Leftists against woke

[Loren Pechtel]

Except the vast majority of evidence of discrimination is extremely poor.

And the big metrics go the other way. Blacks and women earn a disproportionate share of degrees.

Life has taught me that a plethora of weak evidence normally means the position is false. Not to say that there wasn't discrimination in the past, but today it looks like it's going the other way. Examine a cohort, don't mix past victims (older) with present non-victims (younger) to pretend there's still a problem.

What is "strong evidence" and what is "weak evidence"?

Strong evidence has measurements not subject to poor measuring and has large numbers, very low p-values.

For example, degrees. Easy to measure, exist in large numbers. The odds of the observed deviations being chance is effectively zero.

Weak evidence does not exclude unrelated causes, usually has small data sets.

For example, the change-the-name bit on resumes. There's a little problem with that one: there is a strong correlation between names and education--and the "black" names come in well below average on this. Are they reacting to the race implied by the name, or by the education suggested by the name? Or even other factors, those named "Nevaeh" tend to have chronic health problems. There's also the problem with the racism explanation as it makes no difference what race the person making the hiring decision is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Blacks and women earn a disproportionate share of degrees.

Who told you that, Loren?
Black Americans are not disproportionately represented among degree holders overall; they remain underrepresented relative to their share of the U.S. adult population.
Among blacks with degrees, women are over represented, and overall women earn more degrees. But your representation is typical of what white racists put forward and it is FALSE.

Exhibit A for the problem.

Yes, white males have more degrees that those who aren't white males.

But at the same time those who are not white males are earning degrees at rates appreciably above white males.

You treat the former as evidence of continued discrimination but in reality it averages the past with the present. Since you can't realistically fix the past you will continue to see "discrimination" for a working life (or a lifespan if you count degrees held by retired people) after the discrimination is removed. The degrees being issued now represent the current state of society--and that is one of discrimination against white males. We see many variations of this, they are all dishonest.

Measure against the cohort, not against the past!!

 

[Politesse]

For example, degrees. Easy to measure, exist in large numbers. The odds of the observed deviations being chance is effectively zero.

So if there was a siginificant disparity by race in degrees awarded by US schools, you would accept that as substantive evidence for racial discrimination in the national education system?

 

[Jarhyn]

Are they reacting to the race implied by the name, or by the education suggested by the name

Any situation where meaningless hereditary aspects such as name imply both race and education in parallel, and this suffices to keep people from the positions which would allow education to be retained generationally within a family, is the basis for actual "institutional racism".

Failing to understand this is your issue here.

This is yet again an issue wherein the black family, by virtue of whatever badge they have been given or confined to by history, finds they must work twice as hard to still get half as far.

The only point discriminating on a name serves when there's the whole fucking rest of the resume there to inform them of actual educational achievement is to keep out those who have historically been kept out, and that's almost universally been based on bullshit reasons regardless of the name.

Spoiler: Off-topic

one of the more frustrating parts, in fact, of some dramas I have watched set in eastern locations (Japan and Joseon era Korea) is the idea of a disgraced family that's kept in poverty and hated until they become an enduring and infamous problem within the region, as if that problem wasn't created or exacerbated by the way people treated families of "traitors".

Making judgements off of irrelevant things like names when actual relevant data is right fucking there is unconscionable regardless of whether it is racial or "EcOnOmIc" or directly related to a family sin, because it hurts innocent children who had nothing to do with the bullshit.

 

[Elixir]

This is yet again an issue wherein the black family, by virtue of whatever badge they have been given or confined to by history, finds they must work twice as hard to still get half as far.

That is an institutionalized fact. Those ratios don’t exist in s vacuum. They are rationalized with relativism. At the extreme it is a white multibillionaire complaining that it’s so easy for the poor black guy to triple his net worth in a year if he just gets off his ass and works for it, while it will take himself ten years to double his own net worth because of the unfairness of the system that punishes white Americans.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are they reacting to the race implied by the name, or by the education suggested by the name

Any situation where meaningless hereditary aspects such as name imply both race and education in parallel, and this suffices to keep people from the positions which would allow education to be retained generationally within a family, is the basis for actual "institutional racism".

Failing to understand this is your issue here.

This is yet again an issue wherein the black family, by virtue of whatever badge they have been given or confined to by history, finds they must work twice as hard to still get half as far.

The only point discriminating on a name serves when there's the whole fucking rest of the resume there to inform them of actual educational achievement is to keep out those who have historically been kept out, and that's almost universally been based on bullshit reasons regardless of the name.

What you are missing is that while normally the name says nothing directly about the child (exception being the Nevaeh's) it does say something about the parents. And once you control for parental status race ceases to be predictive of outcome.

 

[bilby]

once you control for parental status race ceases to be predictive of outcome.

[citation needed]

 

[Jarhyn]

it does say something about the parents

... Who are not the fucking applicant. Hence it is a "bullshit" reason to keep someone out who has "historically been kept out".

Its discrimination, and it's fucked whatever the ostensible reason but most notably here, it functions as a politically "plausibly deniable" continuation of a racist position.

The next point to be made is that continuing a politically "plausibly deniable" continuation of a racist position once the point has been made that this is a bald attempt at deniability actually strips the deniability, revealing in the continuation of it a baldly racist position.

I invite you vigorously to just abandon that position.

Anything that actively maintains the momentum of a racist position is going to remain a racist position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

once you control for parental status race ceases to be predictive of outcome.

[citation needed]

Apparently you still haven't looked at Freakonomics. Amazing what you see if you don't consider providing racial discrimination to be your end point and stop trying to look deeper.

 

[Jarhyn]

once you control for parental status race ceases to be predictive of outcome.

[citation needed]

Apparently you still haven't looked at Freakonomics. Amazing what you see if you don't consider providing racial discrimination to be your end point and stop trying to look deeper.

As I said:

it functions as a politically "plausibly deniable" continuation of a racist position...

...continuing a politically "plausibly deniable"... racist position once the point has been made that this is a bald attempt at deniability actually strips the deniability, revealing[,] in the continuation of it[,] a baldly racist position.

I invite you vigorously to just abandon that position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

it does say something about the parents

... Who are not the fucking applicant. Hence it is a "bullshit" reason to keep someone out who has "historically been kept out".

Its discrimination, and it's fucked whatever the ostensible reason but most notably here, it functions as a politically "plausibly deniable" continuation of a racist position.

The next point to be made is that continuing a politically "plausibly deniable" continuation of a racist position once the point has been made that this is a bald attempt at deniability actually strips the deniability, revealing in the continuation of it a baldly racist position.

I invite you vigorously to just abandon that position.

Anything that actively maintains the momentum of a racist position is going to remain a racist position.

Blasphemy generally is not understood.

You take it as a given that discrimination is rampant and has a major impact. But the research always stops there, looking for confounders is anathema. The Freakonomics guys didn't stop at discrimination, they actually looked for confounders.

 

[laughing dog]

once you control for parental status race ceases to be predictive of outcome.

[citation needed]

Apparently you still haven't looked at Freakonomics. Amazing what you see if you don't consider providing racial discrimination to be your end point and stop trying to look deeper.

Since you dismiss social science research because it always omits some influence, how can you cite it as a rebuttal?

 

[Jarhyn]

it does say something about the parents

... Who are not the fucking applicant. Hence it is a "bullshit" reason to keep someone out who has "historically been kept out".

Its discrimination, and it's fucked whatever the ostensible reason but most notably here, it functions as a politically "plausibly deniable" continuation of a racist position.

The next point to be made is that continuing a politically "plausibly deniable" continuation of a racist position once the point has been made that this is a bald attempt at deniability actually strips the deniability, revealing in the continuation of it a baldly racist position.

I invite you vigorously to just abandon that position.

Anything that actively maintains the momentum of a racist position is going to remain a racist position.

Blasphemy generally is not understood.

You take it as a given that discrimination is rampant and has a major impact. But the research always stops there, looking for confounders is anathema. The Freakonomics guys didn't stop at discrimination, they actually looked for confounders.

No, I'm just stating facts.

We are not discussing just any discrimination, we are discussing specifically in this case discrimination by family name.

The buck stops there, Loren.

I have discussed the specific reason why this specific form of discrimination is unacceptable.

Nothing "about the parents" is fair game here.

This actively maintains an originally racist position and is unacceptable, but it's not even the racial aspect that makes it entirely wrong. It would be entirely wrong if all the folks involved were genetic clones of one another!

Why do you support this unacceptable discrimination?

Do I need to point to someone doing it in a way you will agree is unethical before you accept the tactic of using family names as a filter [edit]is unacceptable[/edit]?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

once you control for parental status race ceases to be predictive of outcome.

[citation needed]

Apparently you still haven't looked at Freakonomics. Amazing what you see if you don't consider providing racial discrimination to be your end point and stop trying to look deeper.

Interesting seeing you skipped responding to my post which cited/linked grad rates by race, and debunked your claim.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

it does say something about the parents

... Who are not the fucking applicant. Hence it is a "bullshit" reason to keep someone out who has "historically been kept out".

Its discrimination, and it's fucked whatever the ostensible reason but most notably here, it functions as a politically "plausibly deniable" continuation of a racist position.

The next point to be made is that continuing a politically "plausibly deniable" continuation of a racist position once the point has been made that this is a bald attempt at deniability actually strips the deniability, revealing in the continuation of it a baldly racist position.

I invite you vigorously to just abandon that position.

Anything that actively maintains the momentum of a racist position is going to remain a racist position.

Blasphemy generally is not understood.

You take it as a given that discrimination is rampant and has a major impact. But the research always stops there, looking for confounders is anathema. The Freakonomics guys didn't stop at discrimination, they actually looked for confounders.

No, I'm just stating facts.

We are not discussing just any discrimination, we are discussing specifically in this case discrimination by family name.

The buck stops there, Loren.

I have discussed the specific reason why this specific form of discrimination is unacceptable.

Nothing "about the parents" is fair game here.

This actively maintains an originally racist position and is unacceptable, but it's not even the racial aspect that makes it entirely wrong. It would be entirely wrong if all the folks involved were genetic clones of one another!

Why do you support this unacceptable discrimination?

Do I need to point to someone doing it in a way you will agree is unethical before you accept the tactic of using family names as a filter [edit]is unacceptable[/edit]?

Underwear gnome.

You are still assuming there's no actual basis. I don't like that there's a reason behind it but that doesn't make it go away. A refusal to consider real issues gets a lot of people to lump all of it as woke.

 

[Jarhyn]

it does say something about the parents

... Who are not the fucking applicant. Hence it is a "bullshit" reason to keep someone out who has "historically been kept out".

Its discrimination, and it's fucked whatever the ostensible reason but most notably here, it functions as a politically "plausibly deniable" continuation of a racist position.

The next point to be made is that continuing a politically "plausibly deniable" continuation of a racist position once the point has been made that this is a bald attempt at deniability actually strips the deniability, revealing in the continuation of it a baldly racist position.

I invite you vigorously to just abandon that position.

Anything that actively maintains the momentum of a racist position is going to remain a racist position.

Blasphemy generally is not understood.

You take it as a given that discrimination is rampant and has a major impact. But the research always stops there, looking for confounders is anathema. The Freakonomics guys didn't stop at discrimination, they actually looked for confounders.

No, I'm just stating facts.

We are not discussing just any discrimination, we are discussing specifically in this case discrimination by family name.

The buck stops there, Loren.

I have discussed the specific reason why this specific form of discrimination is unacceptable.

Nothing "about the parents" is fair game here.

This actively maintains an originally racist position and is unacceptable, but it's not even the racial aspect that makes it entirely wrong. It would be entirely wrong if all the folks involved were genetic clones of one another!

Why do you support this unacceptable discrimination?

Do I need to point to someone doing it in a way you will agree is unethical before you accept the tactic of using family names as a filter [edit]is unacceptable[/edit]?

Underwear gnome.

You are still assuming there's no actual basis. I don't like that there's a reason behind it but that doesn't make it go away. A refusal to consider real issues gets a lot of people to lump all of it as woke.

There. Is. No. Acceptable. Basis. For. Filtering. On. Family. Names.

The reason behind it is "unacceptable discrimination".

We are expected, regardless of whether there is some ostensible effect associated with those names to ignore the effect because the effect itself is a "tinkerbelle effect": it is made true only by people's playing into the effect.

Our expectation of opportunities in america accords to "anyone can make it" in terms of "a great worker can come from anywhere" (see also: Ratatouille). It is specifically a violation of the expectation that "anyone" can make it to allow the filtration of a certain "anyone" from consideration outside of their actual qualifications.

Period.

There is only the applicant. There is no family. There is no address of record besides "close enough to get to work". Ideally, there is no school name as long as the degree is accredited. If this is a problem for you, consider that you are holding a position demonstrated to prevent earning of social mobility regardless of merit.

If it has anything to do with anything that isn't "is the candidate qualified", it doesn't fucking matter.