Advertisement
by United human countries » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:00 am
by Barringtonia » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:02 am
Araraukar wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:There are two babies in the room. Do you save the white baby or black baby first?
I'm sorry, the answer was the white baby.
Let's try again... there is a group of 10 new mothers in one room, 7 of whom are white, 2 blacks and 1 hispanic.
Next room is a room where there are two babies, one black and one white.
Baby room is set on fire. The mothers are allowed to rush in one at a time to rescue 1 baby.
Which baby gets rescued more often?
Given that most of the mothers are white, you would expect white baby to get rescued more often. Now is that a normal expectation or are the white moms expected to be racist towards their own race and rescue the black baby more often?
by United human countries » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:04 am
Barringtonia wrote:Araraukar wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:There are two babies in the room. Do you save the white baby or black baby first?
I'm sorry, the answer was the white baby.
Let's try again... there is a group of 10 new mothers in one room, 7 of whom are white, 2 blacks and 1 hispanic.
Next room is a room where there are two babies, one black and one white.
Baby room is set on fire. The mothers are allowed to rush in one at a time to rescue 1 baby.
Which baby gets rescued more often?
Given that most of the mothers are white, you would expect white baby to get rescued more often. Now is that a normal expectation or are the white moms expected to be racist towards their own race and rescue the black baby more often?
Would you expect each mother to save her own baby, resulting in 7 white babies saved, 2 black babies and 1 Hispanic.
Wouldn't you question the results if the results were different?
by Araraukar » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:05 am
New Limacon wrote:There were the literacy tests for voting in the American South to keep out blacks
New Limacon wrote:Harvard's admission process to keep out Jews
New Limacon wrote:Even the SATs, while not intentionally racist, were criticized several years ago for questions like the "oarsman-regatta" analogy. (The complaint being the type of people who would be in a rowing club would not be the type of people living in Harlem.)
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by JuNii » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:06 am
by Araraukar » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:09 am
New Limacon wrote:But I don't think we should necessarily assume the city designed a firefighting test to be racist. Just in the type of questions they asked and how they asked them could discriminate against a group of people, without the city consciously trying to design it that way. The fact there is a history of racism in the department makes it more suspect, but being unintentionally discriminatory is possible too, and just as bad for the people being discriminated against.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by United human countries » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:12 am
Araraukar wrote:New Limacon wrote:But I don't think we should necessarily assume the city designed a firefighting test to be racist. Just in the type of questions they asked and how they asked them could discriminate against a group of people, without the city consciously trying to design it that way. The fact there is a history of racism in the department makes it more suspect, but being unintentionally discriminatory is possible too, and just as bad for the people being discriminated against.
The city didn't even design the test, the designing was given to a company that was hired exactly for the reason of drafting up an unbiased test, something they in fact made their living out of. If you can't trust an impartial third side, then who can you trust?
by Araraukar » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:13 am
The_pantless_hero wrote:Araraukar wrote:I'll up the ante here: I'm not racist, I'm specieist; I don't like the whole human species.
That already have a term for that; it's misanthrope.
misanthrope (noun, formal) a person who hates and avoids other people
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by New Limacon » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:13 am
Araraukar wrote:New Limacon wrote:There were the literacy tests for voting in the American South to keep out blacks
Then those damn blacks need to learn to read. What were they going to do on the ballot anyway? Draw a picture of the guy they wanted to vote for?
New Limacon wrote:Harvard's admission process to keep out Jews
Really? How?
The admissions office at Harvard became much more interested in the details of an applicant’s personal life. Lowell told his admissions officers to elicit information about the “character” of candidates from “persons who know the applicants well,” and so the letter of reference became mandatory. Harvard started asking applicants to provide a photograph. Candidates had to write personal essays, demonstrating their aptitude for leadership, and list their extracurricular activities. “Starting in the fall of 1922,” Karabel writes, “applicants were required to answer questions on ‘Race and Color,’ ‘Religious Preference,’ ‘Maiden Name of Mother,’ ‘Birthplace of Father,’ and ‘What change, if any, has been made since birth in your own name or that of your father? (Explain fully).’ ”
New Limacon wrote:Even the SATs, while not intentionally racist, were criticized several years ago for questions like the "oarsman-regatta" analogy. (The complaint being the type of people who would be in a rowing club would not be the type of people living in Harlem.)
I doubt most of the white answerers from, say, Iowa farmer homes would belong to a rowing club either...
Gnomeragen wrote:i wasn't argueing over your realigon i was pronocing your stupidity
by The Northern Baltic » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:16 am
Soheran wrote:Land of greed wrote:I think the court made the right decision,
I do not. If we want to have a society that actually has racial equality, we need to take disparate impact seriously.
by Araraukar » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:16 am
The_pantless_hero wrote:You flip a coin, 5 times. You expect roughly 2 heads and 2 tails. But that could be out of whack. You would have to flip the coin a large number of times to average out to 50% heads, 50% tails.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Araraukar » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:18 am
Barringtonia wrote:Either you're saying black people are inherently unlikely to pass the required grade for promotion or something else is going on.
Which?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by New Limacon » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:18 am
Araraukar wrote:The city didn't even design the test, the designing was given to a company that was hired exactly for the reason of drafting up an unbiased test, something they in fact made their living out of. If you can't trust an impartial third side, then who can you trust?
Gnomeragen wrote:i wasn't argueing over your realigon i was pronocing your stupidity
by Araraukar » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:20 am
Barringtonia wrote:Would you expect each mother to save her own baby, resulting in 7 white babies saved, 2 black babies and 1 Hispanic.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Araraukar » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:27 am
New Limacon wrote:This was an instance of the test being intentionally biased. Especially in areas where almost no one has formal education, it's easy to ask the white guy to write his name, and then ask the black one to write out the preamble to the Constitution.
New Limacon wrote:“Starting in the fall of 1922,” Karabel writes, “applicants were required to answer questions on ‘Race and Color,’ ‘Religious Preference,’ ‘Maiden Name of Mother,’ ‘Birthplace of Father,’ and ‘What change, if any, has been made since birth in your own name or that of your father? (Explain fully).’ ”
New Limacon wrote:But as a whole, more whites are likely to be rowing than blacks are as a whole.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Poliwanacraca » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:45 am
Araraukar wrote:New Limacon wrote:There were the literacy tests for voting in the American South to keep out blacks
Then those damn blacks need to learn to read. What were they going to do on the ballot anyway? Draw a picture of the guy they wanted to vote for?
by Neo Art » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:50 am
Araraukar wrote:New Limacon wrote:This was an instance of the test being intentionally biased. Especially in areas where almost no one has formal education, it's easy to ask the white guy to write his name, and then ask the black one to write out the preamble to the Constitution.
That would be an educational bias, then, not racial. And I thought USA had free grade school system at the very least.
by Araraukar » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:58 am
Neo Art wrote:....you realize that most of this was in Reconstruction era right? The Voting Rights act made this moot back in 1965
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Araraukar » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:59 am
Poliwanacraca wrote:Araraukar wrote:Then those damn blacks need to learn to read. What were they going to do on the ballot anyway? Draw a picture of the guy they wanted to vote for?
...wow. Just wow.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Neo Art » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:02 am
Araraukar wrote:Neo Art wrote:....you realize that most of this was in Reconstruction era right? The Voting Rights act made this moot back in 1965
Lol, no-one said it was history. The example was used in the sense of it being a current practice.
by Araraukar » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:14 am
Neo Art wrote:Maybe because nobody felt the need to explain something that should have been common knowledge to anyone with a highschool education.
Unless you're a non american...in which case, why assume before, you know, asking?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Greed and Death » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:15 am
Neo Art wrote:The_pantless_hero wrote:Of course not, but the real question is can action be taken on the assumption that it is without proving it a fact? Especially if that action is racially motivated.
It is a question, yes. Of course, the important fact is this though. The relevant legal question is essentially this: can the state, of its own volition, void the results of the test, if it fears unintended racial consequences?
SCOTUS said no. Which means the state must uphold the results of the exam. Which means, and here's where it gets interesting, since it must uphold the results of the exam, those minorities who were denied promotion, will now be able to sue on the grounds that the test was discriminatory, and address THAT issue in court.
The matter of law at issue in this case was never "is the test discriminatory?" it was "can the state void it on fear that it was?" The minorities denied promotion never sued. It was the white test takers who were denied promotion that did.
by Araraukar » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:16 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Neo Art » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:17 am
Araraukar wrote:Neo Art wrote:Maybe because nobody felt the need to explain something that should have been common knowledge to anyone with a highschool education.
Unless you're a non american...in which case, why assume before, you know, asking?
I'm not "American", and since the discussion started with a current event, I didn't think someone would dig up old, out-dated examples. No-one's saying racism wasn't really bad earlier on, just that sometimes it's too often raised as an issue in current events where it isn't an issue, like in the firefighter case.
by Araraukar » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:24 am
Neo Art wrote:Araraukar wrote:I'm not "American", and since the discussion started with a current event, I didn't think someone would dig up old, out-dated examples. No-one's saying racism wasn't really bad earlier on, just that sometimes it's too often raised as an issue in current events where it isn't an issue, like in the firefighter case.
because racism ended forever in 1965, right?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Decapoleis, Europa Undivided, Keville23, Perishna, Vrbo
Advertisement