Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:We avoid that by addressing drinks by their proper names. Except for tea, which is always cold sweet tea.

You drink strange tea...

purplefood wrote:

halonachos wrote:We avoid that by addressing drinks by their proper names. Except for tea, which is always cold sweet tea.

You drink strange tea...

We drink tea as it what supposed to be.

I actually liked the I'm not sexist buy.... link to that site. I always just assumed it were us menfolk that were completely sexist

halonachos wrote:

purplefood wrote:

halonachos wrote:We avoid that by addressing drinks by their proper names. Except for tea, which is always cold sweet tea.

You drink strange tea...

We drink tea as it what supposed to be.

I'm not racist, but I don't know why some people think sugar should have that little tea added to it. Srsly. I mean, is America still are country?

biccat wrote:There's a valid argument to be made that beneficial discrimination is also a bad thing. For example, a college administrator saying "Asians are better at math, so we'll admit more Asians into our mathematics college" is beneficial discrimination, but is also wrong. And may be harmful both to the group benefitted and the groups who suffer as a result of the benefit.

This would be exactly the mistake I stated earlier. There is nothing wrong with identifying a trait amongst a certain group - ie Asians tend to be better at math. There is a problem with saying 'that kid is Asian, therefore he must be good at math, therefore we'll chuck him in the advanced class'. While the trend might exist, it can't ever be strong enough to just assume anyone who is Asian is good at maths.

Which is, again, bad because it is stupid.

In my (entirely unscientific) opinion, the racial disparity in sports (or positions in sports, see e.g. quarterbacks vs. running backs) is based on cultural differences more than racial differences.

I think that's really doubtful. Here in Australia there's a strong representation of Aboriginals in Australian Rules Football. What becomes clear if you care to look in more detail is that Aboriginals will fill the roles of small forwards and running midfielders, they tend to be more lightly framed but very nimble and skilled. It's very rare to see aboriginals filling the roles of big men, such as key positions and ruckmen.

If it was just a case of them playing the game a lot, they'd fill all roles equally. Instead it appears that they tend towards positions that best suit the physiques that are more common among Australian Aboriginals. I think the same thing is true in American sports - you tend to see white quarterbacks, and black running backs, for instance.

It appears to me that differences in physique actually make a difference in who can make it in elite sport, and where they play.

Blacks aren't universally better than whites at basketball

They're not universally better, but they tend, on average, to be slightly better at specific tasks that are important in specific sports. Being slightly better on average means the elite, those three or more standard deviations from the norm, will be slightly better than the elite from other groups.

The scope for difference among individuals in any group makes the above entirely worthless for predicting an individual, but when you look at the populations as a whole and the numbers that make it into professional sport, then you see it significant effect.

There are probably some socio-economic aspects as well. Suburban white kids are happy to take the "safe" road of a college degree + office job while urban black kids are willing to risk it all (a crappy manual labor job) for a chance at a professional sports career.

That tendency is most likely entirely socio-economic. I think you'd find the same willingness to 'risk it' for a career in professional sports among white dudes from impoverished mid-west towns as you'd see among impoverished urban black dudes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Not all sporting ability. There are reams written on the difference between how white and black players are percieved, particulalry in positions that don't have hard stats, or in terms of "toughness", "hustle" or "leadership."

True, but isn't it most likely that both perception and actual differences in ability play a part?

I'm not racist, but...stereotypes exist for a reason

halonachos wrote:But is it the 1/8 rule though, I learned about it last year in I/O psychology and I readily forget how to do it, just moved and can't find the text book for it either... the fact that it was smaller than the 40k 5th edition rule book doesn't help either.

Polonius explained it. He explained it clearly, concisely and completely. At this point you're just pretending there's something else because you don't like the idea of the law not working the way you like to think it works.

starhawks wrote:I'm not racist, but...stereotypes exist for a reason

so true. if so many of them didnt do it,it wouldnt end up like this.but no,they have to all go buy drugs and make the minority that dosent look bad to.

starhawks wrote:I'm not racist, but...stereotypes exist for a reason

But the trick is, some stereotypes exist for reasons that have nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with explaining away something that we wouldn't be comfortable with.

The trick is figuring out which stereotypes don't have any basis in reality, and which have some element of truth behind them (and even then never making the mistake of assuming that the general rule must apply to every individual in the group).

starhawks wrote:I'm not racist, but...stereotypes exist for a reason

Well, they exist for several reasons, and not all of them are related to what members of group X actually do.

Platuan4th wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:
One of my favourites though is #8, Obama:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/19/8-barack-obama/

We do? The vast majority of white people I know hate the guy, but that may be a symptom of me knowing majority military and his distaste for military is well documented.

I believe you missed the point...

It's satire...

This is a thread about racism and how it is perceived...

Polonius wrote:...terms of "toughness", "hustle" or "leadership."

Oh God, you've discovered my most hate elements of athletic commentary and coaching.

I had this one coach who once benched me for a game because I hadn't showed enough hustle in practice that week. I had been seeing a speed coach, and made a significant improvement to my running form in the previous week (that type of thing is very much a case of suddenly "getting it"). Basically, I got more graceful, and appeared to be less laborious in my movements, because I was. This made my coach believe I had been lazy during practice, when I had actually just been playing better, I had more technical sacks that week than any other that year (technical because you can't actually get sacks in practice).

One of the main things I've learned from playing sports its that most coaches, especially below the professional level, are all about feel (read: they're idiots) and not statistics or analysis. Sometimes that works, guys like Parcels thrive on generating emotional responses in their players, which usually makes them play better (though often more foolishly, there's a reason quarterbacks don't get yelled at), but often times it just falls flat; especially when you have intelligent players (again, there's a reason quarterbacks don't get yelled at).

Anyway, to bring it all back around, because there's so much of an aesthetic component to assessing athletic ability, even beyond what I've gone into, race is often huge in terms of a player's success. Other things are too, of course, I recall a book published a while ago by a guy whose name is now escaping me that offered and excellent explanation for why Canadian hockey players have a very small set of likely birth dates. It related to the structure of Canadian youth leagues.

My bad Sebster it's the 4/5 rule, which is an actual application in the modern working world for as Polonius said, government jobs.

If 80 white people apply for a job and only 48 are hired that means we take 48 and divide it by 80 which gives us a total of 0.6.

If 40 black people apply and only 12 are hired that means we take 12 and divide it by 40 which gives us a total 0.3.

0.6=60% and 0.3=30%. We then take the selection rate of the two groups(the selection rate we are comparing to the larger selection rate over the largest selection rate) and we get 0.3 divided by 0.6.

0.3/0.6=.5 which is 50%. this is below .8 and shows adverse impact. Because of this the test will have to be examined and possibly thrown out.

The 4/5 comes from the fact that 4/5=0.8 and the relation between the selection ratio must be between 0.8 or 1.00.

So it works this way Sebster(although the lower selection rate can be white males and the larger selection rate could beblack females), and you can say that I am wrong all you want... but I do have an entire field of psychology behind me on this one.

halonachos wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

purplefood wrote:If there is anything that makes me want to kil another human being it's the use of the 'word' y'all...
I see a lot of it on the sites that have been posted...

The haters can feel free to provide an alternative word. Oh wait, ya'll can't find one.

You misspelled "y'all" Cannerus.

Frazzled, what kind of education system do you have in Texas if your Texas youth can't spell "y'all"? I guess that Virginia has a better education system than Texas.

http://infosecplace.com/tangential/2007/06/03/its-yall-not-yall/

Bottom two comments. It's "ya'll" and always will be.

And that Cannerus is why Texas will always be different from the rest of the South. You guys get more and more like the north every year.

halonachos wrote:And that Cannerus is why Texas will always be different from the rest of the South. You guys get more and more like the north every year.

I have noticed a strange link between Texas and Minnesota. But by having a different spelling, doesn't that make us less like the north?

I have to say I was about to cringe when I saw this thread, but reading the responses makes me like the Dakka community even more.

I found this the other day and it is pretty helpful in terms of breaking down what is and what isn't racism.

http://zombifuntime.tumblr.com/post/5825938286/aeraspais-to-be-honest-i-dislike-how-often

and if you want to see things from the flip side of the racial/gender/class experience check out http://microaggressions.com/

halonachos wrote:And that Cannerus is why Texas will always be different from the rest of the South. You guys get more and more like the north every year.

BURN.

dogma wrote:

starhawks wrote:I'm not racist, but...stereotypes exist for a reason

Well, they exist for several reasons, and not all of them are related to what members of group X actually do.

...buuut a vast majority of the time it is

You know what you never hear? 'I AM racist, but...'


'I am racist, but that Beyonce? Hell of a singer.'

Albatross wrote:You know what you never hear? 'I AM racist, but...'


'I am racist, but that Beyonce? Hell of a singer.'

You know what's sad...I have heard those sorts of comments from people...
Stuff like " She may be a N-word...but damn she looks good."...I usually have to walk away at that point.

Albatross wrote:You know what you never hear? 'I AM racist, but...'


'I am racist, but that Beyonce? Hell of a singer.'

that was a twist. your racist?!?!?!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

halonachos wrote:And that Cannerus is why Texas will always be different from the rest of the South. You guys get more and more like the north every year.

I have noticed a strange link between Texas and Minnesota. But by having a different spelling, doesn't that make us less like the north?

No, the rest of the south spells it "y'all" and we started the whole "y'all" thing. If somebody in the north tries to steal y'all from us then they're trying to be southern. However, y'all in Texas seem to want to spell it "ya'll" which makes you different from the rest of the south. That makes y'all a bunch of carpetbaggers.

That and you guys got rid of the electric chair... next thing you know y'all are going to have big cities with *shudder* culture *shudder*.

halonachos wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

halonachos wrote:And that Cannerus is why Texas will always be different from the rest of the South. You guys get more and more like the north every year.

I have noticed a strange link between Texas and Minnesota. But by having a different spelling, doesn't that make us less like the north?

No, the rest of the south spells it "y'all" and we started the whole "y'all" thing. If somebody in the north tries to steal y'all from us then they're trying to be southern. However, y'all in Texas seem to want to spell it "ya'll" which makes you different from the rest of the south. That makes y'all a bunch of carpetbaggers.

That and you guys got rid of the electric chair... next thing you know y'all are going to have big cities with *shudder* culture *shudder*.

I've spelled " Y'all"..." Y'all" all my Southern born and raised life...Texan's..I just don't get y'all.

FITZZ wrote:

halonachos wrote:

I've spelled " Y'all"..." Y'all" all my Southern born and raised life...Texan's..I just don't get y'all.

whats to get? were texan,were are own breed all together

lord commissar klimino wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

halonachos wrote:

I've spelled " Y'all"..." Y'all" all my Southern born and raised life...Texan's..I just don't get y'all.

whats to get? were texan,were are own breed all together

Oh...I'll agree with you about that, I stayed out in Houston for a while many years back and can attest to the fact that Texan's are indeed a unique breed of folks.

lord commissar klimino wrote:

Albatross wrote:You know what you never hear? 'I AM racist, but...'


'I am racist, but that Beyonce? Hell of a singer.'

that was a twist. your racist?!?!?!

What are you talking about? Albtross doesn't own a racist, that would be slavery (however well justified).

Texas: The Lone Star state(because the rest of the south doesn't like the way they spell "y'all".)

halonachos wrote:Texas: The Lone Star state(because the rest of the south doesn't like the way they spell "y'all".)

...Or the way they drive.. ..here's a hint...take the John Wayne hats off, you can see the road better that way. ..I kid..I kid.

Sebster wrote:I think that's really doubtful. Here in Australia there's a strong representation of Aboriginals in Australian Rules Football. What becomes clear if you care to look in more detail is that Aboriginals will fill the roles of small forwards and running midfielders, they tend to be more lightly framed but very nimble and skilled. It's very rare to see aboriginals filling the roles of big men, such as key positions and ruckmen.

If it was just a case of them playing the game a lot, they'd fill all roles equally. Instead it appears that they tend towards positions that best suit the physiques that are more common among Australian Aboriginals. I think the same thing is true in American sports - you tend to see white quarterbacks, and black running backs, for instance.

It appears to me that differences in physique actually make a difference in who can make it in elite sport, and where they play.

Physique certainly plays a role in fitness to a particular sport and position played, however to what degree does physique depend on "race"?

Perhaps aborigines tend to be smaller because they tend not to get steak and eggs for breakfast as often.