Sega-16 Politics Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Were the Resume's short of name identical and were they being sent to the same employers?

---

Quote:

---

The 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant, Bertrand and Mullainathan note in Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller.

---

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da_Shocker

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

---

That doesn't directly answer the question. It just says higher quality, it doesn't say equal. If the higher quality black resumes were still not as good as the white resumes that would explain the situation. If they weren't being sent to the same employers that would also explain the situation.

The study is only relevant in pointing out racial bias if the resumes were identical. And that's a very easy thing to do. Write the same resume up, and submit it with different names and contact info. If that wasn't done, this study doesn't really show anything. You don't know what the employers were looking for, nor do you know if the resumes between both groups of people were 1:1 comparable.

It's about as useful as the "Women make 77% of what Men make" statistic. Useless.

For the record I'm not saying Name Bias doesn't exist, a friend of mine had a hard time getting job interviews and he had a Jewish last name. He legally changed his last name and started applying to some of the same companies and started getting a lot more interviews. If this study truly wanted to show that, it should have gone about it in a more scientific way like I stated. The way it was done though, there's too many variables that could explain said bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

That doesn't directly answer the question. It just says higher quality, it doesn't say equal. If the higher quality black resumes were still not as good as the white resumes that would explain the situation. If they weren't being sent to the same employers that would also explain the situation.

The study is only relevant in pointing out racial bias if the resumes were identical. And that's a very easy thing to do. Write the same resume up, and submit it with different names and contact info. If that wasn't done, this study doesn't really show anything. You don't know what the employers were looking for, nor do you know if the resumes between both groups of people were 1:1 comparable.

It's about as useful as the "Women make 77% of what Men make" statistic. Useless.

For the record I'm not saying Name Bias doesn't exist, a friend of mine had a hard time getting job interviews and he had a Jewish last name. He legally changed his last name and started applying to some of the same companies and started getting a lot more interviews. If this study truly wanted to show that, it should have gone about it in a more scientific way like I stated. The way it was done though, there's too many variables that could explain said bias.

---

Quote:

---

The catch was that the authors manipulated the perception of race via the name of each applicant, with comparable credentials for each racial group. Each resume was randomly assigned either a very white-sounding name (Emily Walsh, Brendan Baker) or a very African-American-sounding name (Lakisha Washington, Jamal Jones).

The authors find that applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.

---

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas...acialbias.html

Again, they're saying comparable, not equal.

Here's an example of one credential on a resume that's comparable but not equal that could have radically different results on getting an interview:

Resume A:
-4 Years experience in Java Programming

Resume B:
-4 Years experience in C++ Programming.

Both of these are comparable, but not equal. Both are an object oriented programming language with similar syntax, however depending on what the employer is looking for the results of getting an interview can be different. If the employer is doing more web development in Java, Resume A fits their needs more. If they're doing system programming in C++ and need someone who understands memory management, pointers, etc. that don't exist in Java, then they'll be more inclined to take Resume B.

This is why Comparable is not good enough. With the job market the way it is employers are extremely fickle over minute details. Something as simple as having experience in one software suite versus another could result in being interviewed or being passed over. That's why this study isn't good enough. The Resumes need to be equal for this to prove any kind of racial bias.

I can tell you right now I've been involved with screening resumes for interviews, and this what would factor into a callback:

-They meet most if not all of the qualifications we're looking for.
-Missing qualifications are minor or something they have comparable experience in another area.
-They have more than just academic experience (Unless it was entry level.)
-What positions they held on previous jobs, and how long they held them.

What would make us automatically not give someone a call back:
-Not having at least 75% of the qualifications we were looking for.
-Not having an important, job specific requirement we needed (Example: We're not going to interview a C++ programmer when we need a Java programmer.)
-Spelling/Grammar mistakes on their resume
-Fundamental errors on their resume (Say they have X years experience in Java then say later they only have Y years experience.)

Notice what we didn't look at? They're name. That only came into play when we told our hiring manager "Call back the person who this resume belongs to."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Again, they're saying comparable, not equal.

Here's an example of one credential on a resume that's comparable but not equal that could have radically different results on getting an interview:

Resume A:
-4 Years experience in Java Programming

Resume B:
-4 Years experience in C++ Programming.

Both of these are comparable, but not equal. Both are an object oriented programming language with similar syntax, however depending on what the employer is looking for the results of getting an interview can be different. If the employer is doing more web development in Java, Resume A fits their needs more. If they're doing system programming in C++ and need someone who understands memory management, pointers, etc. that don't exist in Java, then they'll be more inclined to take Resume B.

This is why Comparable is not good enough. With the job market the way it is employers are extremely fickle over minute details. Something as simple as having experience in one software suite versus another could result in being interviewed or being passed over. That's why this study isn't good enough. The Resumes need to be equal for this to prove any kind of racial bias.

I can tell you right now I've been involved with screening resumes for interviews, and this what would factor into a callback:

-They meet most if not all of the qualifications we're looking for.
-Missing qualifications are minor or something they have comparable experience in another area.
-They have more than just academic experience (Unless it was entry level.)
-What positions they held on previous jobs, and how long they held them.

What would make us automatically not give someone a call back:
-Not having at least 75% of the qualifications we were looking for.
-Not having an important, job specific requirement we needed (Example: We're not going to interview a C++ programmer when we need a Java programmer.)
-Spelling/Grammar mistakes on their resume
-Fundamental errors on their resume (Say they have X years experience in Java then say later they only have Y years experience.)

Notice what we didn't look at? They're name. That only came into play when we told our hiring manager "Call back the person who this resume belongs to."

---

Yes and that is how it is suppose to be done that doesn't mean that every company does indeed follow the legal.

There are similar occasions that have happened in France and Australia. The Australian one is a bit more amusing to read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ruchikat...-to-get-a-job/

http://jezebel.com/5822293/man-takes...discrimination

It doesn't surprise me that a guy called Jamal has more trouble getting a job than a guy called Brendan.

Unfortunately it's the sort of name that immediately brings to mind your typical ghetto black thug. (Unconscious bias like that is not something you'll get rid of any time soon)

Having said that, you can bet your ass that a black guy called Brendan, with a perfect mastery of english, that looks like this:

http://cdn.blackenterprise.com/wp-co...Jean300232.jpg

Won't have any trouble getting a job.

If you were to do a similar study with only white people, but using photos and having on one side attractive looking confident people, and in the other ugly scraggly looking guys, there would be a bias towards the attractive ones. That's just how it is, won't change any time soon unfortunately.

It's called Homophily, a preference for those that are similar to you. It's not really "racism" (or at least, not conscious colour hating racism).

On fun study to do would be to try this on predominantly black businesses. Do black business owners favour blacks due to Homophily, or do they (much like whites) tend to stereotype other blacks? Food for thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da_Shocker

Yes and that is how it is suppose to be done that doesn't mean that every company does indeed follow the legal.

There are similar occasions that have happened in France and Australia. The Australian one is a bit more amusing to read.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ruchikat...-to-get-a-job/

http://jezebel.com/5822293/man-takes...discrimination

---

Yes, we can't guarantee every single company is following the law, just as we can't guarantee every single citizin is following the law. But you can bet your ass that the overwhelming majority is following it because they'd be opening themselves up to lawsuits. No self respecting company would do that, it would be corporate suicide.

As for the other studies, they don't mean shit unless the resumes are 1:1 identical except for the name at the top.

And did you really quote jezebel? They're just a shit flinging feminist blog that makes money on stirring up artificial outrage just like the rest of the Gawker network. They're a terrible source to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da_Shocker

And again I asked about the Richard Sherman being called a thug and you said NOTHING about it. You also said NOTHING about this.

---

Sherman was called a thug because...

1. He's black and from Watts/Compton.
2. He screamed at a white female reporter(not directly at her but concerning another pro athlete).
3. He has dreadlocks
4. He is rowdy and boisterous on the field.

Those four things do not make a person a thug. And those four points do not make Sherman a bad person.

Yes I'll give you that, people can be ignorant, insensitive and downright racist when it comes to the things they say. Like I said, the human race is a flawed species. Deal with it and man up. But you cannot pin that on conservatives or on the mainstream media. Social media and a few NFL fans started the thug debate as far as I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da_Shocker

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

---

The problem with "black sounding names" is that names like "Shaniqua" "Laquanda", "Laquesha", "Shane'ne'" "Jayquan", or "Bonifa" or "Dyonte are all black names from the ghetto. They are not African names, they are not Arabic names, they are ghetto names. They are black ghetto street names handed down by immature ignorant uneducated single black welfare moms in most cases. They are created names to sound Afrocentric or rebellious with absolutely no meaning or substance except for "I'm black and from the hood". And in most cases, the kids are going to grow up to be just as ignorant or worse than the ghetto welfare mothers.

I'm a supervisor at my job and I've interviewed people on a regular basis. Most people with names like that can't even fill out a resume or application properly, let alone interview without using slang or poor English. The ones that do are in the minority. So it's understandable if you have a ghetto name, and employer is prone not to select your application because of this. Is it wrong? Of course it is. Does it happen? Yes. Life if unfair. Giving a kid a ghetto name ostracizes him/her from the mainstream workforce in so many ways. McDonald's, Walmart or other entry level jobs are a lot easier to obtain unfortunately.

Now African names and Arabic names are absolutely different. They are real traditional names with meaning. Names like Zaire, Jamal, Kareem, Kenya, or Hassan. There is absolutely no excuse why someone would not interview/hire someone purely based off an African/Arabic name except for bias or bigotry. It is a fact that most like to interview/hire people who are like minded and look like them. That's just life. Think about it Da_Shocker, would you interview or hire a qualified candidate that was white, had a shaved head, his first name was "Vladimir" or "Yohan", and spoke with a eastern European accent? Or a qualified Hispanic man with a heavy accent with tattoos that had a thick mustache and had a first name of "Jesus" or "Humberto"? Or a qualified Arab with a name like "Mohamed Hussein Usama" wearing a turban and demanded that you respect his sharia law demands?

How many black businesses do you see with a diverse non-black workforce? Not many.

According to Black Enterprise magazine there are plenty of opportunities for blacks in the workforce purely based off skin color and credentials. http://www.blackenterprise.com/caree...ies-diversity/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamahl

It doesn't surprise me that a guy called Jamal has more trouble getting a job than a guy called Brendan.

Unfortunately it's the sort of name that immediately brings to mind your typical ghetto black thug. (Unconscious bias like that is not something you'll get rid of any time soon)

Having said that, you can bet your ass that a black guy called Brendan, with a perfect mastery of english, that looks like this:

http://cdn.blackenterprise.com/wp-co...Jean300232.jpg

Won't have any trouble getting a job.

If you were to do a similar study with only white people, but using photos and having on one side attractive looking confident people, and in the other ugly scraggly looking guys, there would be a bias towards the attractive ones. That's just how it is, won't change any time soon unfortunately.

It's called Homophily, a preference for those that are similar to you. It's not really "racism" (or at least, not conscious colour hating racism).

On fun study to do would be to try this on predominantly black businesses. Do black business owners favour blacks due to Homophily, or do they (much like whites) tend to stereotype other blacks? Food for thought.

---

Perfect! That post deserves rep. But "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kamahl again."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lan Di

Sherman was called a thug because...

1. He's black and from Watts/Compton.
2. He screamed at a white female reporter(not directly at her but concerning another pro athlete).
3. He has dreadlocks
4. He is rowdy and boisterous on the field.

Those four things do not make a person a thug. And those four points do not make Sherman a bad person.

Yes I'll give you that, people can be ignorant, insensitive and downright racist when it comes to the things they say. Like I said, the human race is a flawed species. Deal with it and man up. But you cannot pin that on conservatives or on the mainstream media. Social media and a few NFL fans started the thug debate as far as I know.



The problem with "black sounding names" is that names like "Shaniqua" "Laquanda", "Laquesha", "Shane'ne'" "Jayquan", or "Bonifa" or "Dyonte are all black names from the ghetto. They are not African names, they are not Arabic names, they are ghetto names. They are black ghetto street names handed down by immature ignorant uneducated single black welfare moms in most cases. They are created names to sound Afrocentric or rebellious with absolutely no meaning or substance except for "I'm black and from the hood". And in most cases, the kids are going to grow up to be just as ignorant or worse than the ghetto welfare mothers.

I'm a supervisor at my job and I've interviewed people on a regular basis. Most people with names like that can't even fill out a resume or application properly, let alone interview without using slang or poor English. The ones that do are in the minority. So it's understandable if you have a ghetto name, and employer is prone not to select your application because of this. Is it wrong? Of course it is. Does it happen? Yes. Life if unfair. Giving a kid a ghetto name ostracizes him/her from the mainstream workforce in so many ways. McDonald's, Walmart or other entry level jobs are a lot easier to obtain unfortunately.

Now African names and Arabic names are absolutely different. They are real traditional names with meaning. Names like Zaire, Jamal, Kareem, Kenya, or Hassan. There is absolutely no excuse why someone would not interview/hire someone purely based off an African/Arabic name except for bias or bigotry. It is a fact that most like to interview/hire people who are like minded and look like them. That's just life. Think about it Da_Shocker, would you interview or hire a qualified candidate that was white, had a shaved head, his first name was "Vladimir" or "Yohan", and spoke with a eastern European accent? Or a qualified Hispanic man with a heavy accent with tattoos that had a thick mustache and had a first name of "Jesus" or "Humberto"? Or a qualified Arab with a name like "Mohamed Hussein Usama" wearing a turban and demanded that you respect his sharia law demands?

How many black businesses do you see with a diverse non-black workforce? Not many.

According to Black Enterprise magazine there are plenty of opportunities for blacks in the workforce purely based off skin color and credentials. http://www.blackenterprise.com/caree...ies-diversity/

---

This is one of the first posts in awhile in this thread that I agree with you almost 100% on with everything in it.

There's tons of prejudice out there. I only argue that you can't just ignore it's there. But that doesn't absolve someone of doing their due diligence in terms of being viable for a job, nor does it mean they should get a job when they are obviously not a fit for it.

I grew up with plenty of kids from "the hood". They ALL knew that to get a good job they couldn't roll in speaking slang and dressed like they just came from a game on the local baskeball court.
Every last one of them could hang out and look like your stereotypical black urban kid, baggy clothing, lots of slang and cursing, etc.

When they went to an interview? Clean cut, well fitted clothing, possibly a suit depending what it was for, all spoke perfectly clear and proper English. None of them would refer to themselves like they did with their friends.

That won't fix racism or anything, but it will go a long way towards not actively screwing yourself over for jobs you would otherwise be viable for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

This is one of the first posts in awhile in this thread that I agree with you almost 100% on with everything in it.

There's tons of prejudice out there. I only argue that you can't just ignore it's there. But that doesn't absolve someone of doing their due diligence in terms of being viable for a job, nor does it mean they should get a job when they are obviously not a fit for it.

I grew up with plenty of kids from "the hood". They ALL knew that to get a good job they couldn't roll in speaking slang and dressed like they just came from a game on the local baskeball court.
Every last one of them could hang out and look like your stereotypical black urban kid, baggy clothing, lots of slang and cursing, etc.

When they went to an interview? Clean cut, well fitted clothing, possibly a suit depending what it was for, all spoke perfectly clear and proper English. None of them would refer to themselves like they did with their friends.

That won't fix racism or anything, but it will go a long way towards not actively screwing yourself over for jobs you would otherwise be viable for.

---

In short, dress like a prospect and not a suspect. EclecticGroove, we agree on almost everything else around here except certain political subjects. I'm pretty sure you already knew that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

This is one of the first posts in awhile in this thread that I agree with you almost 100% on with everything in it.

There's tons of prejudice out there. I only argue that you can't just ignore it's there. But that doesn't absolve someone of doing their due diligence in terms of being viable for a job, nor does it mean they should get a job when they are obviously not a fit for it.

I grew up with plenty of kids from "the hood". They ALL knew that to get a good job they couldn't roll in speaking slang and dressed like they just came from a game on the local baskeball court.
Every last one of them could hang out and look like your stereotypical black urban kid, baggy clothing, lots of slang and cursing, etc.

When they went to an interview? Clean cut, well fitted clothing, possibly a suit depending what it was for, all spoke perfectly clear and proper English. None of them would refer to themselves like they did with their friends.

That won't fix racism or anything, but it will go a long way towards not actively screwing yourself over for jobs you would otherwise be viable for.

---

Is it prejudice if it is true, I mean seriously not relating to anything in particular but lets say you are in a bad neighborhood and you see people walking towards you wouldn't you cross the street or walk away? Is that instinct? Is it wrong to not select an individual that isn't educated, has poor English skills, and a record, or does he/she/It/LGBTVHIV whatever all of those things because they aren't selected? Why is racism viewed in one direction? From what I see in culture every day that racism and bias are allowed by certain cultures against other cultures. But is that racism to allow it, meaning "Oh they talk like that as they don't know any better.", like a paternalistic approach.


Too many rules, false outrages, hypocrisy, thought policing, race baiting, and a fucking verbal mine field that will make people second guess every word spoken. Teaches them to LIE, teaches them that telling the truth, not matter how obvious, can get you fired from your job unless you have the right skin color. Very rarely are people in a position to speak freely without the PC police shaming. Some people just sit on the internet and go after each and every language infraction they deem "offensive" or "racist".

All this does is breed contempt of a silent majority who are still very much in power, and those who point and scream and shout really have no power in this world.


I am sick of it.

It must be tough being a white man in America these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evilevoix

Is it prejudice if it is true, I mean seriously not relating to anything in particular but lets say you are in a bad neighborhood and you see people walking towards you wouldn't you cross the street or walk away? Is that instinct? Is it wrong to not select an individual that isn't educated, has poor English skills, and a record, or does he/she/It/LGBTVHIV whatever all of those things because they aren't selected? Why is racism viewed in one direction? From what I see in culture every day that racism and bias are allowed by certain cultures against other cultures. But is that racism to allow it, meaning "Oh they talk like that as they don't know any better.", like a paternalistic approach.


Too many rules, false outrages, hypocrisy, thought policing, race baiting, and a fucking verbal mine field that will make people second guess every word spoken. Teaches them to LIE, teaches them that telling the truth, not matter how obvious, can get you fired from your job unless you have the right skin color. Very rarely are people in a position to speak freely without the PC police shaming. Some people just sit on the internet and go after each and every language infraction they deem "offensive" or "racist".

All this does is breed contempt of a silent majority who are still very much in power, and those who point and scream and shout really have no power in this world.


I am sick of it.

---

I agree. It's all due to out of control liberal policy and indiscriminate tolerance. Everyone is a victim except for conservatives and white evangelicals. They are evil and racist as far as your everyday liberal is concerned. Oprah Winfrey is a racist and no one cares. She actually said that certain whites that she considers racist need to die. If a famous white person said the Nation of Islam has to die, that white person would be instantly demonized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cNFAYMv4Zs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lan Di

I agree. It's all due to out of control liberal policy and indiscriminate tolerance. Everyone is a victim except for conservatives and white evangelicals. They are evil and racist as far as your everyday liberal is concerned. Oprah Winfrey is a racist and no one cares. She actually said that certain whites that she considers racist need to die. If a famous white person said the Nation of Islam has to die, that white person would be instantly demonized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cNFAYMv4Zs

---

LOL! So you believe that she is advocating that these backward thinking racists need to taking to the back of the barn and shot? Get real Lan Di!

You're at the statement through the lense of Republican spindoctoring and not considered that what she might be arguing for is the need for the older generation who were born, bred, and bathed in racism to die out in order for racism to end. That's why no one is making a big hoopla over the remarks she made back in 2013!

FWIW, I believe her viewpoint is rather simplistic. Whether you are white, black, Indian, Afghani, Chinese etc., if you've grown in a household that spews racist ideas about a particular group you are more prone to carry that viewpoint into your own home.

To be perfectly blunt, I don't think racism will be completely stamped out in my lifetime.

It's only been a century in which people from all over the world have immigrated to North America. Most people are more comfortable cavorting with those who are from the same background. Give it another 200 years and we might start to see racist stereotypes fall to the wasteside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEGA.GENESIS1989

LOL! So you believe that she is advocating that these backward thinking racists need to taking to the back of the barn and shot? Get real Lan Di!

You're at the statement through the lense of Republican spindoctoring and not considered that what she might be arguing for is the need for the older generation who were born, bred, and bathed in racism to die out in order for racism to end. That's why no one is making a big hoopla over the remarks she made back in 2013!

FWIW, I believe her viewpoint is rather simplistic. Whether you are white, black, Indian, Afghani, Chinese etc., if you've grown in a household that spews racist ideas about a particular group you are more prone to carry that viewpoint into your own home.

To be perfectly blunt, I don't think racism will be completely stamped out in my lifetime.

It's only been a century in which people from all over the world have immigrated to North America. Most people are more comfortable cavorting with those who are from the same background. Give it another 200 years and we might start to see racist stereotypes fall to the wasteside.

---

I despise all racists of all colors. White racists dying will not solve anything or make the world a perfect place or eliminate racism. More will eventually take their place even if they do die out. Ever use twitter? Plenty of racists from all cultures every single day spewing intolerant and hate filled speech. Do you want then to just die, or just the white ones? I would have more respect for Oprah if she said ALL racist should just die not just white ones. She is obvious biased and either you didn't notice or your heart bleeds so much for the poor victimized black people you cant even think straight. That's just like saying I want all white child molesters to just die. She purposely excluded all other racists from being racist.

Do you see what I'm getting at? This is what leftists society largely believes; black racists are victims they deserve to hate because of all the evil the world has bestowed upon them. The white ones are evil. That's the mainstream leftist mentality. It's the job of fair minded citizens to be responsible and ensure zero tolerance for racism of any race, not just the white ones. As much as I dislike Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the new black panther party or the KKK, I do not wish death upon them simply because of their skin color and being a racist.

I do believe in the death penalty if a racist is found guilty of a hate crime resulting in murder regardless of race, and the same for any other perpetrator of vile criminal activity like child molesters or rapists. There always will be a class of people who will always hate and discriminate another race. That cannot be avoided. Life is not fair. There will always be child molesters, corrupt cops, gangs, terrorists, and racists. Bad and despicable people will always exist.

I wonder if Oprah wants the new black panther party, the blackboro baptist church (google it) or the Nation of Islam to just die? I'm betting no. Because they are victims in her mind.

Wise up.