge that the "study" you cited is pseudo-science garbage?

See, you suggested that I may be "ignoring" things. I suggested that we likely agreed on most of the facts, but we simply differed on how we believe those facts impact black prospects in this country.

This, however, is more fundamental. If you really will stand by this "study" as anything more than unscientific anecdote, then we really can't have a rational discourse because we can't agree on the basic value of information.

Said differently, I promise you I could obtain the exact same results as this woman using 2 red heads and two blonds. Or two lefties and two righties. Or two UConn Fans and two Syracuse fans.

Worst part is that "studies" like this hurt the people they purport to help.

 

[tzznandrew]

So you haven't read it?

You mean the article I linked to? Did you want extensive quotes? I summarized its contents and you suggested it was a dissertation. It wasn't. I'm not going to go through it again and cite everything: this is a public message board, not a sociology class.

But have a better come back when I prove you wrong.

(We're not going to come to agreement on the other part, necessarily, so why debate?)

 

[tzznandrew]

Peer reviewed by whom? Other like-minded sociologists who know that they'll be black listed (the irony!) if they dared to challenge it?
Okay so I read it. Do you realize that all of her conclusions were based on 2 white men and 2 black men who applied for jobs? Frankly, I expected the pseudo-science to be bad, but not this bad.
At best, this paper is anecdotal. At worst, it is simply people with an axe to grind using pseudo-science to try to make their point.
With only 4 participants, the study is fatally flawed for lack of n number. Further, there is no indication about who knew what. Sending out 2 black men for interviews who are aware that the point is to show institutional racism is laughable.

But this is how it works in our society, where most people can't rationally assess anything beyond which Kardashian has the biggest ass.

PhD with an axe to grind rigs a pseudo-science "study" to support what she believes. Sends out 4 people, concludes 200 million whites are twice as likely to be called back as 40 million blacks.
Sympathetic CNN splashes headline "blacks called back at 1/2 the rate."
Guy on message board cites to irrefutable "study" that "proves" institutionalized racism favors white felons over blacks.

So TZZN - are we now going to continue having a rational discourse? By which I mean, are you going to acknowledge that the "study" you cited is pseudo-science garbage?

See, you suggested that I may be "ignoring" things. I suggested that we likely agreed on most of the facts, but we simply differed on how we believe those facts impact black prospects in this country.

This, however, is more fundamental. If you really will stand by this "study" as anything more than unscientific anecdote, then we really can't have a rational discourse because we can't agree on the basic value of information.

Said differently, I promise you I could obtain the exact same results as this woman using 2 red heads and two blonds. Or two lefties and two righties. Or two UConn Fans and two Syracuse fans.

Worst part is that "studies" like this hurt the people they purport to help.

It's based on over 500 job applications. But, right, you know more than a whole field of sociologists and a widely respected journal. Got it.

 

[TasteofUConn]

This is what you wrote: "The tolerance given to these self-indulgent, delusional, faux-victims will be replaced by an irrepressible hostility, and all will revert to the mean. Black people have mostly themselves to blame for where they have put themselves in modern America."

Such racist drivel that I can see why you would disown it. Nice try.

I completely own it. Every word. Not trying to disown anything. Trying to be as explicit and clear as possible.

But credit to you for stating your point clearly. Your point was that you believe I'm a racist. You apparently believe that I'm a racist because I believe black people are mostly to blame for their failure economically. Is that correct? I don't want to misunderstand your conclusion.

Can I extend your belief thusly: "Upstater believes that any person who believes that black people are mostly to blame for their failure economically is a racist."

Is that a fair characterization of your belief?

 

[TasteofUConn]

(We're not going to come to agreement on the other part, necessarily, so why debate?)

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Or Upstater.
But there are other people reading this thread and they are not as entrenched as either of you, and this may be valuable to them.

 

[TasteofUConn]

It's based on over 500 job applications. But, right, you know more than a whole field of sociologists and a widely respected journal. Got it.

So you believe that sending 2 black people and 2 white people, who have been hand picked and coached, and who may have known the purpose, out for job interviews constitutes legitimate science?

Also, do you agree that I could get the same results with 2 redheads and 2 blondes?

 

[upstater]

I completely own it. Every word. Not trying to disown anything. Trying to be as explicit and clear as possible.

But credit to you for stating your point clearly. Your point was that you believe I'm a racist. You apparently believe that I'm a racist because I believe black people are mostly to blame for their failure economically. Is that correct? I don't want to misunderstand your conclusion.

Can I extend your belief thusly: "Upstater believes that any person who believes that black people are mostly to blame for their failure economically is a racist."

Is that a fair characterization of your belief?

I'd be shocked if 99% of the people on this board believed anything other than to characterize what you wrote as racist. This ain't 1960s Alabama.

You called these protesters faux victims then said they only had themselves to blame for all their woes. These were of course college students, some at the highest universities in the world. no doubt you think they got there by affirmative action.

 

[TasteofUConn]

I'd be shocked if 99% of the people on this board believed anything other than to characterize what you wrote as racist.

So your belief is that a person who believes "blacks are mostly to blame for their poor economic condition" is a racist?

You called these protesters faux victims then said they only had themselves to blame for all their woes.

The first part is accurate. The second part is you making things up.
Yes, they are faux victims. No, I never wrote about "all their woes."

These were of course college students, some at the highest universities in the world. no doubt you think they got there by affirmative action.

Aren't you in the college system in NY? Are you trying to suggest that there is no affirmative action at Yale or Missouri? Certainly you didn't mean to suggest that, did you?

 

[upstater]

So your belief is that a person who believes "blacks are mostly to blame for their poor economic condition" is a racist?


The first part is accurate. The second part is you making things up.
Yes, they are faux victims. No, I never wrote about "all their woes."


Aren't you in the college system in NY? Are you trying to suggest that there is no affirmative action at Yale or Missouri? Certainly you didn't mean to suggest that, did you?

Anyone who wrote what you wrote is a racist. For the life of me, I can't understand how someone would look at a black college student and feel the need to link them to a host of societal ills, especially kids at Yale. Kids who have their act together.

There are far more white affirmative action kids at Yale than black. That much is known. Do you look at the white Yalies as benefactors of affirmative action?

 

[Carl Spackler]

@ TasteofUConn.

I applaud you for taking on this discussion and position. In this discussion, in previous pages, I reached a point where questions were at least being asked of me - based on my words, that meant that posters were at least considering things I had written that they need to clarify for themselves.

It is highly interesting, and hopefully eye-opening to read, mind's eye-opening that is, because here's what I think now.

I think that if this discussion were to be taking place face to face in a room, the color of your skin - whatever it may be tasteofuconn - would influence those that your are discussing this subject matter with - very much.

Should you be white in this discussion - I think you would generate a response for sure - as well as if you should be black - and if Asian or anything other purebred or mix - I think that those reading your words here, should really examine how their own responses would be - should they be actually face to face with you, and examine what their own response may be - based on the various possibilities, and not just reading words.

I don't care what the color of your skin is and your background. I agree with your words.

 

[TasteofUConn]

Anyone who wrote what you wrote is a racist.

Can you please commit to just one thing?
Do you believe that a person is a racist if that person believes that black people are mostly to blame for their economic problems?

Do you really find it that impossibly hard to simply commit to that? Or deny it?

 

[LRock34]

@ TasteofUConn.

I applaud you for taking on this discussion and position. In this discussion, in previous pages, I reached a point where questions were at least being asked of me - based on my words, that meant that posters were at least considering things I had written that they need to clarify for themselves.

It is highly interesting, and hopefully eye-opening to read, mind's eye-opening that is, because here's what I think now.

I think that if this discussion were to be taking place face to face in a room, the color of your skin - whatever it may be tasteofuconn - would influence those that your are discussing this subject matter with - very much.

Should you be white in this discussion - I think you would generate a response for sure - as well as if you should be black - and if Asian or anything other purebred or mix - I think that those reading your words here, should really examine how their own responses would be - should they be actually face to face with you, and examine what their own response may be - based on the various possibilities, and not just reading words.

I don't care what the color of your skin is and your background. I agree with your words.

Than you sir are a racist. Or simply an idiot. Not sure which one. The responses have been sound and based in fact. My post is the first where someone has called someone else names. But that is what it's come to. If you've read the responses from people of sound mind to the racist ignorance being spewed by a few posters and you still come away believing that institutional racism is a farce you are either a racist or an idiot. It's just a fact sorry.

 

[junglehusky]

Peer reviewed by whom? Other like-minded sociologists who know that they'll be black listed (the irony!) if they dared to challenge it?

Did you know peer review is anonymous?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

It's based on over 500 job applications. But, right, you know more than a whole field of sociologists and a widely respected journal. Got it.

There are tons of garbage studies that are published every year. I see a lot of issues with this study that taste already pointed out. I'm not sure it can be relied upon to cite as a basis of fact. It's absolutely true that anyone can produce any results they wish to achieve.

 

[TasteofUConn]

There are far more white affirmative action kids at Yale than black.

Dude. What?
We can't even agree on what affirmative action is.

 

[TasteofUConn]

Did you know peer review is anonymous?

Dude. What?
We can't even agree on what peer review means.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Anyone who wrote what you wrote is a racist. For the life of me, I can't understand how someone would look at a black college student and feel the need to link them to a host of societal ills, especially kids at Yale. Kids who have their act together.

There are far more white affirmative action kids at Yale than black. That much is known. Do you look at the white Yalies as benefactors of affirmative action?

Tough to remain focused on various subjects in a marathon discussion like this upstate.

I have read nothing to suggest that anyone around here thinks that things like a "white girls only" party (and I submit that there are probably a fair number of college age black guys that wouldn't mind a party like that - how's that for inflammatory?) but nobody I"ve read is suggesting that such a thing, or being stopped disproportionately by cops ona college campus, or even the grading issues you've brought up, are not both individual and system issues involving racism that need to be cleaned up. Nor has anyone I"ve read suggest that anything on the UMisssouri campus happening did NOT warrant a major protest social action of some sort to initiate change. I've read lots, and I"ve commented that the concepts that both went into the action at Missouri, and the responses coming out, are suspect - meaning that it's highlyl likely that nothing good is going to come of any of it. That's incredibly unfortunate if true, and I hope I'm wrong - but the signs are not good.

As for the concepts of socioeconomic status and racial inequality - this is an entirely different issue being discussed.

You yourself have written that people need to keep on point - in this discussion.

Follow your own advice.

 

[LRock34]

Can you please commit to just one thing?
Do you believe that a person is a racist if that person believes that black people are mostly to blame for their economic problems?

Do you really find it that impossibly hard to simply commit to that? Or deny it?

Yes I believe that and upstater does as well. To believe otherwise would be to believe that black people are inherently inferior to whites... Or in other words to be a racist. People have tried to explain to you what institutional racism is and how it can condemn a large portion of society to poverty but you refuse to accept fact and history to protect your racist beliefs. You're a racist. Own it

 

[SubbaBub]

In the last 5 years the only thing I've watched on "TV" is UConn bball and the occasional football game.

It reeks of somebody who doesn't agree with your world view. I'd guess that it's very likely that you and I agree in large part on the history of blacks in America. What we disagree on is how much control they have over their own fate.

I have a response to this. Post a link to the source material. It was a doctoral thesis, right? I assume that you read it, right? It would be intellectually irresponsible to present this as a scientific conclusion if all you did was read the CNN headline. You have a PhD student who wants to run an "experiment" to prove how horrible racism is in the U.S. She has confederates go to job interviews. How were they dressed? How was their hair cut? Did they intentional speak using ghetto phrasings? What does "equally qualified" mean? Were the resumes exactly the same? What was the felony drug conviction? Was it running a meth lab? Did the college students pretending to be menial labor applicants know what the point of the experiment was? Post the original study and I'll read it and we can discuss whether it was actual science or just a PhD student rigging a pseudo science farce to get to the headline she no doubt wanted when she started.

Not exactly sure what a black person has to do to get bona fide, but . . . I've interacted with many different types of people in many different roles, from co-workers at fast food joints and blue collar jobs to students in college, bosses, employees, friends, and homeless men.

Does that qualify me to have an opinion?

Your initial possession, which is dismissive, is that people who disagree with you simply don't understand the facts, or are ignoring them.

Do you think there is any chance that you and I agree, basically, on the facts, but we reach different conclusions?

The world is the world as it is and it is a vast and complex place. Your world view is founded on what you don't know more than what you do.

So, when these idiots, Ben Carson being the latest one, spout off on lack of respect for their workviews, they are really asking to excuse their ignorance.

To show the other side is not immune to this phenomenon, the worldview of the woman defending the safe space tent from journalists was ignorant to the role of journalism in a free society and that public spaces are open to all.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Than you sir are a racist. Or simply an idiot. Not sure which one. The responses have been sound and based in fact. My post is the first where someone has called someone else names. But that is what it's come to. If you've read the responses from people of sound mind to the racist ignorance being spewed by a few posters and you still come away believing that institutional racism is a farce you are either a racist or an idiot. It's just a fact sorry.

Not the first time I've been called a racist. I am. I'm all about the human race.

 

[SubbaBub]

I completely own it. Every word. Not trying to disown anything. Trying to be as explicit and clear as possible.

But credit to you for stating your point clearly. Your point was that you believe I'm a racist. You apparently believe that I'm a racist because I believe black people are mostly to blame for their failure economically. Is that correct? I don't want to misunderstand your conclusion.

Can I extend your belief thusly: "Upstater believes that any person who believes that black people are mostly to blame for their failure economically is a racist."

Is that a fair characterization of your belief?

I'm assuming you never saw Trading Places.

For the record, your views are racist by any fair measure. Perhaps ignorantly so, but still nonetheless. You can deny or accept that opinion.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Yes I believe that and upstater does as well. To believe otherwise would be to believe that black people are inherently inferior to whites... Or in other words to be a racist. People have tried to explain to you what institutional racism is and how it can condemn a large portion of society to poverty but you refuse to accept fact and history to protect your racist beliefs. You're a racist. Own it

That is an extremist position you are taking, and it's not correct.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Amazed this hasn't been banished to the Cesspool yet.

 

[junglehusky]

There are tons of garbage studies that are published every year. I see a lot of issues with this study that taste already pointed out. I'm not sure it can be relied upon to cite as a basis of fact. It's absolutely true that anyone can produce any results they wish to achieve.

I'm not a sociologist, and I know social sciences had been viewed as less rigorous than, say physics. But they've gotten much better over the past few decades and now their experiments are better designed. Plus there are now starting to be studies in neuroscience that confirm the implicit bias that I mentioned earlier.

Anyway, we're wasting our time here if you can simply explain away whole fields of science away with "anyone can produce any results they wish to achieve". What a convenient defense mechanism to insulate your worldview from self-examination.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Did you know peer review is anonymous?

You're kidding right?

 

[Carl Spackler]

Amazed this hasn't been banished to the Cesspool yet.

I've tried Jimmy. I've begged. You can go back and find it - many times.