It's time

[JoeMoma]

My premise-There is no such thing as anti white discrimination.

That is an absurd premise.

Prove it. Show there is an nationwide adverse impact on whites today.

No, all it takes to prove that there is anti white discrimination is one example of anti white discrimination. That is why your you premise is absurd. According to your premise, no one ever gets discriminated against for being white.

I'm afraid that one example is not going to be logically sufficient to determine that whites as a race are facing anti white discrimination.

That is not how you stated your premise. Your premise is "There is no such thing as anti white discrimination". All it takes is one counter example to prove that incorrect (that's logic 101). There have been several examples of anti white discrimination posted in this thread.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Mod Staff is watching this thread critically.

Not really. You still let him use red fonts. That rule about not using red fonts only applies to the whites, I guess? They're the only people I ever see get corrected for it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

My premise-There is no such thing as anti white discrimination.

Across two dozen studies, black applicants were called back 36 percent less than whites with the same qualifications. Not a single study found a reliable anti-white bias.

Hey, no red fonts, asshole. You think you're special or something? You're not.

Some people...

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Edit -- Removed the section about bias on USMB and past threads and moderation.. Rebooting this entire thread after purging over 1/2 the responses. The ONLY topic here is outlined below..

My premise-There is no such thing as anti white discrimination.

So bring everything you got, because that's what it's going to take.

The Truth about Anti-White Discrimination
Many white Americans feel that discrimination against whites is on the rise. Experiments suggests otherwise

By Keith Payne on July 18, 2019

A friend complained to me recently that his son wasn’t getting into Ivy League colleges because it’s so hard for a middle-class white kid to be admitted, even with straight A’s. I asked if the advantages of being a middle-class white kid might be part of the reason his son had become a straight-A student in the first place. It got awkward.

As our politics have fractured increasingly around race, there seems to be more and more confusion about who’s discriminating against whom. For example, a national survey reported that both blacks and whites believed that discrimination against blacks had declined over the past few decades, but whites believed that discrimination against whites was now more common than discrimination against blacks.

The reason, say the study’s authors Michael Norton and Sam Sommers, is that whites see discrimination as a zero-sum game. The more they thought discrimination against blacks was decreasing, the more they felt discrimination against whites was increasing. That’s consistent with other studies showing that if you remind whites that the American population is becoming more diverse and that whites will soon be less that half of the population, their concern about anti-white discrimination increases. Whites tend to view increasing diversity as anti-white bias.

News stories are full of statistical evidence for disparities between black and whites, such as the fact that the average black family earns about half as much as the average white family, or that the unemployment rate for blacks is twice that for whites, or that the wealth of the average white family is ten times the wealth of the average black family. But this kind of evidence is like a political Rorschach test that looks very different to liberals and conservatives. What looks to liberals like evidence of discrimination looks to conservatives like evidence of racial disparities in hard work and responsible behavior.

This dynamic was captured in a New York Times readers forum about a study showing large racial disparities in economic mobility, especially for black boys. A reader named Michael wrote, “Why is racism the only explanation for this phenomenon? Perhaps something happens to black boys while they are growing up that makes them less capable of succeeding in the U.S. economy… So, why do the authors take the easy way out and blame amorphous racism?” Professor Ibram Kendi responded, “Actually, the easy way out is to say there must be something wrong with these black boys. It is the easy way out that Americans have historically taken in trying to explain racial disparities in our society…Racist ideas of black inferiority is the easy way out.”

This kind of back and forth seems to be everywhere, from intellectuals arguing in books and essays to the general public arguing on social media. When it comes to statistical disparities, this is a rare case in which almost no one is disputing the facts. But the meaning of those facts appears endlessly up for grabs because opponents cannot agree on what is the cause of the disparities—discrimination or differences in merit.

The only kind of evidence that can hope to bridge this divide comes from experiments which directly measure discrimination — and these experiments have been done.

Consider an experiment by sociologist Devah Pager, who sent pairs of experimenters—one black and one white—to apply for 340 job ads in New York City. She gave them resumes doctored to have identical qualifications. She gave them scripts so that the applicants said the same things when handing in their applications. She even dressed them alike. She found that black applicants got half the call backs that white applicants got with the same qualifications.

This study inspired experiments in lots of areas of life. One study, for example, responded to more than 14,000 online apartment rental adds but varied whether the name attached to the email implied a white applicant (e.g., Allison Bauer) or a black applicant (e.g., Ebony Washington). The black applicants were twenty-six percent less likely to be told that the apartment was available.

These kinds of experiments are not ambiguous like statistics on disparities are. There were no differences in merit. Race was the cause. Real employers and landlords discriminated against blacks and in favor of whites, by a large margin.

This kind of direct evidence of discrimination against minorities have been found in other arenas. Professors are more likely to ignore emails from students of color. Airbnb hosts are more likely to tell black renters that the listing has already been taken. Pager and her colleagues published a meta-analysis incorporating every field experiment on hiring since the first ones were carried out in the 1980’s. Across two dozen studies, black applicants were called back 36 percent less than whites with the same qualifications. Not a single study found a reliable anti-white bias. Most sobering of all, the rate of discrimination is the same today as in the 1980’s.

The Truth about Anti-White Discrimination

I KNOW YOU KNOW about this move to "make Vermont Less white"...


Vermont is to White

How is that NOT "anti white bias".????

What if a Republican governor of Illinois suggested making the "south side of Chicago" less black? Would that be racially biased???

 

[IM2]

Mod Edit -- Removed the section about bias on USMB and past threads and moderation.. Rebooting this entire thread after purging over 1/2 the responses. The ONLY topic here is outlined below..

My premise-There is no such thing as anti white discrimination.

So bring everything you got, because that's what it's going to take.

The Truth about Anti-White Discrimination
Many white Americans feel that discrimination against whites is on the rise. Experiments suggests otherwise

By Keith Payne on July 18, 2019

A friend complained to me recently that his son wasn’t getting into Ivy League colleges because it’s so hard for a middle-class white kid to be admitted, even with straight A’s. I asked if the advantages of being a middle-class white kid might be part of the reason his son had become a straight-A student in the first place. It got awkward.

As our politics have fractured increasingly around race, there seems to be more and more confusion about who’s discriminating against whom. For example, a national survey reported that both blacks and whites believed that discrimination against blacks had declined over the past few decades, but whites believed that discrimination against whites was now more common than discrimination against blacks.

The reason, say the study’s authors Michael Norton and Sam Sommers, is that whites see discrimination as a zero-sum game. The more they thought discrimination against blacks was decreasing, the more they felt discrimination against whites was increasing. That’s consistent with other studies showing that if you remind whites that the American population is becoming more diverse and that whites will soon be less that half of the population, their concern about anti-white discrimination increases. Whites tend to view increasing diversity as anti-white bias.

News stories are full of statistical evidence for disparities between black and whites, such as the fact that the average black family earns about half as much as the average white family, or that the unemployment rate for blacks is twice that for whites, or that the wealth of the average white family is ten times the wealth of the average black family. But this kind of evidence is like a political Rorschach test that looks very different to liberals and conservatives. What looks to liberals like evidence of discrimination looks to conservatives like evidence of racial disparities in hard work and responsible behavior.

This dynamic was captured in a New York Times readers forum about a study showing large racial disparities in economic mobility, especially for black boys. A reader named Michael wrote, “Why is racism the only explanation for this phenomenon? Perhaps something happens to black boys while they are growing up that makes them less capable of succeeding in the U.S. economy… So, why do the authors take the easy way out and blame amorphous racism?” Professor Ibram Kendi responded, “Actually, the easy way out is to say there must be something wrong with these black boys. It is the easy way out that Americans have historically taken in trying to explain racial disparities in our society…Racist ideas of black inferiority is the easy way out.”

This kind of back and forth seems to be everywhere, from intellectuals arguing in books and essays to the general public arguing on social media. When it comes to statistical disparities, this is a rare case in which almost no one is disputing the facts. But the meaning of those facts appears endlessly up for grabs because opponents cannot agree on what is the cause of the disparities—discrimination or differences in merit.

The only kind of evidence that can hope to bridge this divide comes from experiments which directly measure discrimination — and these experiments have been done.

Consider an experiment by sociologist Devah Pager, who sent pairs of experimenters—one black and one white—to apply for 340 job ads in New York City. She gave them resumes doctored to have identical qualifications. She gave them scripts so that the applicants said the same things when handing in their applications. She even dressed them alike. She found that black applicants got half the call backs that white applicants got with the same qualifications.

This study inspired experiments in lots of areas of life. One study, for example, responded to more than 14,000 online apartment rental adds but varied whether the name attached to the email implied a white applicant (e.g., Allison Bauer) or a black applicant (e.g., Ebony Washington). The black applicants were twenty-six percent less likely to be told that the apartment was available.

These kinds of experiments are not ambiguous like statistics on disparities are. There were no differences in merit. Race was the cause. Real employers and landlords discriminated against blacks and in favor of whites, by a large margin.

This kind of direct evidence of discrimination against minorities have been found in other arenas. Professors are more likely to ignore emails from students of color. Airbnb hosts are more likely to tell black renters that the listing has already been taken. Pager and her colleagues published a meta-analysis incorporating every field experiment on hiring since the first ones were carried out in the 1980’s. Across two dozen studies, black applicants were called back 36 percent less than whites with the same qualifications. Not a single study found a reliable anti-white bias. Most sobering of all, the rate of discrimination is the same today as in the 1980’s.

The Truth about Anti-White Discrimination

I KNOW YOU KNOW about this move to "make Vermont Less white"...


Vermont is to White

How is that NOT "anti white bias".????

What if a Republican governor of Illinois suggested making the "south side of Chicago" less black? Would that be racially biased???

*shakes head*

 

[IM2]

My premise-There is no such thing as anti white discrimination.

Across two dozen studies, black applicants were called back 36 percent less than whites with the same qualifications. Not a single study found a reliable anti-white bias.

Hey, no red fonts, asshole. You think you're special or something? You're not.

Some people...

Please show me where that's listed in the guidelines.

 

[karpenter]

I Haven't Seen The Statue That Promotes Anti-Black Discrimination
If There's No Statute,
Then There's No National Policy Of Anti-Black Discrimination
Therefore, Anti-Black Discrimination Doesn't Exist

No One Helps You Because You're An Asshole
Isn't Anti-Black Discrimination

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Edit -- Removed the section about bias on USMB and past threads and moderation.. Rebooting this entire thread after purging over 1/2 the responses. The ONLY topic here is outlined below..

My premise-There is no such thing as anti white discrimination.

So bring everything you got, because that's what it's going to take.

The Truth about Anti-White Discrimination
Many white Americans feel that discrimination against whites is on the rise. Experiments suggests otherwise

By Keith Payne on July 18, 2019

A friend complained to me recently that his son wasn’t getting into Ivy League colleges because it’s so hard for a middle-class white kid to be admitted, even with straight A’s. I asked if the advantages of being a middle-class white kid might be part of the reason his son had become a straight-A student in the first place. It got awkward.

As our politics have fractured increasingly around race, there seems to be more and more confusion about who’s discriminating against whom. For example, a national survey reported that both blacks and whites believed that discrimination against blacks had declined over the past few decades, but whites believed that discrimination against whites was now more common than discrimination against blacks.

The reason, say the study’s authors Michael Norton and Sam Sommers, is that whites see discrimination as a zero-sum game. The more they thought discrimination against blacks was decreasing, the more they felt discrimination against whites was increasing. That’s consistent with other studies showing that if you remind whites that the American population is becoming more diverse and that whites will soon be less that half of the population, their concern about anti-white discrimination increases. Whites tend to view increasing diversity as anti-white bias.

News stories are full of statistical evidence for disparities between black and whites, such as the fact that the average black family earns about half as much as the average white family, or that the unemployment rate for blacks is twice that for whites, or that the wealth of the average white family is ten times the wealth of the average black family. But this kind of evidence is like a political Rorschach test that looks very different to liberals and conservatives. What looks to liberals like evidence of discrimination looks to conservatives like evidence of racial disparities in hard work and responsible behavior.

This dynamic was captured in a New York Times readers forum about a study showing large racial disparities in economic mobility, especially for black boys. A reader named Michael wrote, “Why is racism the only explanation for this phenomenon? Perhaps something happens to black boys while they are growing up that makes them less capable of succeeding in the U.S. economy… So, why do the authors take the easy way out and blame amorphous racism?” Professor Ibram Kendi responded, “Actually, the easy way out is to say there must be something wrong with these black boys. It is the easy way out that Americans have historically taken in trying to explain racial disparities in our society…Racist ideas of black inferiority is the easy way out.”

This kind of back and forth seems to be everywhere, from intellectuals arguing in books and essays to the general public arguing on social media. When it comes to statistical disparities, this is a rare case in which almost no one is disputing the facts. But the meaning of those facts appears endlessly up for grabs because opponents cannot agree on what is the cause of the disparities—discrimination or differences in merit.

The only kind of evidence that can hope to bridge this divide comes from experiments which directly measure discrimination — and these experiments have been done.

Consider an experiment by sociologist Devah Pager, who sent pairs of experimenters—one black and one white—to apply for 340 job ads in New York City. She gave them resumes doctored to have identical qualifications. She gave them scripts so that the applicants said the same things when handing in their applications. She even dressed them alike. She found that black applicants got half the call backs that white applicants got with the same qualifications.

This study inspired experiments in lots of areas of life. One study, for example, responded to more than 14,000 online apartment rental adds but varied whether the name attached to the email implied a white applicant (e.g., Allison Bauer) or a black applicant (e.g., Ebony Washington). The black applicants were twenty-six percent less likely to be told that the apartment was available.

These kinds of experiments are not ambiguous like statistics on disparities are. There were no differences in merit. Race was the cause. Real employers and landlords discriminated against blacks and in favor of whites, by a large margin.

This kind of direct evidence of discrimination against minorities have been found in other arenas. Professors are more likely to ignore emails from students of color. Airbnb hosts are more likely to tell black renters that the listing has already been taken. Pager and her colleagues published a meta-analysis incorporating every field experiment on hiring since the first ones were carried out in the 1980’s. Across two dozen studies, black applicants were called back 36 percent less than whites with the same qualifications. Not a single study found a reliable anti-white bias. Most sobering of all, the rate of discrimination is the same today as in the 1980’s.

The Truth about Anti-White Discrimination

I KNOW YOU KNOW about this move to "make Vermont Less white"...


Vermont is to White

How is that NOT "anti white bias".????

What if a Republican governor of Illinois suggested making the "south side of Chicago" less black? Would that be racially biased???

*shakes head*

That's IT ?? You're whole retort to that example of white bias? A governor truly seeking to make Vermont less white is NOT "anti-white" bias?? Especially when there's ZERO EVIDENCE that there is any "anti-black" bias to REMEDY there?

Or how about the recent violent shake-up at the DCCC.. They booted out the team that WON THEM the House in the 2018 election for being "too white"... Diversity over winning elections at the DCCC ought to piss you off.. RIGHT????

DCCC in 'complete chaos' as uproar over diversity intensifies