Defining Unfair Discrimination Based on Race, Sex or Religion

[fattyflattie 4,638]

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

I’ve never deflected from the answer. I simple said it’s not the end all be all.  And that the problem is shrinking daily. And shouldn’t be the boiler plate excuse that it is. 

ETA: I never answered you (did deflect I guess), but I figured we all knew the answer to your question. I’m not Tahoe ffs.  

Edited July 31, 2019 by fattyflattie

[Brisketexan 105,465]

I’ve never deflected from the answer. I simple said it’s not the end all be all.  And that the problem is shrinking daily. And shouldn’t be the boiler plate excuse that it is. 
ETA: I never answered you, I figured we all knew the answer to your question. I’m not Tahoe ffs.  

Nor should it be dismissed. It’s fucking real. And the OP, and you, dismiss it with a fucking hand wave.

Fuck, I deal with people who doubt my loyalty to this country because of my last name (and umm, that’s something that’s gotten WORSE, not better, in recent years).

[Lurch 5,932]

You think names that are unusual -to you- are dumbass names.

Do you not see this?

[SmokeyTheBear 5,568]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I’ve never deflected from the answer. I simple said it’s not the end all be all.  And that the problem is shrinking daily. And shouldn’t be the boiler plate excuse that it is. 

You are not paying attention are you? Before Charlottesville, when was the last time we saw an open racist torch parade with white men screaming the "Jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil"? 

[Dahobbs 17,704]

8 minutes ago, Lurch said:

You think names that are unusual -to you- are dumbass names.

Do you not see this?

Seriously, he yet again proves that systemic racism exists, and yet he cant even see it. 

[RDCanecutter 26,484]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Fuck, I deal with people who doubt my loyalty to this country because of my last name (and umm, that’s something that’s gotten WORSE, not better, in recent years).

Well, I respect your family loyalty, but you must admit that sticking with a name like Traitor McTraitorCommie is going to make people wonder.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

  Black kids can’t get jobs because of their “cultural” names gtfo.   “White kids daddies all have big time contacts in business and government”.   

No one is saying that dipshit.

Fallacy of extremes and a strawman. Logical fallacies are a sign of weak position. If your position is weak, change it 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

48 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Seriously, he yet again proves that systemic racism exists, and yet he cant even see it. 

I’m systematically racist against the goofy “white” names I used as examples (Rain, Rainbow, Brooklynn, etc)   Or just with the names that fits your argument?  I’m racist against errbody?

[fattyflattie 4,638]

1 hour ago, Lurch said:

You think names that are unusual -to you- are dumbass names.

Do you not see this?

I should have phrased that better, lazy on my part. 

They are not the best idea If you are looking for gainful employment outside Torchys. 

[Lurch 5,932]

I should have phrased that better, lazy on my part. 
They are not the best idea If you are looking for gainful employment outside Torchys. 

Go on. Explain why it matters in gaining employment. You’re close, I feel it.

[fattyflattie 4,638]

For the black names, racism?

 For the white names, ?  

I had to send the article to my wife with our first. Sorry your named your kid Apple. T&P

[Brisketexan 105,465]

Well, I respect your family loyalty, but you must admit that sticking with a name like Traitor McTraitorCommie is going to make people wonder.

I wish I could fucking argue this point....I really do...

[SmokeyTheBear 5,568]

So you would discriminate against hiring someone because the name their parent gave them is funny or not serious enough for you. Because a name is indicative of their work ethic and skill set. Is that correct?

[fattyflattie 4,638]

It must be difficult to hold such a stupid position in an argument that you have to project, just  to comment. Well done. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5,568]

Correct me. You aren't making sense otherwise. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

I said it happens (per studies).  I said I can easily see it happening.   I don’t practice it, or believe it is right.  I do believe it happens. 

I hope my brevity makes it clear. 

[Lurch 5,932]

For the black names, racism?
 For the white names, ?  
I had to send the article to my wife with our first. Sorry your named your kid Apple. T&P

I’m not asking for a label. Just asking why J’Quaiveon should not expect employment outside of Torchys. It’s your example. Please explain.

[Dahobbs 17,704]

15 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I said it happens (per studies).  I said I can easily see it happening.   I don’t practice it, or believe it is right.  I do believe it happens. 

I hope my brevity makes it clear. 

You're also confusing intentional racism with the type if unconscious racism that is most prevalent 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

17 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

I’m not asking for a label. Just asking why J’Quaiveon should not expect employment outside of Torchys. It’s your example. Please explain.

 

Well I was making more reference to the white names in my example, but I see you have keyed in on the narrative you want to fit.   I assume you’ve visited Torchys or Starbucks and understand what I am saying, even if your internet persona won’t admit. 

As to your question, likely for the same reason kids named Billy Bob aren’t typically executives, I would assume.  Or Jim Bob. (Jimbo being the obvious outlier, might have actually helped in his case) Or plenty of others.  I don’t feel there’s a driving racial component, you do. We’ve gone over this. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by fattyflattie
*Jimbo. Spellcheck is racist too!

[fattyflattie 4,638]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

You're also confusing intentional racism with the type if unconscious racism that is most prevalent 

Unconscious racism happens with every single skin color. Figured we could ignore that since quite literally every color is just as racist as the next in that regard.  

[Brisketexan 105,465]

Unconscious racism happens with every single skin color. Figured we could ignore that since quite literally every color is just as racist as the next in that regard.  

Oh, the “everyone’s racist, so racism doesn’t matter” argument....is there a shitty excuse for racism you WON’T trot out? I haven’t heard the “black people use the N-word, so why can’t I?” argument. You shouldn’t neglect that one, it’s a classic!

[fattyflattie 4,638]

You really took that from my post? 

[Dahobbs 17,704]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Unconscious racism happens with every single skin color. Figured we could ignore that since quite literally every color is just as racist as the next in that regard.  

Let's assume you are right. Can you admit it disproportionately affects black people?

Edited July 31, 2019 by Dahobbs

[SmokeyTheBear 5,568]

So there is racism, it's bad, but not so wide spread that it has an appreciable impact on the AA community as a whole? Am I getting closer?

[fattyflattie 4,638]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Let's assume you are right. Can you admit it disproportionately affects black people?

Unintentional? Yeah probably. You are talking about a very large segment vs a minority segment.  Percentage wise, I don’t know? 

But I’ve been enough places around the world to see true “unintentional” racism every single place I’ve been. Well, not in Italy that I can recall but I didn’t stay long. Mexico, Australia, Bahamas, Singapore (big time), Russia, fucking UAE,  all had major race hangups. I’m sure I’m forgetting some.  So when I say I glance over “unintentional racism” I was being serious. I think it’s a human component.  I believe the US is actually better than others in this regard too, melting pot and all.

*note- I’m using the term unintentional racism as clutch your purse walking down the street type, not lynching, slavery, etc type.   If that’s a bad example, I’m sure I’ll hear about it shortly  

We (US) are probably (I don’t know) pretty high up on the intentional racism too, I guess, but I don’t study this shit in the evenings like apparently the entire cloakroom does.  I know the folks I dealt with in Singapore absolutely hated the Chinese, and the Mexicans I worked with wouldn’t piss on a Nicaraguan or Guatemalan to put them out of fire.  Ymmv, obviously. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

29 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

So there is racism, it's bad, but not so wide spread that it has an appreciable impact on the AA community as a whole? Am I getting closer?

I think it does.  How appreciable has been my question thru the entire thread.  

[Catdaddyhorn 3,448]

8 hours ago, Lurch said:

You think names that are unusual -to you- are dumbass names.

Do you not see this?

Add in the fact that names used in studies like this are typically names like Tyrone, or Marcus, or Jamal not anything ridiculous like what he's suggesting

[Catdaddyhorn 3,448]

Quote

The sociologist Devah Pager, a Harvard professor who has meticulously researched the effect of race on hiring policies, has also shown that stereotypes have a powerful effect on job possibilities. In one widely cited study, she sent carefully selected test applicants with equivalent résumés to apply for low-level jobs with hundreds of employers. Ms. Pager found that criminal convictions for black men seeking employment were virtually impossible to overcome in many contexts, partly because convictions reinforced powerful, longstanding stereotypes.

The stigma of a criminal record was less damaging for white testers. In fact, those who said that they were just out of prison were as likely to be called back for a second interview as black men who had no criminal history at all. “Being black in America today is just about the same as having a felony conviction in terms of one’s chances of finding a job,” she wrote in her book, “Marked: Race, Crime and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration.”

Quote

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/4/27/1380610/-Black-men-w-no-criminal-record-applying-for-jobs-treated-same-as-white-men-fresh-out-of-prison

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Catdaddyhorn

[Catdaddyhorn 3,448]

Legal Briefs

The idea

In an experimental context, when reviewers were told the author of a legal brief was black they consistently rated identical pieces lower in quality and identified more spelling, grammar, factual, or analytical errors. It's evidence that, even if the days of overt bigotry and explicit discrimination are mostly past, the United States still struggles with a deep problem of implicit racism.

Arin N. Revees, the president of Nextions and the author of the study, argues that the implicit racism happened because reviewers take the racial information she provided as a cue for how they should judge the work. When the author is supposed to be white, reviewers excused errors as out of haste or inexperience. They commented that the author "has potential" and was "generally a good writer but needs to work on" some skills. When the author is supposed to be black, those same errors became evidence of incompetence. A reviewer said he "can't believe he [the author] went to NYU," and others said he "needs lots of work" and was "average at best."

The evidence for

Nextions recruited five lawyers at five different law firms to co-write a research memo about trade secrets at Internet start-ups. Then they inserted several errors into the memos — errors in spelling, grammar, legal terminology, fact, and analysis. Last, they created two different headers for the memo. Both identified the author as "Thomas Meyer," a third-year associate with a degree from the New York University School of Law, a top-ranked school. Yet in one version of the header, Thomas Meyer was identified as "Caucasian"; in another, he was identified as "African American."

They sent these otherwise-identical memos to 60 different partners at law firms who had agreed to review the pieces and identify errors. The reviewers, though, weren't told that the experiment was about race — they were just asked for their opinion on the quality of the memo.

They judged the memo far more harshly when they were told the author was black than when they were told the author was white. On a scale of one to five, reviewers gave the black Thomas Meyer a 3.2 and the white Thomas Meyer a 4.1.

More troublingly, not only was the overall score lower, but reviewers seemed to find more errors when they believed the author was black. Out of seven spelling and grammar errors in the text, they found 2.9 of them on average in white Thomas Meyer's memo and 5.8 of them on average in black Thomas Meyer's memo. Out of six technical writing errors, reviewers found an average of 4.1 in the white version and 4.9 in the black version. Out of the five factual errors, they found an average of 3.2 in the white version and 3.9 in the black version.

There was no apparent effect from the race of the reviewer, and the sample of reviewers included a mix of races.

[Catdaddyhorn 3,448]

The Differences between white poverty and the poverty experienced within other racial groups

Abstract

A key argument of Massey and Denton’s (1993) American Apartheid is that racial residential segregation and non-white group poverty rates combine interactively to produce spatially concentrated poverty. Despite a compelling theoretical rationale, empirical tests of this proposition have been negative or mixed. This article develops a formal decomposition model that expands Massey’s model of how segregation, group poverty rates, and other spatial conditions combine to form concentrated poverty. The revised decomposition model allows for income effects on cross-race neighborhood residence and interactive combinations of multiple spatial conditions in the formation of concentrated poverty. Applying the model to data reveals that racial segregation and income segregation within race contribute importantly to poverty concentration, as Massey argued. Almost equally important for poverty concentration, however, is the disproportionate poverty of blacks’ and Hispanics’ other-race neighbors. It is thus more accurate to describe concentrated poverty in minority communities as resulting from three segregations: racial segregation, poverty-status segregation within race, and segregation from high- and middle-income members of other racial groups. The missing interaction Massey expected in empirical tests can be found with proper accounting for the factors in the expanded model.

“Because of racial segregation, a significant share of black America is condemned to experience a social environment where poverty and joblessness are the norm, where a majority of children are born out of wedlock, where most families are on welfare, where educational failure prevails, and where social and physical deterioration abound. Through prolonged exposure to such an environment, black chances for social and economic success are drastically reduced.” – Massey and Denton, American Apartheid, p. 2 In the United States, a notable difference in the typical lives of whites, blacks, and Hispanics is the economic class of the people in their social environments. White middle-class families overwhelmingly live in middle-class neighborhoods and send their children to middle-class schools. Many black and Hispanic middle-class parents, however, live in working-class or poor neighborhoods and send their children to high-poverty schools. About one in three poor white families live in poor neighborhoods and send their children to high-poverty schools, compared to two in three poor black and Hispanic families.1 Much evidence indicates that the socioeconomic levels of residential neighborhoods and schools affect quality of life and life chances. Concentrated disadvantage in neighborhoods is one of the most durable predictors of high rates of violent crime, and much of the racial gap in exposure to violence is explained by differences in neighborhood disadvantage (Peterson and Krivo 2005). Sampson and Wilson (1995) argue that high-poverty environments are criminogenic, encouraging youth to pursue criminal rather than legitimate careers. Spatial separation of the affluent and the poor produces spatial mismatch between the demand for jobs and job seekers, contributing to high unemployment in poorer neighborhoods (Kain 1968; Kasarda 1995; Mouw 2000). Likewise, high-poverty schools tend to be ineffective and have disproportionately high dropout rates (Orfield and Lee 2005; Rhumburger and Palardy 2005). Racial gaps in the affluence of neighborhood and school environments contribute importantly to persistent racial inequalities. In their seminal book, American Apartheid, Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton argue that the concentration of poverty in black and Latino neighborhoods is the most pernicious consequence of contemporary racial residential segregation.2 In their account, concentration of poverty in minority communities is due to high levels of racial segregation and racial gaps in poverty rates, combined with some segregation of the poor from the nonpoor within race. They develop this argument through a series of simulation models and confirm it through an empirical analysis of segregation, group poverty rates, and poverty concentration in U.S. cities. Their theory is primae facie compelling, but there has been controversy regarding its empirical support. At the center of this debate is Massey’s (1990) core point that segregation and minority poverty rates interact, or intensify in combination, to produce concentrated poverty. Jargowsky (1997), however, found no evidence of an interactive effect in his analysis of data on U.S. cities. Massey and Fischer’s (2000) response and reanalysis found some support for an interaction but also many negative results, despite efforts to account for potential methodological problems. How can we account for this discrepancy between Massey’s compelling theoretical model and the failure of its key prediction to hold in data? This article develops a new model of how racial segregation combines with other spatial and demographic conditions to produce concentrated poverty among minority groups. Massey’s theory emphasizes two forms of segregation—racial segregation and segregation of the poor within race—as key causes of poverty concentration. The decomposition model developed here reveals that to better account for concentrated poverty, we must include a third form of segregation: the segregation of high- and middle-income members of other racial groups from blacks and Hispanics. Blacks’ and Hispanics’ other-race neighbors are disproportionately impoverished, a factor that contributes to these groups high contact with neighborhood poverty. The revised model validates Massey’s core arguments regarding the importance of segregation, expands his model to include other important substantive conditions that concentrate poverty, and explains the anomaly of the missing interaction as a result of these omitted conditions."

[fattyflattie 4,638]

2 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

There was no apparent effect from the race of the reviewer, and the sample of reviewers included a mix of races.

Very interesting reads, Catdaddy.  I found the quote above interesting as well. If I’m reading that correctly, even black reviewers were harsher on the supposed black written paper? 

[TwiceHorn 31,624]

Here's an idea.  White folks, or folks in general, best figure out how to minimize the effects of subconscious or systemic or institutional discrimination because they are about to be the minority.  That's not to say that former minorities are going to exact revenge, but because it's subconscious, systemic, or institutional and inevitable unless we figure out how to make it not inevitable.

It would be nice if this could be discussed without so much invective, but rather with an acceptance that this is the human condition and we have to do better.

[Brisketexan 105,465]

53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's an idea.  White folks, or folks in general, best figure out how to minimize the effects of subconscious or systemic or institutional discrimination because they are about to be the minority.  That's not to say that former minorities are going to exact revenge, but because it's subconscious, systemic, or institutional and inevitable unless we figure out how to make it not inevitable.

It would be nice if this could be discussed without so much invective, but rather with an acceptance that this is the human condition and we have to do better.

Quite true.

And....good luck with that.  See OP.  The strategy here is quite simple, from thoughts like the OP to active, coordinated, and relentless efforts to disenfranchise minority voters -- lay the foundation for an apartheid system, so that even when white folks are the minority, they are firmly in control and on top.  Because, you know, after hundreds of years of systematic oppression -- a good portion of which remains ONGOING -- which has ensured that (to go with the baseball analogy) some of those players are undersized, weak, and have little experience or knowledge of the game, NOW the plan is "hey, let's just all step on the field and play ball against each other, fair is fair!"

Not only is their zero interest in minimizing systemic and institutional racism -- there is an active strategy to preserve it.  Reason # 6,985 why I have furnished my ledge with comfortable seating.

[wildcat09 29,439]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's an idea.  White folks, or folks in general, best figure out how to minimize the effects of subconscious or systemic or institutional discrimination because they are about to be the minority.  That's not to say that former minorities are going to exact revenge, but because it's subconscious, systemic, or institutional and inevitable unless we figure out how to make it not inevitable.

It would be nice if this could be discussed without so much invective, but rather with an acceptance that this is the human condition and we have to do better.

I thought pretty much all of us were in agreement with this but then fattflattie decided to go full retard and trash Brisket over a perfectly reasonable post because of some weird deal he's got about what he thinks are unusual names.  I gotta say, that was one of the stranger heel turns I've seen in some time.

['stache 21,893]

The umpire/balls/strikes analogy is nonsense. If there is an analogy there, pretend that some pitchers have to stand further away from the plate than others. That might be a start on a discussion of people whose parents or grandparents were literally denied the right to attend college or who were denied jobs and promotions because of skin color. You really think that doesn't have generational effects when compared to families who never faced that? It's fun to pretend that it was ancient history, but plenty of folks are alive today who had to drink from different water fountains.

Edited July 31, 2019 by 'stache

[sidis 9,832]

16 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

As to your question, likely for the same reason kids named Billy Bob aren’t typically executives, I would assume.  Or Jim Bob.

not familiar with freeport mcmoran or ut athletics?

[Brisketexan 105,465]

12 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The umpire/balls/strikes analogy is nonsense. If there is an analogy there, pretend that some pitchers have to stand further away from the plate than others. That might be a start on a discussion of people whose parents or grandparents were literally denied the right to attend college or who were denied jobs and promotions because of skin color. You really think that doesn't have generational effects when compared to families who never faced that? It's fun to pretend that it was ancient history, but plenty of folks are alive today who had to drink from different water fountains.

Start the conversation after reading this:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/following-the-success-sequence-success-is-more-likely-if-youre-white/

It has some simple and easy to understand facts in there.

Quote

Lowry suggests that black Americans would be better served if Coates made his readers aware of a “little secret” set out in previous research by our colleagues, Isabel Sawhill and Ron Haskins, which assesses the likelihood of economic success conditional on achieving three middle class “norms,” which they call the “success sequence.” Lowry correctly reports that about three-quarters of Americans reach the middle class provided that they:

Graduate from high school;

Maintain a full-time job or have a partner who does; and

Have children while married and after age 21, should they choose to become parents.

Unlike Lowry, we are able to further breakdown the number of people who reach the middle class or follow the norms by race using the dataset from in the original paper by Sawhill and Haskins, updated for 2013. The bottom line is that even when black Americans do follow all three norms, their economic prospects are worse than whites.

.......

What happens to those who do follow the norms? If Lowry is right, and black Americans simply need to take responsibility and follow middle class norms, it should be the case that blacks and whites who follow all the norms reach the middle class at similar rates. The data suggest otherwise.

Among those who follow all three norms, blacks are significantly less likely to reach the middle class than whites who do the same. About 73 percent of whites who follow all three norms find themselves with income above 300 percent of the federal poverty line for their family size, while only 59 percent of blacks who adhere to all three norms fare equally well:

 

[SmokeyTheBear 5,568]

Sort of reminds me of this

 

[TwiceHorn 31,624]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I thought pretty much all of us were in agreement with this but then fattflattie decided to go full retard and trash Brisket over a perfectly reasonable post because of some weird deal he's got about what he thinks are unusual names.  I gotta say, that was one of the stranger heel turns I've seen in some time.

I wasn't really meaning to poop on anyone specifically.  Discrimination lawsuits are a clumsy way of dealing with discrimination, and, for the most part, only reach intentional discrimination on a very small scale, possibly with some broader deterrent effect.  They don't really impact some of the more subtle and ingrained discrimination, or, more accurately, the effects of past discrimination that may be less subtle but may not be ongoing (e.g. some aspects of housing policy).

Some of that discrimination I don't think can really be reached by the judicial system, and probably shouldn't be "remedied" there.  Shelly v. Kraemer is what, 75 years old, and it barely made a dent in housing policy and the negative effects of the practice it proscribed.

So Tahoe takes the point about discrimination suits and reduces it to absurdity.  But discrimination lawsuits aren't the end-all of the fight against unfair prejudice (to include ageism and sexism and the rest).  It's a big, nasty problem that we need to continue to confront and could probably use some new ideas on how to do so.

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3,448]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's an idea.  White folks, or folks in general, best figure out how to minimize the effects of subconscious or systemic or institutional discrimination because they are about to be the minority.  That's not to say that former minorities are going to exact revenge, but because it's subconscious, systemic, or institutional and inevitable unless we figure out how to make it not inevitable.

It would be nice if this could be discussed without so much invective, but rather with an acceptance that this is the human condition and we have to do better.

I think this notion of incoming minority status for white folks is way overblown. A significant portion of Hispanics will identify as white in every way that counts as the population shift takes place over the next few decades. This idea that guys like Brisket's, Huckleberry's, and other Hispanics' grandchildren will identify as something other than white culturally is difficult for me to imagine. They'll all just become this generation's Irish and Italians who are no longer viewed as white ethnics. Perhaps, the republicans' continued ostracization of Hispanics will delay the transition, but it will ultimately happen overtime. 

Edited August 1, 2019 by Catdaddyhorn

[fattyflattie 4,638]

7 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I thought pretty much all of us were in agreement with this but then fattflattie decided to go full retard and trash Brisket over a perfectly reasonable post because of some weird deal he's got about what he thinks are unusual names.  I gotta say, that was one of the stranger heel turns I've seen in some time.

I don’t have any want to further the discussion on this thread, but that wasn’t what I was trying to articulate.  

I will continue to read as folks like catdaddy and twice have shown up to have actual discussions, and this subject interests me.  It will be a fresh departure from one liners and “racist!” name calling.  I’ve been on scat site and here since ‘08. I should have known better to enter a fucking Tahoe thread. 

[TwiceHorn 31,624]

15 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

I think this notion of incoming minority status for white folks is way overblown. A significant portion of Hispanics will identify as white in every way that counts as the population shift takes place over the next few decades. This idea that guys like Brisket's, Huckleberry's, and other Hispanics' grandchildren will identify as something other than white culturally is difficult for me to imagine. They'll all just become this generation's Irish and Italians who are no longer viewed as white ethnics. Perhaps, the republicans' continued ostracization of Hispanics will delay the transition, but it will ultimately happen overtime. 

Fair point.  But I think the point still stands that trying to remove prejudice and the effects of prejudice from society is really in everyone's interest, not only in the sense of equality and basic fairness, but you kind of never know when the tables are going to turn, whoever you are.

[Catdaddyhorn 3,448]

I can't disagree with that, and really only meant to quibble with that one aspect of your response.

[Brisketexan 105,465]

Fair point.  But I think the point still stands that trying to remove prejudice and the effects of prejudice from society is really in everyone's interest, not only in the sense of equality and basic fairness, but you kind of never know when the tables are going to turn, whoever you are.

Well, all that takes is faith in humanity, and believing that they will engage in long-term thinking.

Good luck with that. I had three whiskey sours tonight. My time was better spent than a second spent hoping that will happen.

[tx 3 putt 77,610]

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d6e1fa7e4b0cdfe0574fb58/amp

 

Christian Beliefs ! 

[tantric superman 4,668]

On 7/31/2019 at 10:06 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Fair point.  But I think the point still stands that trying to remove prejudice and the effects of prejudice from society is really in everyone's interest, not only in the sense of equality and basic fairness, but you kind of never know when the tables are going to turn, whoever you are.

The only way to remove some prejudice in the world is miscegenation and going out of your way to meet and socialize and work with folks of other races who you may not understand.

It's an individual thing.  Laws can attempt to undo the effects of unlawful discrimination but the only thing that will salve inevitable prejudice in an individual working on his own damn self. 

[tantric superman 4,668]

One of these days I am going to get up the gumption to ask Keynetra in Payroll how she do her hair like that.

Edited September 3, 2019 by tantric superman

[cactusflinthead 27,609]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

One of these days I am going to get up the gumption to ask Keynetra in Payroll how she do her hair like that.

I've asked how long it took to get it done. Random black lady I happened to run into somewhere along the way. 4 hours. It's not difficult to get a woman to talk about her hair. Mine is on a kick of dying it wild ass colors. "What shade of pink is that?" Will get the convo started without getting me in the doghouse. Asking how long it took is safer than, " how the hell do you do all that?" Pretty sure she'll bust loose in a torrent of words after some recognition of her efforts. You're not only dealing with cultural differences, but the ever treacherous realm of the woman's hair. 

[Guest Lobo]

I told this story once before on here, but at our Academy for first-generation minority college students (we run it at UT, but it's for students going to college anywhere in the U.S.).  Most students are Hispanic, a few Black, and a few Asians.  Anyway, a lot of the kids are also from corners of Texas with very few, if any, African Americans.  They are all Top 10% and very well-rounded and all mean well for the most part.  Anyway, a group of girls from the Valley starting just stroking this black girls hair, several at a time, without asking, a whole shitshow.  We've never had anything close to this before in ten years.  We've had lots of insensitive questions about black and asian names before, but nothing this physical.   She kept her composure and came to us afterwards and cried.  She'd been asked questions about her hair before and people have asked if they could touch it, but she said it was a group just petting her like she was an animal, something that had never happened to her before (and she's 17 or so at this point).  I cried as well.  Anyway, Black women's hair is serious business.  

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I told this story once before on here, but at our Academy for first-generation minority college students (we run it at UT, but it's for students going to college anywhere in the U.S.).  Most students are Hispanic, a few Black, and a few Asians.  Anyway, a lot of the kids are also from corners of Texas with very few, if any, African Americans.  They are all Top 10% and very well-rounded and all mean well for the most part.  Anyway, a group of girls from the Valley starting just stroking this black girls hair, several at a time, without asking, a whole shitshow.  We've never had anything close to this before in ten years.  We've had lots of insensitive questions about black and asian names before, but nothing this physical.   She kept her composure and came to us afterwards and cried.  She'd been asked questions about her hair before and people have asked if they could touch it, but she said it was a group just petting her like she was an animal, something that had never happened to her before (and she's 17 or so at this point).  I cried as well.  Anyway, Black women's hair is serious business.  

Boy, you never touch a black womans hair or a black mans radio......

 

Told a similar story here a couple weeks back. We sit behind a (black) players mom and dad at VCU basketball games. One of the people sitting next to us felt compelled to stroke the moms hair because she'd changed it from her typical style.  He just reached out and started stroking it, no notice other than I just have to touch your hair. She's pretty cool so she didn't make a thing of it, but it was awkward, and damned rude.