OT: Mizzou black football players taking a stand

[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.

 

[upstater]

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

You are clueless here. Affirmative action ever since Schuette (which banned bringing race into admission decisions) can only and simply now be understood as bringing ad hoc or informal criteria to the admission process. In other words, no more quotas. So, either we all understand that Affirmative Action no longer exists in admission standards as per the law of the USA (Supreme Court) or we understand that it is now an informal process. If it's an informal process, I guarantee you that there are a lot more legacies admitted to these academic institutions (that would not otherwise be admitted on their record) rather than minority students who would not be admitted. Not to even mention the students who signal to admission committees the willingness to pay full freight over and above the actual cost per student.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

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.

So you read the study I presume?

 

[junglehusky]

You're kidding right?

???

I have written manuscripts in scientific journals. You get the reviewer's comments back as "Reviewer #1, Reviewer #2, Reviewer #3". You can guess who it is but there's no way to know for sure. The editors coordinate the process.

 

[SubbaBub]

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?

Taller people have more success, as do more attractive people. Why is the idea of black people suffering a built in disadvantage a mystery to you.

That is without considering that we are two generations from segregation, and less than one generation from housing and public school discrimination. Throw in the impact of the introduction of drug epidemic amongst the poor and come up with a good argument that the playing field is level.

 

[junglehusky]

So you read the study I presume?

I've read science journalism / newspaper pieces reporting on the field. Not an expert (neither is anyone else here probably).

 

[upstater]

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.

Everything I've written is about the issues on campus. Show me where I'm discussing anything else.

I took issue to a post of his (which you apparently liked) that slandered the students and then went on to link their protests to a host of societal ills. What was the common denominator here? The students are black.

That's what I objected to.

 

[Carl Spackler]

???

I have written manuscripts in scientific journals. You get the reviewer's comments back as "Reviewer #1, Reviewer #2, Reviewer #3". You can guess who it is but there's no way to know for sure. The editors make sure.

The makeup of any peer review panel is not a secret, when you do it enough, you're going to be able to figure out who reviewer #1 - 2 -3 etc. are.

 

[junglehusky]

The makeup of any peer review panel is not a secret, when you do it enough, you're going to be able to figure out who reviewer #1 - 2 -3 etc. are.

Have you gone through the peer review system?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I've read science journalism / newspaper pieces reporting on the field. Not an expert (neither is anyone else here probably).

So you haven't read this study, yet you feel inclined to project what my beliefs are based on my comments about the study. Is that right?

For the record, I do believe that blacks are less likely to be called back for second interviews than whites all things being equal. But this "study" doesn't prove that I'm right.

 

[upstater]

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.

She was out of line but I can almost forgive her for being very protective of those students against the inevitability of dreck like this: http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...he-entire-mizzou-protest-based-on-lies-111115

That whole group screwed up because they were pushing around an actual Missouri student. Less condemnation from me if they were pushing around Clay Travis.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Have you gone through the peer review system?

I've been through both sides of peer review, in more ways than you can possibly imagine.

 

[TasteofUConn]

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

I proudly own that, by your definition, I'm a racist.
I said that many black people make poor choices, and those choices have substantially caused their poor economic results. You have responded, if I understand you, that my argument is an "inherent inferiority" argument.

I view your response as a means to prevent discussion of the point raised by the other side. I made no comment or argument at all about inherent characteristics. In fact, quite oppositely, my argument depends entirely on culture and choices.

Your position is now this - citing black culture and choices as a cause for black economic hardship is equivalent to citing black inherent inferiority, and thus racist.

Certainly that is bizarre, but I'll give you this - you'll never have to be bothered considering the impact of culture and choices on result!

 

[junglehusky]

So you haven't read this study, yet you feel inclined to project what my beliefs are based on my comments about the study. Is that right?

For the record, I do believe that blacks are less likely to be called back for second interviews than whites all things being equal. But this "study" doesn't prove that I'm right.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb, based on your comments about "garbage studies" and "anyone can produce whatever result" that whether the science is well designed or not, your mind is already made up and you aren't willing to consider the data.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Everything I've written is about the issues on campus. Show me where I'm discussing anything else.

I took issue to a post of his (which you apparently liked) that slandered the students and then went on to link their protests to a host of societal ills. What was the common denominator here? The students are black.

That's what I objected to.

I think it was #336 that I clicked like on. It had to do with a response to a piece of literature that was previously cited, and the critique of that piece of literature, which I agreed with - that was contrary to the critique of the literature provided by person that originally linked it.

 

[junglehusky]

I've been through both sides of peer review, in more ways than you can possibly imagine.

Then you have experience, as do I and many of my peers, in how brutally critical peer reviewers are.