- Oct 20, 2013
- 55,727
- 17,696
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #421
What is easy to disprove is your post, and the equally easy to disprove article and research you base it on.Today, as many other days, I heard somebody on one of the cable news shows using the term "White Privilege". Today it was Sunny Hostin, but it could just as easily have been any one of 100 different people.
They say these words as if every TV viewer fully accepted the term as meaning what it clearly states.
Only problem with the term is that it does not exist. And it has not existed for half a century now, ever since whatever White Privilege did exist previously, has been obliterated and replaced by Black Privilege, by way of Affirmative Action. How in the world anyone could believe there is White Privilege in America, when hundreds of millions of White Americans have been deprived of education and careers due to this insidious, treacherous, anti-White discrimination.
Being deprived of college admission, college financial aid, jobs, job promotions, etc. has been SOP for Whites long enough for some people to have had it eradicate their entire worklife from starting out rookie, clear through to retirement at age 65.
It's time now for the term "White Privilege" to be retired (50 years too late). And why don't we hear the correct term Black Privilege more often ? Or should I say "at all ?"
Why are right wingers on the USMB such dipshits? Why do they make claims that are so easy to disprove? Is that why they become as angry as they become? Is it tardation or a determined ignorance? I really want to know.
And how do they function in their real lives? Is it that cheap to live in a trailer?
-----------------------
The 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant, Bertrand and Mullainathan note in Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller.
Employers Replies to Racial Names
1. We have no idea if the authors of this so-called research are biased or not. They certainly could be, with the "conclusions" from an agenda.
2. I had to look no farther than the 2nd sentence of the article to find an obvious flaw. The authors state > "Despite laws against discrimination, affirmative action, a degree of employer enlightenment, and the desire by some businesses to enhance profits by hiring those most qualified regardless of race, African-Americans are twice as likely as whites to be unemployed and they earn nearly 25 percent less when they are employed."
There is nothing in this to show that IF Blacks are twice as likely to be unemployed, that that is because of discrimination. It could just as easily be just plain laziness, and a preference for dealing drugs, burglarizing, engaging in prostitution, or some other out of mainstream, uncountable money-making activity.
We Do KNOW that they receive AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, putting them straight to the front of the line, and this is in direct contradiction to the authors' rather dubious claims.
3. The link contradicts itself. First it says this > "...they earn nearly 25 percent less when they are employed.", and then it turns right around and says this > "One weakness of the study is that it simply measures callbacks for interviews, not whether an applicant gets the job and what the wage for a successful applicant would be. So the results cannot be translated into hiring rates or earnings."
4. The authors are not the only ones having done a study on hiring between blacks and whites. I have been studying it for 50 years, from the time I started in the workforce (1964) when Affirmative Action began, right up to now, when I recently retired. I can name countless incidents of preference given to Blacks (at the expense of Whites) , which I saw up close, with my own eyes and ears. I don't need some half-baked study to inform me about racial discrimination or affirmative action, and the racial discrimination it imposes on Whites.
5. Anyone can conduct their own phone survey. Just call customer service to a variety of businesses or govt agencies. I recall my last dozen or so calls. I can't remember a single one, where the person I spoke to didn't sound like a Black female. I also remember some years ago, when I applied for a job a Stanford University. I went into their job office and I saw about 10 people working in the office (ALL Black women). I remember when I went to my local Florida Wokforce office a few years ago. There were about 30 people working there (almost entirely Blacks; not one White person). And the most stunning of all was in 1977, when I was denied an assistantship in my graduate school because I was not Black. Only 8 people got assistantships (ALL were Black) The other 17 people applying (ALL non Blacks) were denied.
With some investigation, I was able to ascertain that these 8 Blacks were in the lowest quadrant academically in this particular class of graduate students. The Whites, 2 Asians, and 2 Hispanics who were denied were in the top quadrants.
Last edited: