Defining Unfair Discrimination Based on Race, Sex or Religion

[TahoeHorn 107]

25 minutes ago, Blotto said:

 

So by definition, the strike zone differs from batter to batter depending on their physical stature.

 

But it does not depend on race, sex, or religion of the batter.  Or pitcher.

[David Dennison 18944]

4 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

But it does not depend on race, sex, or religion of the batter.  Or pitcher.

Wink, wink.

[F250 28809]

4 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

In a baseball game some batters have had more advantages over others.  Two people with the same athletic ability don't have the same opportunity to hit the ball.  One may have had:

1. A culture (family or community) which introduced him to baseball later in life

2. Inferior coaching

3. Discriminatory treatment by Little League coaches

4. Unsupportive parents

5. Pressure to play other sports or study instead of practicing baseball.

And many more.

But if I'm the umpire I don't care.  A strike is a strike and a ball is a ball.  I'm not even going to pay attention to who the batter si or who the pitcher is.

If it's a church picnic I'll give 5 year old Susie extra strikes and easy pitches.  And I won't cut 14 year old Billy, who plays high school ball, any slack.  But in MLB a ball is a ball and a strike is a strike. 

You know how I know you don't know jack shit about baseball?

 

[F250 28809]

23 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

But it does not depend on race, sex, or religion of the batter.  Or pitcher.

Catcher, never forget the importance of framing a pitch. A good catcher can turn a ball into a strike and a bad catcher can turn a strike into a ball. Everyone knows this, man. The strike zone is very subjective and yes, the players involved have a big impact on how a pitch is called.

 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

18 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

But it does not depend on race, sex, or religion of the batter.  Or pitcher.

This is such a crock of shit. 

There are few more subjective things than a strike. 

I don't have the energy to devote to arguing with you about racism, discrimination or anything else pertaining to it. Attaching this flimsy analogy to the discussion is a distraction at best. 

Get to the goddamn point. 

Lee fucking Atwater 

All this other BS is you trying to avoid the fine human beings that call themselves alt right 4chan white power shitheads.

Own it Tahoe 

 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

I just want to reiterate that the OP sounds like a madman talking out of his ass.

In any case, there is generally no need to prove intent in any form of disparate treatment or disparate impact discrimination claims.  To take the baseball analogy, you would be able to establish a prima facie disparate treatment case by showing that you were impacted negatively by a call (a strike that should have been a ball) and that another person did not suffer the same negative outcome with a similar pitch.

If the umpire has a valid explanation for the difference (yours was in your strike zone but the other's wasn't), then all you have to do is prove that the umpire reason was bullshit and, depending on the jurisdiction, perhaps that there is circumstantial evidence of discrimination.

If you wanted to prove up your disparate impact case, you just have to prove that your protected class was adversely affected, statistically, by a facially neutral policy (balls and strikes) and that there is no valid reason to explain the statistical disparity.

Interesting that you use baseball, where subjective errors are probably as rampant, as in, say, college admissions or the hiring of college graduates.

Botched calls and high error rates are rampant. MLB home plate umpires make incorrect calls at least 20% of the time – one in every five calls. In the 2018 season, MLB umpires made 34,246 incorrect ball and strike calls for an average of 14 per game, or 1.6 per inning. Last season, 55 games – 2.2% of the total played – ended with an incorrect call.

[EMAWesome 101]

First thread in Shag/Surly history about calling balls and strikes with no mention of Angel Hernandez on the first page.

[henrygandorf 29194]

i barely made it through the op and there's no way in hell i'm navigating through 55 responses, but i'm going to guess the main core of this issue could simply be solved by learning the difference between equity and equality.  similar looking words with very different meanings and interpretations.

and yes, if you were an alien from a far away universe with zero context, and you were dropped into america tomorrow, there would be certain things you may have to explain.  that doesn't make that stuff irrelevant.

racism and discrimination aren't about circumstance, coincidence, or inappropriate timing.

and on the off-chance this is about the president, i've already concluded he is not a racist.

[TexLonghorn 5671]

14 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

Is it racial discrimination for Trump to tell AOC to go back to where she came from?  My ruling: Maybe.  Maybe not.  The statement is not a prima facie case.  You must prove intent.  In 1982 I must have heard 1000 Houstonian tell various Michiganders to go back home.  But others they wanted to stay.  It wasn't about place of origin or race.  It was about whether you bitched incessantly about how much Houston sucked.  This is a universal reason for telling someone to go back home.  So was Trump's intent because AOC bitches about the US, or because she's Puerto Rican ethnicity? Get serious.

1. Oh, The Great Houston-Michigan War of 1982.  That's a great example, and an often-overlooked period of American History.  Why everyone has to study the Austro-Hungarian Empire but never gets to explore the historical ramifications of the Astro-Michigandian Hellfire is beyond me. 🙄  

2. AOC's not from Puerto Rico, she's from New York, so was Trump indicating she should go back to New York?  If not, and he was suggesting AOC should go back to Puerto Rico, then there's your prima facie case for ya.  Trump himself bitches about the US, so that can't be the reason for his tirade, unless you have some justification as to why he feels he can do it himself, but others (minority women) can't.  Get serious.

[The People’s Elbow 707]

Is this the new bow and apologize thread? 

[DigglerontheHoof 21209]

What in God's name is OP blathering on about?

[Fudge Nuggets 19211]

10 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

In a baseball game some batters have had more advantages over others.  Two people with the same athletic ability don't have the same opportunity to hit the ball.  One may have had:

1. A culture (family or community) which introduced him to baseball later in life

2. Inferior coaching

3. Discriminatory treatment by Little League coaches

4. Unsupportive parents

5. Pressure to play other sports or study instead of practicing baseball.

And many more.

But if I'm the umpire I don't care.  A strike is a strike and a ball is a ball.  I'm not even going to pay attention to who the batter si or who the pitcher is.

If it's a church picnic I'll give 5 year old Susie extra strikes and easy pitches.  And I won't cut 14 year old Billy, who plays high school ball, any slack.  But in MLB a ball is a ball and a strike is a strike.

Is there a point to all this horseshit?

[wildcat09 29363]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Is there a point to all this horseshit?

His point is that we’re the real racists.

[WhatTheBuck 28795]

I don't think this thread turned out the way Tahoe planned. 

[Bookman 4639]

Tahoe, say you represented a client who claims he was fired from his job because he's Muslim. Say a new boss comes in and talks all the time about Muslims and how they're destroying America and they should all be fired and sent back to their own countries. Your client gets fired a few months later.

If you file suit, do you plead the religion of the people involved?

If not, when asked, do you argue that their religion is irrelevant and you shouldn't have to answer? 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Bookman

[WhatTheBuck 28795]

Don't ask Tahoe to think. He doesn't do that. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

I think the point is, the designated hitter should be abolished.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

CULTURE WAR!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

don’t worry about about corporate and high earner tax cuts, booming deficits, citizen’s United, net neutrality, unaffordable healthcare and childcare, open corruption by the admin, and unsecure elections

Edited July 30, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

 What’s the point of the thread- that the OP doesn’t understand Title VII law?

[Asithappens 974]

7 hours ago, TexLonghorn said:

1. Oh, The Great Houston-Michigan War of 1982.  That's a great example, and an often-overlooked period of American History.  Why everyone has to study the Austro-Hungarian Empire but never gets to explore the historical ramifications of the Astro-Michigandian Hellfire is beyond me. 🙄  

2. AOC's not from Puerto Rico, she's from New York, so was Trump indicating she should go back to New York?  If not, and he was suggesting AOC should go back to Puerto Rico, then there's your prima facie case for ya.  Trump himself bitches about the US, so that can't be the reason for his tirade, unless you have some justification as to why he feels he can do it himself, but others (minority women) can't.  Get serious.

I find Trump's statement much more xenophobic and anti-immigrant than racist. But it is based on racism.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

35 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 What’s the point of the thread- that the OP doesn’t understand Title VII law?

Nope.  OP is stupid.  Incredibly, incredibly stupid.  Don't be like OP.

[tantric superman 4667]

[Bookman 4639]

2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 What’s the point of the thread- that the OP doesn’t understand Title VII law?

I don’t even think he understands what prima facie means.

[TexLonghorn 5671]

2 hours ago, Asithappens said:

I find Trump's statement much more xenophobic and anti-immigrant than racist. But it is based on racism.

Trump looked at AOC's appearance, looked at her name, and assumed she was from a different country.  He did the same against two other US Congresswomen.  That's racist.

How is telling US-born citizens to 'go back where they come from' viewed as being 'anti-immigrant'?  They aren't immigrants, they are Americans - so the correct alternative would be for you to view his statement as anti-American, not anti-immigrant.

[fattyflattie 4638]

On 7/29/2019 at 10:23 AM, Brisketexan said:

Is it the one that won't have employers subconsciously screen out their black-sounding names?

This shouldn’t even be a talking point. 1) no one made you put a fucking Q or comma to the top in your kids name.  2) have you seen the names of middle class white kids in the last 10 years?  

 

18 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

- does not have as big or successful a network in the upper reaches of business/government/etc. that will give him a leg up when it comes time to get a job, hustle more business/accounts, seek a promotion, etc.

You are under the impression every white kid is born into this advantage?  I’m thinking more like 10%. Pretty big assumption outside of upper class households, really.   

 

On 7/29/2019 at 10:23 AM, Brisketexan said:

 Is it the one that will have many members get sweet internships/first jobs through a connection that their dad made from HIS college days? 

Let’s assume the 5 yo in your example is getting out of college today, 25 yo.  His parents would be 50-ish.  They would have attended college in the early 90’s.  Why in the  fuck shouldn’t their parents have the same connections?  It’s a few years before my time but I was  under the impression all races were able to relatively easily attend college by the 90’s.   

Tahoe shits up the board but is widely considered unintelligent.  What’s your excuse? 

[wildcat09 29363]

Way too many of you are assuming that Tahoe was making a good faith attempt at creating an honest discussion.

[fattyflattie 4638]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Way too many of you are assuming that Tahoe was making a good faith attempt at creating an honest discussion.

I’m 50/50 on it, leaning your way.  

[elfenix 34331]

34 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

the names of middle class white kids in the last 10 years

if carlin were alive today

 

[Helobious 9464]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

It’s a few years before my time but I was  under the impression all races were able to relatively easily attend college by the 90’s.   

Depending on how you define “easy”, that’s a pretty fucking stupid assumption.

[Michael Knight 12989]

Oh good Tahoe is back

[fattyflattie 4638]

Stupid to assume that black kids in the US were having issues being admitted to college in the 90’s?   When Clinton was president?   25 years ago?   

Eta: replying to helibious. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by fattyflattie

[Helobious 9464]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Stupid to assume that black kids in the US were having issues being admitted to college in the 90’s?   When Clinton was president?   25 years ago?   

Eta: replying to helibious. 

That’s not what you said, you said easily attend. Easily attend means easily get admitted, easily pay for, easily adjust to the academic & social environment of a college. And odds are the average white kid had/has an easier time with all of that than the average minority kid. 

[fattyflattie 4638]

2 hours ago, Helobious said:

That’s not what you said, you said easily attend. Easily attend means easily get admitted, easily pay for, easily adjust to the academic & social environment of a college. And odds are the average white kid had/has an easier time with all of that than the average minority kid. 

Fair enough, I should have said without difficulty. 

Easily admitted - there’s separate admission requirements based on the color of your skin?  Almost certain that falls in favor of pigment blessed individuals, not the other way around.   

Easily paid for - Ask the hundreds of thousands of non-black individuals drowning in student debt.  Seems like this falls in the “affects everyone” category.  I assume there are more white families who  paid for school without loans is your angle here? 

Easily adjusted to college - wtf does that even mean?  The vast majority of ALL college kids are 18-22 and are leaving home for the first time.  There are varying degrees of difficulty in academics, determined in large part by the student.  Further, there are commuter schools for those that help support family, and HBU that cater to AA students.  This has more to do with individual kids than their race, and I don’t see how there can be any advantage gained either way  

 

[Brisketexan 105192]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Fair enough, I should have said without difficulty. 

Easily admitted - there’s separate admission requirements based on the color of your skin?  Almost certain that falls in favor of pigment blessed individuals, not the other way around.   

Easily paid for - Ask the hundreds of thousands of non-black individuals drowning in student debt.  Seems like this falls in the “affects everyone” category.  I assume there are more white families who  paid for school without loans is your angle here? 

Easily adjusted to college - wtf does that even mean?  The vast majority of ALL college kids are 18-22 and are leaving home for the first time.  There are varying degrees of difficulty in academics, determined in large part by the student.  Further, there are commuter schools for those that help support family, and HBU that cater to AA students.  This has more to do with individual kids than their race, and I don’t see how there can be any advantage gained either way  

 

I mean, you can feel free to ignore the statistics that minority students -- who disproportionately come from poor backgrounds/families that have never had a college grad -- which arises in large part from family history -- which arises in large part from historical conditions -- have a harder time integrating into college and achieving.  But the rest of us won't.

['stache 21827]

And how come they can say the n-word in rap music and white people cant? Reverse racism!!!!

 

Actually, this....

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Way too many of you are assuming that Tahoe was making a good faith attempt at creating an honest discussion.

[Helobious 9464]

27 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Easily adjusted to college - wtf does that even mean?  The vast majority of ALL college kids are 18-22 and are leaving home for the first time.  There are varying degrees of difficulty in academics, determined in large part by the student.  Further, there are commuter schools for those that help support family, and HBU that cater to AA students.  This has more to do with individual kids than their race, and I don’t see how there can be any advantage gained either way  

 

Wow some really good points raised here. Both my parents were English second-language 1st generation americans, and 1st generation college students, who went to dirt poor, entirely hispanic high schools. My mom told me she ran to her dorm crying after her first college class because they received a prompt to write about an “icon” they admired, and she had never heard the word before in her life. She said walking up to quietly ask the professor what the word meant while her classmates wrote away was one of the worst feelings in her life. 

But I’ll have to tell them that they had the exact same struggle adjusting to the academic world as many of the suburban white kids with college-educated parents. I mean they were the same age as them, after all. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Helobious

[fattyflattie 4638]

That’s a great story and all. Don’t know what it has to do with the “hundreds of years of oppression” that the conversation stemmed from, though.  Yes, 1st generation immigrants may have difficulty assimilating, news at 10.  

I was under the impression we were discussing the difficulties of AA students several generations removed from an atrocity, and the lingering affects of that.  I’m assuming my high school wasn’t the only one to send kids of all colors to college, and even did so in the 90’s when it was apparently still an unattainable goal for AA’s. 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean, you can feel free to ignore the statistics that minority students -- who disproportionately come from poor backgrounds/families that have never had a college grad -- which arises in large part from family history -- which arises in large part from historical conditions -- have a harder time integrating into college and achieving.  But the rest of us won't.

I’m not ignoring anything. I’m questioning whether it was systematic racism, or maybe the lack of nuclear families, or high drug addiction rates, or just because.  I will not accept it’s completely from “racism” just because DD blames anything and everything on it. 

[Jive Turkey 12638]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

And how come they can say the n-word in rap music and white people cant? Reverse racism!!!!

 

Actually, this....

Can't wait for Tahoe's next thread:

Why is it ok to have a Black History Month?  If Trump proposed White History Month, everybody would claim that it's racist, but is it?  Isn't it racist just to celebrate the accomplishments of one race but not all races?

[Dahobbs 17634]

53 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’m not ignoring anything. I’m questioning whether it was systematic racism, or maybe the lack of nuclear families, or high drug addiction rates, or just because.  I will not accept it’s completely from “racism” just because DD blames anything and everything on it. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No seriously, you are hilarious. 

Step (1): Ignore all the historical context of previous blatant racism and its negative effect on black families (e.g., lack of job opportunities, education opportunities, high incarceration rates breaking up families and the negative cycle perpetuated by those events) .

Step (2): Question whether systemic racism is currently an issue because maybe all the negatives are actually caused by " lack of nuclear families, or high drug addiction rates, or just because".

Step (3): Since you've ignored all the data found in step (1), conclude that systemic racism doesn't exist because problems are really a black cultural problem or some other similar term.

Step (4): Ironically, prove that systemic racism does exist (the racist belief that black culture or black people are inferior and that is why they have all these problems), at least for anyone actually paying attention to all your steps. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Dahobbs

[fattyflattie 4638]

You’re right. It’s all systematic racism. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You’re right. It’s all systematic racism. 

Cute. 

Problem with discussing this issue with individuals like yourself is that your definition of racism is based on the common socially accepted idea of racism from 50-60 years ago (especially in the South). So you are arguing from an apples to oranges comparison to what individuals like myself define racism as. You don't accept that society is progressing towards a more balanced system for all (as much as possible anyways). Because you miss "the good ol days". 

 

[fattyflattie 4638]

13 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Because you miss "the good ol days". 

You can make that determination from my comments above?  Huh.   Ill take a crack at it. They problem with discussing issues like this with individuals like you is that you make simple assumptions that require the least amount of thought. 

15 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

You don't accept that society is progressing towards a more balanced system for all (as much as possible anyways)

I’m almost certain my position upthread is that this has been going on for over 30 years.   But I didn’t expect you to read thru the conversation. Not when “people like you blah blah” is so much easier to type. 

[Lurch 5931]

Is this where the donut line ends? Does anyone know if there are chocolate glazed left?

[bernorange 8362]

I'll say this... Given the way this forum has expressed a general consensus towards Tahoe and the issue of racism, the decision to start this thread says a lot about Tahoe.  I'm not entirely sure I know what that is exactly, but it does make you (me at least) step back and go "huh?".

@TahoeHorn - Your thread title begs the question... What is *fair* discrimination based on race, sex or religion?  Also, did you get hired on as MLB umpire or minor leagues?

[wildcat09 29363]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

You’re right. It’s all systematic racism. 

No, no, you’re right, none of it has ever been systemic racism.

[Brisketexan 105192]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

No, no, you’re right, none of it has ever been systemic racism.

And none of it is today.

Take 100 randomly selected black kids, and 100 randomly selected white kids, and as a group, they'll end up equally successful!  They have all the same opportunities, no difference in impediments, everything is EVEN now!

Care to take that wager, flattie?  You know how it will turn out.  So, the only question is this: is it primarily because 1) black folks are inherently less able to succeed, or 2) they are starting from a point of fewer advantages, and entering into a society that still has entrenched disadvantages (I mean, I'm sure the wild discrepancy in the rates that drivers are pulled over based on race is just an accounting error, for example).  Come on.  If you think you're being AT ALL clever....stop.

[fattyflattie 4638]

Sorry guys, hyperbole isn’t my thing.  

Brisket, all I asked is that you try harder.  I know you have the intellect and education to provide better posts than #8.  Black kids can’t get jobs because of their “cultural” names gtfo.   “White kids daddies all have big time contacts in business and government”.   That’s lazy at best. 

[Dahobbs 17634]

14 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Sorry guys, hyperbole isn’t my thing.  

Brisket, all I asked is that you try harder.  I know you have the intellect and education to provide better posts than #8.  Black kids can’t get jobs because of their “cultural” names gtfo.   “White kids daddies all have big time contacts in business and government”.   That’s lazy at best. 

And literally true? Have you not seen the numerous studies that show people with black sounding names are less likely to get a job than those with white sounding names and the exact same credentials? This is shit that has been studied and proven. Your refusal to acknowledge it is quite a bit worse than lazy. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 105192]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

And literally true? Have you not seen the numerous studies that show people with black sounding names are less likely to get a job than those with white sounding names and the exact same credentials?like, this is shit that has been studied and proven. Your refusal to acknowledge is quite a bit worse than lazy. 

Fucking seriously.  I actually posted two examples that have been backed up with data.

Again, I'll just ask this question - take 100 random black kids, 100 random white kids.  Which group is MORE likely to, on average, have family connections that can get them a leg-up professionally?  Nobody is saying ALL -- I'm sure there's a black kid in that group whose dad has a great network, and can get him a sweet gig.  And there's a white kid whose dad is an alcoholic bum who can't help him for shit.  But COLLECTIVELY, where are the better odds?  Come one, man, you know the fucking answer.  And it's an answer that has NOTHING to do with a kid's merit or effort.  It has everything to do with a pre-built systemic advantage/disadvantage.

[fattyflattie 4638]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

And literally true? Have you not seen the numerous studies that show people with black sounding names are less likely to get a job than those with white sounding names and the exact same credentials?like, this is shit that has been studied and proven. Your refusal to acknowledge is quite a bit worse than lazy. 

There have also been studies where people named Rain and Rainbow and Brooklyn have the same issues as J’Quaiveon. Seems like a dumbass name issue, which really, is a dumbass parent issue.  

These issues will exist until the end of time, and the best we can hope for is that it is all but minimized. Brad isn’t going to get a fair shake at an all black organization, either. I know #bothsides hurrdurr.  But is your assertion that things aren’t getting better?  

Sometimes it’s just easier to blame the bogeyman, I guess.  See aggy for example #1.