|
KomradeX posted:Christ almighty am I not comfortable with authority figures "joking" like this The only joke is the $1. If someone did it the gofundme would hit a half million, easy. Edit: Whoops, meant to edit this into my previous post. Harik fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Aug 4, 2015 |
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
Cole posted:Do you have anything more recent? A good majority of those sources are around 20 years old. Yea from what I remember those studies have lots of methodological and analysis issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Yea from what I remember those studies have lots of methodological and analysis issues. Well then I'm sure you're going to present a peer-reviewed rebuttal of it instead of just insinuating that "racism is over" because "you remember the study was wrong." Because otherwise that's 12 extra words when you meant to say "Nuh uh." Harik fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Harik posted:Well then I'm sure you're going to present a peer-reviewed rebuttal of it instead of just insinuating that "racism is over" because "you remember the study was wrong." nobody said racism was over. you are a horrible transcriber.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Cole posted:nobody said racism was over. you are a horrible transcriber. Oh okay then a study from 2003 is still reliable, great!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh okay then a study from 2003 is still reliable, great! not quite bub. the claim was you're better off being a white felon than a black man when applying for a job. just because i think this is different in 2015 doesn't mean racism is over. i want a serious answer here: is it possible one or more aspect(s) of racism has changed in 15-20 years? if the answer is yes to this, then why be a dick when someone asks for more recent studies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
See the way a normal discussion goes is that both sides provide evidence. Not where one side provides evidence and the other side gives "what-ifs" and demands more data than answers each of their specified what-ifs. If you think something might be true, look for facts to support that supposition yourself. Don't demand others do your work for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Cole posted:nobody said racism was over. you are a horrible transcriber. Then what exactly did you mean by "Do you have anything more recent? A good majority of those sources are around 20 years old."? At the most charitable interpretation I can come up with is "I admit systemic racism was a problem 20 years ago" followed by "but you can't prove it's still a problem today." Put forth an actual argument you want to advance instead of a cryptic oneliner with leading implications if you want people to not see your obvious implications. My argument is that systemic racism has been, continues to be, and will be a severe problem that urgently needs to be addressed. I provided both a study to back my point and a non-scientific video to illustrate it. Your turn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Harik posted:"Do you have anything more recent? A good majority of those sources are around 20 years old."? Cole posted:not quite bub. i'm actually being really nice to you and it's pretty common for people to ask for more recent sources when the world has changed so much since the sources you posted were published. like, you wouldn't even pass an intro writing class with sources that old because they wouldn't be allowed as relevant since they are so old.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Let me tell you about the ancient world of 2003 America, lost to the mists of time...a strange and wonderful and terrible place, a world apart from our present day where everything you thought you knew is turned on its head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Cole posted:i'm actually being really nice to you and it's pretty common for people to ask for more recent sources when the world has changed so much since the sources you posted were published. Do you actually have any sources to support your theories? Or are you unwilling to find a more recent study yourself? I'm being really nice to you and it's pretty common for people to ask for a single source discussing the topic at hand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Let me tell you about the ancient world of 2003 America, lost to the mists of time...a strange and wonderful and terrible place, a world apart from our present day where everything you thought you knew is turned on its head. that's when the study was published, not when the stuff the person sourced was published. some of that stuff referenced was published in 1971. let me tell you how to read a bibliography, lost in the mists of time...
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Cole posted:that's when the study was published, not when the stuff the person sourced was published. some of that stuff referenced was published in 1971. Do you have a more recent publication you're citing instead? Or are you unwilling to do any research to support the claims you make?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have a more recent publication you're citing instead? Or are you unwilling to do any research to support the claims you make? because i don't know if i am right either. i will quote my post, and bold things for emphasis since you don't get it. Cole posted:not quite bub. i bolded the key phrase. i didn't say whether i am right or wrong, nor did i say whether you are right or wrong. i just said your studies don't prove anything one way or another for the topic presented (it being harder for a black man to get a job than a white felon) when you apply it to 2015, and since you know where to find a study from 2003, maybe you know where to find one that is more recent. you are convinced of your point. i personally don't know one way or another, but i think (hmm... where did that phrase come into play before) you are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Cole posted:i'm actually being really nice to you and it's pretty common for people to ask for more recent sources when the world has changed so much since the sources you posted were published. First off, it's a 2003 paper, where their own research is new. The white-felon-vs-black-man effect was not 20+ years ago, it was 12. They cited fairly current research for when their paper was written - frequently between 3-5 years old, although older and well-regarded papers from farther back were cited as well. It's not like racism is a brand new phenomenon, people have studied it for decades. Secondly "you would have failed this class I just made up" is also not an argument. If you even want to pursue something so ridiculous, you have to cite college class writing guidelines that state the age of sources allowed. Not just a single class - that's not representative of systemic "agism" in citations. You'll need to sample a large number of class guidelines and compile the data on their citation age limit, or provide a peer-reviewed study that does the same. Or, you could stop using dumb distractions and present a counter-argument yourself. Cole posted:i bolded the key phrase. i didn't say whether i am right or wrong, nor did i say whether you are right or wrong. i just said your studies don't prove anything one way or another for the topic presented (it being harder for a black man to get a job than a white felon) when you apply it to 2015, and since you know where to find a study from 2003, maybe you know where to find one that is more recent. Just asking questions, are we? Well I've got proof and evidence on my side, you've got a gut feeling on yours. Since this isn't CNN, I'm right and you're not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Harik posted:First off, it's a 2003 paper, where their own research is new. The white-felon-vs-black-man effect was not 20+ years ago, it was 12. They cited fairly current research for when their paper was written - frequently between 3-5 years old, although older and well-regarded papers from farther back were cited as well. It's not like racism is a brand new phenomenon, people have studied it for decades. 3-5 years ago in 2003 is pre-9/11 era. if you don't think 9/11 would impact previous studies, then i don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Cole posted:because i don't know if i am right either. i will quote my post, and bold things for emphasis since you don't get it. What evidence do you base that thinking on? I'm just arguing we should use the best evidence presented. Thus far, there is no evidence presented to support your supposition. Cole posted:3-5 years ago in 2003 is pre-9/11 era. if you don't think 9/11 would impact previous studies, then i don't know what to tell you. Please, do you have any evidence to support your theory that 9/11 positively impacted the treatment of black people in America?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Cole posted:3-5 years ago in 2003 is pre-9/11 era. if you don't think 9/11 would impact previous studies, then i don't know what to tell you. Wait, what? How the gently caress would 9-11 impact racism against black people?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Harik posted:Just asking questions, are we? Well I've got proof and evidence on my side, you've got a gut feeling on yours. Since this isn't CNN, I'm right and you're not. yes, i am literally just asking questions. i was curious if you have anymore recent studies to prove your point since i, literally, do not know the answer to the question. congrats, you proved that 2003 is as recent as it gets. man, you guys don't like me even when i'm being nice to you. i have no sources for my point, but sources from 2003 do not convince me of yours. but more recent sources could easily convince me of yours. but anything i produce will not change your mind, and i know that. Cole fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Cole posted:3-5 years ago in 2003 is pre-9/11 era. if you don't think 9/11 would impact previous studies, then i don't know what to tell you. 2003 is after 9/11/2001, since you seem to be bad at math. Which means this study was done AFTER the previous ones, and AFTER the "impact" that it may have had. You may be confusing "citation" with "meta-study". This is not a meta-study, it was an experment conducted after 2001. I'm going to take your continued lack of engagement as a concession.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Harik posted:2003 is after 9/11/2001, since you seem to be bad at math. Which means this study was done AFTER the previous ones, and AFTER the "impact" that it may have had. You may be confusing "citation" with "meta-study". This is not a meta-study, it was an experment conducted after 2001. He's talking about the research, which someone said is probably 3-5 years older than the publication date.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Harik posted:2003 is after 9/11/2001, since you seem to be bad at math. Which means this study was done AFTER the previous ones, and AFTER the "impact" that it may have had. You may be confusing "citation" with "meta-study". This is not a meta-study, it was an experment conducted after 2001. 3-5 years ago from 2003 2003 minus 3 = 2000 2003 minus 5 = 1998 both are pre-9/11 see? you're just being a prick for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
nm posted:He's talking about the research, which someone said is probably 3-5 years older than the publication date. Let me see if I can get a definitive timeline on it. Edit: It was funded by the National Institute of Justice in 2002 (search for 2002-IJ-CX-0002). While there was probably research and preparatory work done before the funding was given, it would require money to go out and do the study. I can't prove it was done after 2002, but that seems like a strong conclusion. EDIT: thatdarnedbob posted:The fieldwork for the experiment itself was done in Milwaukee between June and December of 2001 (page 951), which does seem to render this result vulnerable to the "9/11 changed everything" argument, odd as that argument is. So it was mid-late 2001, before AND after 9/11. Moving the rest of my post below since I edited it and the conversation has moved on. Harik fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Harik posted:Let me see if I can get a definitive timeline on it. the timeline doesn't make a difference in regards to you telling me i'm bad at math when you just didn't understand my post at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
I just want to take some time to talk about how 9/11 changed racism in the US. After those terrorists ended thousands of lives the world was in turmoil, black people rose up and overtook their white oppressors. The fight was long and hard but eventually one became the president (by force) and ended racism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I just want to take some time to talk about how 9/11 changed racism in the US. After those terrorists ended thousands of lives the world was in turmoil, black people rose up and overtook their white oppressors. The fight was long and hard but eventually one became the president (by force) and ended racism. From quick googling, it seems that it made racism worse overall. I never said what type of impact, whether I am right or wrong, or what any current study would show. My point, however, is that black people getting hired isn't harder than a white felon getting hired. This be completely independent of racism getting worse (cops don't care if you are employed). I have seen black people getting treated like poo poo just for being black. I haven't, however, noticed any black people getting turned down for jobs just because they are black. I'm sure it happens, but not to the same degree it happens to white felons. Maybe I am wrong, but I can't find any recent conclusive studies, which is what I am looking for and asking about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
So you're rejecting a study from 2003 because it's too old for you to rely on the data therein, on what do you base your  *~*~thinking~*~* that racial discrimination isn't a problem anymore?Like what is your point, that maybe racism isn't as bad as 2003 but we don't really know so let's assume it's better now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So you're rejecting a study from 2003 because it's too old for you to rely on the data therein, on what do you base your *~*~thinking~*~* that racial discrimination isn't a problem anymore? I didn't say it wasn't a problem anymore. I said I don't think it's harder for a black man to get hired than a white felon. The rise of social media puts everyone everywhere on constant alert to what is going on in the world. Companies have faced a lot of scrutiny in the last decade for being prejudice in their hiring practices. Ulta, for example, has to pay out $200k for discrimination (first result on Google). I am sure the availability of information and the speed things can spread has had an impact on people getting hired in the United States. I am actually looking these things up but can't find anything conclusive on it, so I am wondering if anyone here has anything. People are a lot more connected now than they were 5 years ago, even moreso than they were in 2003. I think I still had dialup in 2003.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
Cole posted:I didn't say it wasn't a problem anymore. I said I don't think it's harder for a black man to get hired than a white felon. And on what do you base this thinking. Oh right, on nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So racial profiling and racist enforcement exists, but should never be discussed in relation to any particular case because we can't Jedi mindmeld the officer to figure out if he specifically was being racist. Harik posted:The problem is that you can apply that logic to literally every case, so since it's never racism ever it must not be systemic racism at work. This goes with the study I posted as well: Since you can't prove any specific lack of a callback is due to racism there's obviously no racism in the hiring process, since 100% of all rejections cannot be proved to be based on racial grounds. It's not though. Would you be totally cool with the Sandra Bland stop if she was white? Want to go back through dash cam tapes of every single traffic stop in the city and figure out which ones were racially motivated? Looking at which departments have been successful in combating bias and promoting wider adoption of their policies is a good idea, but when you're drilling down to the point where you have an individual cop pulling someone over for a traffic stop, the only real question is whether it's legal, supportable and professional. Trying to suss out what percentage of the cop's decision-making was racially motivated (since it's not a binary thing) when they pulled someone over and found warrants or a trunk full of coke is dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And on what do you base this thinking. Did I gently caress your wife or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Harik posted:Let me see if I can get a definitive timeline on it. The fieldwork for the experiment itself was done in Milwaukee between June and December of 2001 (page 951), which does seem to render this result vulnerable to the "9/11 changed everything" argument, odd as that argument is. edit: The article does mention 9/11 having some possible effect on employment practice, as a 25% increase in the number of background checking employers. The author doesn't seem to consider this especially relevant to his own results. thatdarnedbob fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
"Quick Googling" is perhaps my favorite type of research. Far more effective and credible than, say, a study from barely more than a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
thatdarnedbob posted:The fieldwork for the experiment itself was done in Milwaukee between June and December of 2001 (page 951), which does seem to render this result vulnerable to the "9/11 changed everything" argument, odd as that argument is. I wonder what other well studied societal problems were forever changed by 9/11. We could be living in a utopian bigot free society right now and there'd be no way to well because all the studies are too old!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Cole posted:Did I gently caress your wife or something? I have an open relationship with my boyfriend because we live 10,000 miles apart from each other. You loving him would be way way less irritating than stating a conclusion that's in direct contradiction to the data and demanding everyone else prove you right. Dead Reckoning posted:It's not though. Would you be totally cool with the Sandra Bland stop if she was white? Want to go back through dash cam tapes of every single traffic stop in the city and figure out which ones were racially motivated? It wouldn't be okay if Sandra had been white, but statistically black people are more likely to have that happen to them because policing in America is racist, which is why racist policing is brought up as a component of police reform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
thatdarnedbob posted:The fieldwork for the experiment itself was done in Milwaukee between June and December of 2001 (page 951), which does seem to render this result vulnerable to the "9/11 changed everything" argument, odd as that argument is. Thanks, I'm not sure how I missed that when searching for dates. Which means either they got the grant I found after they did their fieldwork, or Fiscal Year 2002 means "all grants since 2001 and before 2002". I'll edit my previous post to include this. I think there'd be a great paper in "effects of 9/11 on racism by employers" since they had pre-and-post 9/11 data. They didn't note any effect, and nobody has brought up any studies that non-arab-looking groups were strongly affected by it. Edit: Moved from my above edit since this thread is moving fast for this late at night. But you know what time linearity says happened after 9/11/2001? 2009, when Devah Pager did a followup study in New York that showed that a black man with a conviction faced a 75% penalty to a black man with no conviction, while a white felon only faced a 30% penalty for his conviction compared to a non-convicted white peer. I'm not sure that the table on page 200 (6 of the PDF) means that things have improved - this is a different study, not a repeat of the 2003 study, and they're studying based on interviews granted - so everyone that simply threw away a resume for any reason isn't included. Harik fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Cole posted:Did I gently caress your wife or something? I think confirmation bias hosed your wife, because all your kids look like him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
Color me surprised. I had no idea that the endemic racism experienced by black people in the united states today was rooted in the events that occurred on 9/11. No doubt this is due to entrenched nation of Islam cells hidden in many black communities, waiting to pounce on unsuspecting whitey the second we turn our back on that root of terrorism in america, baggy pants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Everything changed after 9/11. Everything. Now day is night, the lion lies with the lamb, dogs and cats live together, men get pregnant, and blacks have special rights and all the good jobs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
Cole posted:Did I gently caress your wife or something? What is confusing to you about the fact that, if you're going to make a huge, radical claim like racism in employment having disappeared in the past 15 years, you have to back it up? Vital, on your earlier point about police facing trials in other developed countries:  Obdicut fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 11:34
|
|
