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.

Formosa wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I read that article pol, it in no way refers to white privilege, do you have another ?

Umm... it was an article literally about how similar resumes got better results when the person had a strongly white name vs. a strongly black name. I cannot think of better evidence for white privilege than a field experiment showing that employers were more likely to call back white applicants than black ones.

That’s not white privilege though, that’s not showing how white people have an advantage based solely on being white, if I had a “black” name then I would have been chinned off, it’s not a privilege thing, it’s a prejudism thing.

So do you have another example ?

feeder wrote:If anyone is not "getting it" yet, it's because they are unwilling or perhaps unable.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
White privilege is an acceptable racist term that can be openly talked about in the UN without fear of reprisal. Whites have earned the discrimination they receive because their life is easier than yours (if you aren't white). All other races should have a handicap advantage placed on them (standardization)(affirmative action).

It's dumb ideas like this that put the country in the state it is currently in. This will never lead to "healing". It actually makes things worse.

There is an inherent amount of racism ingrained in everyones instincts. People natural fear what is different from them. People naturally favor their own culture over others. This is the human condition. It's can't be corrected for.

No, this is a white right-winger's understanding of what "human nature" is. I posit that people don't naturally fear what is different from them, that "favouring their own culture over others" is meaningless and that all of this could very much be corrected for. How the hell did you think new culture was developed if people weren't accepting and if people weren't open to change?

Pretty much spot on - it's part of the fake ad popularum argument used by the right. "Oh everyone's secretly a Nazi, they just won't admit it because of those darn liberals!".

I can't tell if it's a failure to understand normalistic fallacies or a desperate attempt to look big and scary.

 Polonius wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
That’s not white privilege though, that’s not showing how white people have an advantage based solely on being white, if I had a “black” name then I would have been chinned off, it’s not a privilege thing, it’s a prejudism thing.

So do you have another example ?

Are you honestly saying that people don't judge between white and black people, but people with white or black names?

And yes, if you had a black name you would be less likely to get a call back... because the employer would assume you were black.

The actual methodology involved controlling for names that were both common in either race, and strongly identified with that race.

Yes I am saying that particular article does not show what you claim it does, after reading it I agree it shows prejudice against black people but in no way shows a white privilege, one does not equate the other.

 Polonius wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
That’s not white privilege though, that’s not showing how white people have an advantage based solely on being white, if I had a “black” name then I would have been chinned off, it’s not a privilege thing, it’s a prejudism thing.

So do you have another example ?

Are you honestly saying that people don't judge between white and black people, but people with white or black names?

And yes, if you had a black name you would be less likely to get a call back... because the employer would assume you were black.

The actual methodology involved controlling for names that were both common in either race, and strongly identified with that race.

Perhaps you are being blind to the actual problem. People who care about their children success name them for success.

You'd have an equally bad success rate naming your children after Zelda characters. Or like some dumb girl I know - named her child some idiotic name. I think it's Erza. Shes white BTW. Promise you that kid struggles getting jobs with that name. It has exactly 0 to do with race and 100% with familiarity and comfortably - in the instant someone looks at the name.

The study I am really interested in. Is the one that shows it's actually an advantage or have 0 effect to be black in the job hunting game if you have a name that sounds "white" or as I like to say. Sounds American.

People tend to assume others are like themselves.

If I am untrustworthy, I will assume others are untrustworthy. If I get away with it, it's because the other person was stupid, so I deserved the "win".

Same thing happens with prejudice. I work around a lot of olde-thymey guys. Some in their 70's that are still working in gravel pits. To them, racism was a way of life. My grandfather is 97 years old, and one of the nicest men I've ever met. He has no problems with the colour of anyone's skin... but Muslim? Russian? Chinese? (Those 3, specifically. And specifically Chinese, other "orientals" aren't a problem.)

They think I'm faking it when I say that no, I don't agree with their views on these things. Like my disagreeing with these ideas is a face I'm putting on for the public, not my internally held beliefs. They can't imagine a world where someone does not believe as they do, it's just part of what they are.

If you can't imagine a better way, you stick to what you know.

 Formosa wrote:
Yes I am saying that particular article does not show what you claim it does, after reading it I agree it shows prejudice against black people but in no way shows a white privilege, one does not equate the other.

Of course it does. I'm arguing that white privilege is the idea that white people have an easier path to success. I cited a study that showed stereo typically white names resulted in more call backs. That is literally an easier path to success.

 feeder wrote:

Formosa wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I read that article pol, it in no way refers to white privilege, do you have another ?

Umm... it was an article literally about how similar resumes got better results when the person had a strongly white name vs. a strongly black name. I cannot think of better evidence for white privilege than a field experiment showing that employers were more likely to call back white applicants than black ones.

That’s not white privilege though, that’s not showing how white people have an advantage based solely on being white, if I had a “black” name then I would have been chinned off, it’s not a privilege thing, it’s a prejudism thing.

So do you have another example ?

feeder wrote:If anyone is not "getting it" yet, it's because they are unwilling or perhaps unable.

I have asked you several times to define your terminology, you have refused, I have asked you to keep it civil, you are clearly not, if you want to contribute do so, otherwise pipe down and let the rest of us have this conversation.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If only there were some sort of academic concept for how different kinds of disciplines intersect with one another. We could call it, I don't know, Intersectionality. Alas, such a thing hasn't ever been thought of before, so sadly we must conclude that White Privilege can't be a thing because other people can be oppressed too. Oh well.

Accepting the validity of intersectionality, using the term white privilege is intellectually lazy and an oversimplification of the privileged social status. The whole point of intersectionality is that there are multiple and varied factors contributing to the creation of the privilege, including but certainly not limited to ethnicity. It can be argued that economic status is far more important than ethnicity in regards to the degree of privilege enjoyed by an individual. There are millions of poor white people in the US who don't have a high level of education and live in rural areas and trailer park type neighborhoods that have less access to services and benefits than millions of poor nonwhite people living in urban ghettos. Poverty strips away a lot of benefits and wealth bestows a lot of benefits, nonwhites that have wealth are able to overcome a large amount of the obstacles faced by nonwhites who lack wealth. Family structure also plays a factor, having a two parent household with one or both parents being college graduates and employed is a significant factor regarding income earned by the family, where they live and the degree of importance placed on education, all of which mitigates obstacles created by racism directed at nonwhite ethnicities. If you agree that intersectionality exists than you must also accept that "white privilege" isn't determined by "whiteness" alone and that therefore "white privilege" as a descriptive term is a misnomer at best and a deliberate obfuscation at worst.

 Polonius wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Yes I am saying that particular article does not show what you claim it does, after reading it I agree it shows prejudice against black people but in no way shows a white privilege, one does not equate the other.

Of course it does. I'm arguing that white privilege is the idea that white people have an easier path to success. I cited a study that showed stereo typically white names resulted in more call backs. That is literally an easier path to success.

I respect your opinion pol but in this I think your being biased, that study does not Snow White privilege, it merely shows a clear bias towards certain names and the pre conceived notion of which race those names belong to

 Ahtman wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I see I won't have to go to 4chan today as I can just read this thread.

Is there dissenting voices on 4chan? I thought it was a circle jerk of disaffected little boys trying to out-egdelord one another. Sort of a 'through the mirror darkly" version of tumblr.

I don't think I would call it dissenting as usually it comes up around things unrelated to the subject at hand. For example it may be a thread about Primaris Marine fluff and someone will start complaining about how white privilege doesn't exist or some other ill informed non-sense. Looking at the ill-informed nonsense happening here and the severe denial of it there is no reason to go there to see that at the moment. All we need now is someone to start using 'SJW' as a slam and the transformation to a 4chan thread will be almost complete.

We'd need more dank memes though.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Perhaps you are being blind to the actual problem. People who care about their children success name them for success.

I think that's a bold claim, but we'll move in.

You'd have an equally bad success rate naming your children after Zelda characters. Or like some dumb girl I know - named her child some idiotic name. I think it's Erza. Shes white BTW. Promise you that kid struggles getting jobs with that name. It has exactly 0 to do with race and 100% with familiarity and comfortably - in the instant someone looks at the name.

Citation needed.

The study did note:

The experiment, conducted between July 2001 and January 2002, reveals several other aspects of discrimination. If the fictitious resume indicates that the applicant lives in a wealthier, or more educated, or more-white neighborhood, the callback rate rises. Interestingly, this effect does not differ by race.

there seems to be a strong racial component here.

The study I am really interested in. Is the one that shows it's actually an advantage or have 0 effect to be black in the job hunting game if you have a name that sounds "white" or as I like to say. Sounds American.

So, you'd be interested in a study that confirms your worldview?

The thing is, the names selected aren't uncommon names, just typically black or white names.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Yes I am saying that particular article does not show what you claim it does, after reading it I agree it shows prejudice against black people but in no way shows a white privilege, one does not equate the other.

Of course it does. I'm arguing that white privilege is the idea that white people have an easier path to success. I cited a study that showed stereo typically white names resulted in more call backs. That is literally an easier path to success.

I respect your opinion pol but in this I think your being biased, that study does not Snow White privilege, it merely shows a clear bias towards certain names and the pre conceived notion of which race those names belong to

Right. And since it benefits white people... it shows white privilege.

You can't just say "this just happens to benefit white people." White privilege is the term for all of the things that "just happen" to benefit white people.

This isn't some sort of advanced non-Euclidean proof here.
- White people are more likely to have white names
-People with white names are more likely to have an advantage looking for a job
-White people have an advantage looking for a job.

I don't get why people are so adamant in thinking that being white isn't a benefit in American society.

 Polonius wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Yes I am saying that particular article does not show what you claim it does, after reading it I agree it shows prejudice against black people but in no way shows a white privilege, one does not equate the other.

Of course it does. I'm arguing that white privilege is the idea that white people have an easier path to success. I cited a study that showed stereo typically white names resulted in more call backs. That is literally an easier path to success.

I missed the study. but honest question did they factor in other types of names as well? Asian, middle eastern, black, white, Spanish? what was the spread. if it shows that people with white names have a better pick rate over all then that would show a bias towards white. if everything else was reletivly equal except for black names than it would show a bias against blacks rather than white privilege no?

 Formosa wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Formosa wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I read that article pol, it in no way refers to white privilege, do you have another ?

Umm... it was an article literally about how similar resumes got better results when the person had a strongly white name vs. a strongly black name. I cannot think of better evidence for white privilege than a field experiment showing that employers were more likely to call back white applicants than black ones.

That’s not white privilege though, that’s not showing how white people have an advantage based solely on being white, if I had a “black” name then I would have been chinned off, it’s not a privilege thing, it’s a prejudism thing.

So do you have another example ?

feeder wrote:If anyone is not "getting it" yet, it's because they are unwilling or perhaps unable.

I have asked you several times to define your terminology, you have refused, I have asked you to keep it civil, you are clearly not, if you want to contribute do so, otherwise pipe down and let the rest of us have this conversation.

I mean, he showed you a study that was as a clear cut example as you could ask for, and yet you insisted that was prejudice and not privilege.

So we circle back to the start of the thread where what is really being argued is semantics.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If only there were some sort of academic concept for how different kinds of disciplines intersect with one another. We could call it, I don't know, Intersectionality. Alas, such a thing hasn't ever been thought of before, so sadly we must conclude that White Privilege can't be a thing because other people can be oppressed too. Oh well.

Accepting the validity of intersectionality, using the term white privilege is intellectually lazy and an oversimplification of the privileged social status. The whole point of intersectionality is that there are multiple and varied factors contributing to the creation of the privilege, including but certainly not limited to ethnicity. It can be argued that economic status is far more important than ethnicity in regards to the degree of privilege enjoyed by an individual. There are millions of poor white people in the US who don't have a high level of education and live in rural areas and trailer park type neighborhoods that have less access to services and benefits than millions of poor nonwhite people living in urban ghettos. Poverty strips away a lot of benefits and wealth bestows a lot of benefits, nonwhites that have wealth are able to overcome a large amount of the obstacles faced by nonwhites who lack wealth. Family structure also plays a factor, having a two parent household with one or both parents being college graduates and employed is a significant factor regarding income earned by the family, where they live and the degree of importance placed on education, all of which mitigates obstacles created by racism directed at nonwhite ethnicities. If you agree that intersectionality exists than you must also accept that "white privilege" isn't determined by "whiteness" alone and that therefore "white privilege" as a descriptive term is a misnomer at best and a deliberate obfuscation at worst.

As has been pointed out many times, not only does whiteness correlate with higher economic status, white people have a better chance of leaving poverty.

No matter what else is going on in your life, being white almost always makes it easier.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Yes I am saying that particular article does not show what you claim it does, after reading it I agree it shows prejudice against black people but in no way shows a white privilege, one does not equate the other.

Of course it does. I'm arguing that white privilege is the idea that white people have an easier path to success. I cited a study that showed stereo typically white names resulted in more call backs. That is literally an easier path to success.

I missed the study. but honest question did they factor in other types of names as well? Asian, middle eastern, black, white, Spanish? what was the spread. if it shows that people with white names have a better pick rate over all then that would show a bias towards white. if everything else was reletivly equal except for black names than it would show a bias against blacks rather than white privilege no?

There is an article here, with a link to the actual study half way down. http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

It was white and black names only. White names got a call back for roughly every 10 resumes sent out, while black names took 15 resumes.

And bias against blacks is evidnece of white privilege. If the answer to the question is "would I rather be white in this situation?" is "yes," it's an example of white privilege.

GreatBigTree, 36 year old married white man, attempts to define White Privilege for the purposes of internet discussion: Off to a terrible start, already.

First off, White Privilege is not a literal term. Part of the problem, right there. It has a North American context. Outside of this, there is different cultural background, so this may not apply to your region of the world, or even ALL regions of North America. They are two words, used to surmise a tendancy of a society to favour one group of people over another. A society that allowed slavery, then disallowed slavery, but did not addequately enfranchise the freed people at that time. This has had a continuing impact over the centuries since. A lot of connotation has been put into these two words.

Here goes, definition.

White Privilege: Passive, institutional racism, that has benefited white people over several generations.

While some white people benefit to a greater and lesser degree, there is a tendency for those currently in positions of power to create situations in which power continues to those of their choosing. In North America, and particularly America, the end of Black slavery prevented White people from owning Black people, but did not end discrimination. Black people did not own property, and as such needed to rent land from White people. Property (land) ownership is a key factor in long-term, generational wealth accumulation. In the past, Black people were not allowed, or incredibly disincentivised, to own land. Even in recent times (last 20 years) the land they were “allowed” to own was only in particular neighbourhoods with low land value. When an entire group of people are renting property, the wealth that property generates goes to the land owners. In this case, rent money from Black renters has historically been funneling into the hands of the White owners.

This has lead to a condition in which the average White family's net worth as increased, while the average Black family's net worth has remained mostly stagnant. The rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting screwed. Not all White families are wealthier than a few generations ago, but most are. Most Black families are no wealthier than before, though some are.

White Privilege also describes the tendency of White People to be unaware of advantages they may have over non-White people, as they have not experienced the disadvantages. These advantages are often wealth advantages, but they can also be “lack of disadvantages” such as active discrimination. Tendency for fewer divorced / absent parents. Greater access to health care and education. In observation of the entirety of North America, Black people have less access to job opportunities, due to poorer location, discrimination, and less available capital to take risk ventures (like going to college) which typically result in greater financial returns. Over several generations, this has created a significant financial gap.

Due to lack of awareness, “White Privilege” can blind White persons to the increased obstacles that “Others” face. A White person, with more and often better opportunities may think to themselves, “I worked hard and earned my place, so can anyone else.” But this is not necessarily the case where fewer, less rewarding opportunities exist. “So why not move?” If you're being discriminated against, and do not have the available capital to move to a more opportune location, you can't. There's no wild west to pick up stakes and move to, where anyone with a working body can plant rows of food and grow their own resources. Wherever a person goes, they must pay to be there. They must earn money from their labour. It is a defeating cycle of inability to create the critical mass of resources to begin advancing. A situation actively enforced through discrimination, the effects of which are still being felt.

This lack of awareness, though unintentional, leads people to oppose “affirmative actions” or other efforts to give advantages to non-Whites, as it is seen as giving and advantage, rather than lessening or equalizing disadvantages. It is often justified as “Everyone's got problems to deal with” which they do. And some White people are at greater disadvantage than some Black people, but this is not the usual case. This is a societal observation of overall trends.

It is a tendancy to assume that White people “Normal” is the “Normal” that all other nationalities should conform to. Rather than determining a “Normal” that all people can be compared to equally, White Privilege is a perspective that compares others to “White Normal”. It is not necessarily intentional, and generally isn't. It's is a case of judging in ignorance, using “Ignorance” in the dictionary meaning, as a state of lack of understanding or knowlege. If a man eats at home his entire life, he believes his mother to be the best cook in the world, whether or not this is accurate. Without expanding experience to include the perspective of “others”, White people can only see challenges from their own perspective.

At its best, the term White Privilege is a shortcut to describe the tendency of even well-meaning people to not realize the inequalities that are applied to others. It points out that without knowledge and experience of these factors, the “Privileged” person is unlikely to accurately judge the situation of the “Other” and thus is unlikely to be able to determine a functional solution to the very complicated and longstanding inequality that exists in North America. While the term Black people has been used throughout this, it often applies to anyone non-Western Euopean.

At its best, White Privilege does not ignore or deny that there are other forms of discrimination that impact Whites and non-Whites. It regognizes that there are many issues at play, and that this is a particularly important one as it lies outside of the “Other's” control. It addresses the insidious nature of White power structures to assume their own correctness.

 Polonius wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Yes I am saying that particular article does not show what you claim it does, after reading it I agree it shows prejudice against black people but in no way shows a white privilege, one does not equate the other.

Of course it does. I'm arguing that white privilege is the idea that white people have an easier path to success. I cited a study that showed stereo typically white names resulted in more call backs. That is literally an easier path to success.

I missed the study. but honest question did they factor in other types of names as well? Asian, middle eastern, black, white, Spanish? what was the spread. if it shows that people with white names have a better pick rate over all then that would show a bias towards white. if everything else was reletivly equal except for black names than it would show a bias against blacks rather than white privilege no?

There is an article here, with a link to the actual study half way down. http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

It was white and black names only. White names got a call back for roughly every 10 resumes sent out, while black names took 15 resumes.

And bias against blacks is evidnece of white privilege. If the answer to the question is "would I rather be white in this situation?" is "yes," it's an example of white privilege.

I dont think that is how data works.

white vs black only shows that there is only a bias between the two. it has the potential to show that there is white privilege and or black disadvantage. there would of need to be a control to see weather or not its one or the other or both. as well it would be intresting to see the spread in different fields such as tech, industry, financials and even menial labor (with all the different types of names).

 Desubot wrote:

I dont think that is how data works.

white vs black only shows that there is only a bias between the two. it has the potential to show that there is white privilege and or black disadvantage. there would of need to be a control to see weather or not its one or the other or both.

I'm genunily uncertain why a disadvantage to one group isn't an advantage to another. It doesn't matter if a white person gets 50% more callbacks or the black person gets 33% fewer, it shows that the white person has an advantage and the black person has a disadvantage.

as well it would be intresting to see the spread in different fields such as tech, industry, financials and even menial labor (with all the different types of names).

From the actual study:

In total, we respond to over 1300 employment ads in the sales, administrative support,
clerical and customer services job categories and send nearly 5000 resumes. The ads we respond to cover a
large spectrum of job quality, from cashier work at retail establishments and clerical work in a mailroom to
office and sales management positions.

I've also heard that having monosyllabic names also increase the chances of a callback. "Jen" is more likely to be called back than "Willimina". I'd be interested to see a study that compares ethnic sounding names with Cleatus, Jethro, Jebbadiah, and other "hick" sounding names.

 Polonius wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

I dont think that is how data works.

white vs black only shows that there is only a bias between the two. it has the potential to show that there is white privilege and or black disadvantage. there would of need to be a control to see weather or not its one or the other or both.

I'm genunily uncertain why a disadvantage to one group isn't an advantage to another. It doesn't matter if a white person gets 50% more callbacks or the black person gets 33% fewer, it shows that the white person has an advantage and the black person has a disadvantage.

as well it would be intresting to see the spread in different fields such as tech, industry, financials and even menial labor (with all the different types of names).

From the actual study:

In total, we respond to over 1300 employment ads in the sales, administrative support,
clerical and customer services job categories and send nearly 5000 resumes. The ads we respond to cover a
large spectrum of job quality, from cashier work at retail establishments and clerical work in a mailroom to
office and sales management positions.

Because if its not only white people then its not white privilege. its everyone except (xyz) privilege. (if say white and asian names got 50% call backs and black names only got 33%)

 Desubot wrote:
Because if its not only white people then its not white privilege. its everyone except (xyz) privilege. (if say white and asian names got 50% call backs and black names only got 33%)

Okay, here's studies showing that both black and Asian job seekers got more callbacks when the left out indications of their race. https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews

So, it apparently applies to blacks and asians.

Here's an interesting follow up study: http://fortune.com/2014/11/04/hiring-racial-bias/

Black applicants faced major discrimination when applying for jobs with a customer focus. Researchers looked for jobs with words like “customer,” “sales,” “advisor,” “representative,” “agent,” and “loan officer” in the description. For jobs such as these, the discrimination gap soared. Instead of facing a 2.8 percentage-point gap between callback rates for whites and blacks, they faced a 4.4-point gap.

This implies that while employers might not be actively racist, they know (or think they know) what will please their customers.

 Polonius wrote:


Here's an interesting follow up study: http://fortune.com/2014/11/04/hiring-racial-bias/

Nice i will read through it.

Ooof brutalburg.

appears Asians have a wee bit better than blacks. though i wonder what the results would be like if they had added some non "American" European names and experiences like Irish or German. as in their paper at least on the resume audit was more about removing racial queues than making them literally white.

on that i think my biggest take away from this is
"Despite the diversity rhetoric, the main patterns in
this subsample were similar to those observed across all job ads"

thats some gak right there.

https://youtu.be/d9kuAEA3YB4

This quite effectively shows that white privilege is BS, citations are in description.

 Formosa wrote:
https://youtu.be/d9kuAEA3YB4

This quite effectively shows that white privilege is BS, citations are in description.

Cant watch at work.

what happens?

 Desubot wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
https://youtu.be/d9kuAEA3YB4

This quite effectively shows that white privilege is BS, citations are in description.

Cant watch at work.

what happens?

A black person uses household income to show that white Americans are not even in the top 5 when it comes to the moola, in fact it’s mainly Asians and Africans, not African Americans, he then states its down to the failings within the black community itself that is causing the problems, such as 72% of black homes having a single parent (mother), I could go on but the video explains it better.

I also found Morgan freeman stating pretty much the same and a LOT of African American you tubers stating as much, they know there own communities.

 Formosa wrote:
https://youtu.be/d9kuAEA3YB4

This quite effectively shows that white privilege is BS, citations are in description.

https://youtu.be/Crdd19AtoxI

You shouldn't cite a guy who quit because he realized his employer was getting him to say BS.

So it's rather a black guy used the average income of affluent immigrants from Asian and Africa who are slightly higher than the average white American household to not prove their point.

 Formosa wrote:
I also found Morgan freeman stating pretty much the same and a LOT of African American you tubers stating as much, they know there own communities.

Morgan Freeman is not the emperor of black people. He is a 81 year old man with a net worth of 200 million dollars.

 Polonius wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

I dont think that is how data works.

white vs black only shows that there is only a bias between the two. it has the potential to show that there is white privilege and or black disadvantage. there would of need to be a control to see weather or not its one or the other or both.

I'm genunily uncertain why a disadvantage to one group isn't an advantage to another. It doesn't matter if a white person gets 50% more callbacks or the black person gets 33% fewer, it shows that the white person has an advantage and the black person has a disadvantage.

as well it would be intresting to see the spread in different fields such as tech, industry, financials and even menial labor (with all the different types of names).

From the actual study:

In total, we respond to over 1300 employment ads in the sales, administrative support,
clerical and customer services job categories and send nearly 5000 resumes. The ads we respond to cover a
large spectrum of job quality, from cashier work at retail establishments and clerical work in a mailroom to
office and sales management positions.

What you don’t seem to be understanding is that a disadvantage for one group is not to the advantage of the other. It’s that one group is discriminated against. The other group has no direct benefit to getting call backs, only that they are not being discriminated against.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm genunily uncertain why a disadvantage to one group isn't an advantage to another.

Would you mind explaining it one more time? I'd like to pretend I don't understand again.

 Ouze wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm genunily uncertain why a disadvantage to one group isn't an advantage to another.

Would you mind explaining it one more time? I'd like to pretend I don't understand again.

Is it a privilege to walk down the street without being harassed? The days that a black man walks down a street without being profiled, are they a privilege or just another day? Does he suddenly have an advantage over other men?

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Is it a privilege to walk down the street without being harassed?

If you are statistically significantly more likely to enjoy this advantage, yes?

 Sinful Hero wrote:
The days that a black man walks down a street without being profiled, are they a privilege or just another day?

On days when a white guy and a black guy both are driving somewhere, and the cops don't pull one over; are those days when racial inequality as a longstanding issue suddenly ceases to exist?