Facebook is demonstrably meddling in 2020 Election

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, Canton Dawg said:

Cool story...now do the NBA.

This is idiotic 

[htownbrown]

13 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

Do I see someone membership in a "very specific racial club" as a negative? No, just another club. Pretty sure the Klan isn't a club in college anymore. 

Well, it's not about hate if that's what you're getting at.  Just seems to me if you isolate yourself into race specific clubs, by pure definition you're not promoting inclusiveness. And if that's what I'm hiring for, you'd be better off not putting it on your resume.

The way I see it, and clearly you don't, the study you posted associated that with acting 'white', which it is not.

[cccjwh]

17 minutes ago, htownbrown said:

Well, it's not about hate if that's what you're getting at.  Just seems to me if you isolate yourself into race specific clubs, by pure definition you're not promoting inclusiveness. And if that's what I'm hiring for, you'd be better off not putting it on your resume.

The way I see it, and clearly you don't, the study you posted associated that with acting 'white', which it is not.

I don't see clubs that way. The studies I'm talking about is making their resume 'whiter' and has nothing to do with acting 'white'. 

[htownbrown]

1 minute ago, cccjwh said:

I don't see clubs that way. The studies I'm talking about is making their resume 'whiter' and has nothing to do with acting 'white'. 

You would if it was a white club.

Getting non-inclusive associations off your resume isn't whiting it up, either.  Especially, if you paint the picture that white people are known for not being inclusive. 

[Canton Dawg]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

This is idiotic 

I don’t think it’s idiotic.

Let’s see you defend 94% African American employees on an NBA payroll...I’ll wait.

[MLD Woody]

3 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

I don’t think it’s idiotic.

Let’s see you defend 94% African American employees on an NBA payroll...I’ll wait.

You're implying that the hires were racially motivated. What proof do you have of that? You really think team's are drafting certain players and paying them millions just because they're black? 

[Canton Dawg]

12 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

You're implying that the hires were racially motivated. What proof do you have of that? You really think team's are drafting certain players and paying them millions just because they're black? 

The premise of my question is because the NBA owners hire the best players, not based on skin color.

If you look at things from a purely demographic perspective, one would think the NBA hiring process is extremely biased.

Just like the semiconductor industry payrolls are composed of 97% Asians.

Today’s large corporations are colorblind and hire the best candidates.

I work for a large corporation, and I’m happy to say my employer has quite a diverse group of people.

[cccjwh]

1 hour ago, htownbrown said:

You would if it was a white club.

Getting non-inclusive associations off your resume isn't whiting it up, either.  Especially, if you paint the picture that white people are known for not being inclusive. 

Sure, that is why people are being passed over the club is all inclusive. What about the study that only changed the person name? 

 

[htownbrown]

19 hours ago, htownbrown said:

If you simply change a person's name and get different results after multiple attempts with the original name, i get the point.  

 

30 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

Sure, that is why people are being passed over the club is all inclusive. What about the study that only changed the person name? 

 

 

We good?

[MLD Woody]

48 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

The premise of my question is because the NBA owners hire the best players, not based on skin color.

If you look at things from a purely demographic perspective, one would think the NBA hiring process is extremely biased.

Just like the semiconductor industry payrolls are composed of 97% Asians.

Today’s large corporations are colorblind and hire the best candidates.

I work for a large corporation, and I’m happy to say my employer has quite a diverse group of people.

Sure, but the point of the study posted is that there is evidence that's not the case (again, still need to review). 

This would be like if Game, coaches, scouts had two players that were absolutely identical but they didn't know their race, and studies show they more than likely pick the black one. Then there's something to it. 

But in the NBA, where the entire hiring process is incredibly merit based and transparent, it's completely different. Like comparing apples and oranges. 

 

Your personal experience says large companies are colorblind but that's just your opinion. That's the point. 

[htownbrown]

5 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Sure, but the point of the study posted is that there is evidence that's not the case (again, still need to review). 

This would be like if Game, coaches, scouts had two players that were absolutely identical but they didn't know their race, and studies show they more than likely pick the black one. Then there's something to it. 

But in the NBA, where the entire hiring process is incredibly merit based and transparent, it's completely different. Like comparing apples and oranges. 

 

Your personal experience says large companies are colorblind but that's just your opinion. That's the point. 

Well, if you think this is still a big problem, name some corporations that are guilty of this.  Should be easy, right?  

I would expect this to mainly be a small business problem, which on a smaller payroll is harder to detect.   

[MLD Woody]

2 minutes ago, htownbrown said:

Well, if you think this is still a big problem, name some corporations that are guilty of this.  Should be easy, right?  

No, why would it be easy? The public doesn't have visibility to a company's hiring practices. I also don't have time to research how the diversity of a certain role at a company compares to the population of applicants at large, the geographic population near by, etc. 

 

FYI, I'm all for hiring the best candidate. I don't like the idea of quotas. I do understand there are systemic issues at play long before someone even fills out an application. 

When I wasn't asked about getting a minority hire I hired a female because she was the best candidate. When I was asked to try and do that again by corporate I hired a white male because he was the best applicant. 

[htownbrown]

2 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

No, why would it be easy? The public doesn't have visibility to a company's hiring practices. I also don't have time to research how the diversity of a certain role at a company compares to the population of applicants at large, the geographic population near by, etc. 

Well, to claim that it is the underlying issue with lack of black opportunity in this country you need companies to contribute to these statistics.  You can't just say "look at these unemployment numbers, clearly we're dealing with racism here."  Likewise, you can't just say this is systematic if you can't name any offenders.  Honestly, this could be coming from international corporations for that matter.  You can't distinguish anything if you don't know the root cause.

 

FYI, I'm all for hiring the best candidate. I don't like the idea of quotas. I do understand there are systemic issues at play long before someone even fills out an application. 

When I wasn't asked about getting a minority hire I hired a female because she was the best candidate. When I was asked to try and do that again by corporate I hired a white male because he was the best applicant. 

You are one of the last people I would accuse of intentional racism towards people of color.  Self loather?  Maybe, but doubtful.  

 

[cccjwh]

1 hour ago, htownbrown said:

Well, if you think this is still a big problem, name some corporations that are guilty of this.  Should be easy, right?  

I would expect this to mainly be a small business problem, which on a smaller payroll is harder to detect.   

You have been given the evidence and can't even see there is a problem. The only different in the resumes send out in this study is the person name. The resumes with with names like Emily and Greg vs Lakisha and Jamal. The Lakishas and Jamals had to send out 15 resumes for one callback. Compared to Greg and Emily who only had to send out 10 resumes for one callback. Again the only different in the resumes was the names. 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/

 

[Vambo]

[htownbrown]

15 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

You have been given the evidence and can't even see there is a problem. The only different in the resumes send out in this study is the person name. The resumes with with names like Emily and Greg vs Lakisha and Jamal. The Lakishas and Jamals had to send out 15 resumes for one callback. Compared to Greg and Emily who only had to send out 10 resumes for one callback. Again the only different in the resumes was the names. 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/

 

Ok.  Like Woody, I don't have time to read every link you post.  If I have time I will, but that's not remotely what the original study you posted did.  If you don't want to discuss that link, than you shouldn't have posted it to begin with.  Secondly, you are now posting a study that's almost 20 years old referenced in a politifact (haha) article that's now 5 years old.  Do you see how that might be a problem?

[cccjwh]

25 minutes ago, htownbrown said:

Ok.  Like Woody, I don't have time to read every link you post.  If I have time I will, but that's not remotely what the original study you posted did.  If you don't want to discuss that link, than you shouldn't have posted it to begin with.  Secondly, you are now posting a study that's almost 20 years old referenced in a politifact (haha) article that's now 5 years old.  Do you see how that might be a problem?

No, posted a link that referenced multiple studies that show bias because of people's names. You cheery pick a small part of one study and used it to explain away all of the bias. There have been multiple studies that found the same bias. Yes it has been getting better, but you can't even admit there is a problem. Can you even admit there was a problem? 

[htownbrown]

17 hours ago, cccjwh said:

No, posted a link that referenced multiple studies that show bias because of people's names. You cheery pick a small part of one study and used it to explain away all of the bias. There have been multiple studies that found the same bias. Yes it has been getting better, but you can't even admit there is a problem. Can you even admit there was a problem? 

I didn't cherry pick anything.  You can write a paper that comes to the right conclusion with completely useless data.  Happens all the time.

I think there is something about studies like these that needs to be said.  I've personally met black people named Tom, Dick, and Harry. That's not whiting up a resume.  You think white people put shit like "I like to go muddin' and shoot thangs fer fun" on a corporate resume?  How does a white person project whiteness on a resume exactly?  It's not a tell-all diary of sorts. 

What I've been saying is,, I wouldn't put anything on my resume about activism.  Period.  It's not worth the risk.  While a few companies disturbingly can make a profit off it, most can't.  It's not what they're after. To somewhat prove  my point, I'll "cherrypick" from your link since I'm being accused of it:

We find that the use of techniques for concealing or downplaying one’s racial minority 
status remains a potentially important response to anticipated racial discrimination in employment. Indeed, we find broadly similar responses among black and Asian job seekers, even though members of these minority groups are faced with different challenges and stereotypes in labor markets. Clearly, while racial “passing” and “covering” have a long history in North America (Hobbs, 2014; Yoshino, 2006), such practices are still very much alive today.  Employment outcomes, therefore, do not simply reflect a one-sided, employer-driven process but, rather, the joint influence of the decisions of employers and the actions of job seekers who attempt to influence employers’ decisions through self-presentation.

One important implication is that signals of racial assimilation and conformity may be 
critical variables in explaining labor market inequalities. Many of our respondents emphasized that what matters in getting a job is not one’s racial minority status itself but, rather, the degree to which that status is salient and the type of racial minority that one is perceived to be (e.g., “a really Asian Asian” versus a somewhat “whitewashed” one; or a black worker who “fits within a certain box” versus a potentially outspoken black worker who cares deeply about racial issues).

 

I basically said just that, far less eloquently, a few posts ago.  The problem doesn't seem to be white or black people in general.  Rather it seems to be corporate policy towards activism, in this case.  

Now, the name altering thing is a whole 'nother ballgame.  I never said that wasn't a problem, nor that I condoned it. I don't know why you're asking me dumbass questions about what I'll admit to.  I've already told you.

 

[cccjwh]

2 hours ago, htownbrown said:

I didn't cherry pick anything.  You can write a paper that comes to the right conclusion with completely useless data.  Happens all the time.

I think there is something about studies like these that needs to be said.  I've personally met black people named Tom, Dick, and Harry. That's not whiting up a resume.  You think white people put shit like "I like to go muddin' and shoot thangs fer fun" on a corporate resume?  How does a white person project whiteness on a resume exactly?  It's not a tell-all diary of sorts. 

What I've been saying is,, I wouldn't put anything on my resume about activism.  Period.  It's not worth the risk.  While a few companies disturbingly can make a profit off it, most can't.  It's not what they're after. To somewhat prove  my point, I'll "cherrypick" from your link since I'm being accused of it:

We find that the use of techniques for concealing or downplaying one’s racial minority 
status remains a potentially important response to anticipated racial discrimination in employment. Indeed, we find broadly similar responses among black and Asian job seekers, even though members of these minority groups are faced with different challenges and stereotypes in labor markets. Clearly, while racial “passing” and “covering” have a long history in North America (Hobbs, 2014; Yoshino, 2006), such practices are still very much alive today.  Employment outcomes, therefore, do not simply reflect a one-sided, employer-driven process but, rather, the joint influence of the decisions of employers and the actions of job seekers who attempt to influence employers’ decisions through self-presentation.

One important implication is that signals of racial assimilation and conformity may be 
critical variables in explaining labor market inequalities. Many of our respondents emphasized that what matters in getting a job is not one’s racial minority status itself but, rather, the degree to which that status is salient and the type of racial minority that one is perceived to be (e.g., “a really Asian Asian” versus a somewhat “whitewashed” one; or a black worker who “fits within a certain box” versus a potentially outspoken black worker who cares deeply about racial issues).

 

I basically said just that, far less eloquently, a few posts ago.  The problem doesn't seem to be white or black people in general.  Rather it seems to be corporate policy towards activism, in this case.  

Now, the name altering thing is a whole 'nother ballgame.  I never said that wasn't a problem, nor that I condoned it. I don't know why you're asking me dumbass questions about what I'll admit to.  I've already told you.

 

Again the study was about resumes that were the same except for the person name. Nothing about clubs or activism. Why you keep going back to your talking point, I don't know. I guess it's the easiest way to avoid talking about the study's results. Why does someone with a black name have to send out 15 resumes for a come back, when someone with a white name only have to send out 10 for a talk back. 

[htownbrown]

4 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

Again the study was about resumes that were the same except for the person name. Nothing about clubs or activism. Why you keep going back to you talking point, I don't know. I guess it's the easiest way to avoid talking about the study's results. Why does someone with a black name have to send out 15 resumes for a come back, when someone with a white name only have to send out 10 for a talk back. 

Ok.  Now I know you don't understand what your own link is about.  I'm done.  You're clubbing people with the wrong weapon.  I'll only suggest you read your links first next time.  

[cccjwh]

51 minutes ago, htownbrown said:

Ok.  Now I know you don't understand what your own link is about.  I'm done.  You're clubbing people with the wrong weapon.  I'll only suggest you read your links first next time.  

That is the summary of the study.

We perform a field experiment to measure racial discrimination in the labor market. We respond with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perception of race, each resume is assigned either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase. Applicants living in better neighborhoods receive more callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries. Federal contractors and employers who list “Equal Opportunity Employer” in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names. These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market.

[htownbrown]

On 6/25/2020 at 4:12 PM, cccjwh said:

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews

http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/Whitening MS R2 Accepted.pdf

In one study, the researchers created resumes for black and Asian applicants and sent them out for 1,600 entry-level jobs posted on job search websites in 16 metropolitan sections of the United States. Some of the resumes included information that clearly pointed out the applicants’ minority status, while others were whitened, or scrubbed of racial clues. The researchers then created email accounts and phone numbers for the applicants and observed how many were invited for interviews.

Employer callbacks for resumes that were whitened fared much better in the application pile than those that included ethnic information, even though the qualifications listed were identical. Twenty-five percent of black candidates received callbacks from their whitened resumes, while only 10 percent got calls when they left ethnic details intact. Among Asians, 21 percent got calls if they used whitened resumes, whereas only 11.5 percent heard back if they sent resumes with racial references.

 

The summary you posted has nothing to do with these links.

[cccjwh]

23 hours ago, cccjwh said:

You have been given the evidence and can't even see there is a problem. The only different in the resumes send out in this study is the person name. The resumes with with names like Emily and Greg vs Lakisha and Jamal. The Lakishas and Jamals had to send out 15 resumes for one callback. Compared to Greg and Emily who only had to send out 10 resumes for one callback. Again the only different in the resumes was the names. 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/

 

 

[htownbrown]

On 6/26/2020 at 3:24 PM, cccjwh said:

You have been given the evidence and can't even see there is a problem. The only different in the resumes send out in this study is the person name. The resumes with with names like Emily and Greg vs Lakisha and Jamal. The Lakishas and Jamals had to send out 15 resumes for one callback. Compared to Greg and Emily who only had to send out 10 resumes for one callback. Again the only different in the resumes was the names. 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/

 

I already told you this is in reference to a nearly 20 year old study.  You sure are committed to making Americans look like a bunch of racists.  I'll give you that much, but your reading and retention skills are clearly holding you back.

 

[cccjwh]

33 minutes ago, htownbrown said:

I already told you this is in reference to a nearly 20 year old study.  You sure are committed to making Americans look like a bunch of racists.  I'll give you that much, but your reading and retention skills are clearly holding you back.

 

Yes, I understand it is 17 years old. But since you don't like the more recent studies, let go back to the simple one. We have to take baby steps here. So 17 years ago there was a problem with bias of people with black names. Right? There are no clubs to blame the bias on in this study. Why did people with black names have to send out more resume for the same result of the white names resumes?

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

9 minutes ago, cccjwh said:

Yes, I understand it is 17 years old. But since you don't like the more recent studies, let go back to the simple one. We have to take baby steps here. So 17 years ago there was a problem with bias of people with black names. Right? There are no clubs to blame the bias on in this study. Why did people with black names have to send out more resume for the same result of the white names resumes?

 

Who cares?

[jbluhm86]

On 6/26/2020 at 1:36 PM, MLD Woody said:

You're implying that the hires were racially motivated. What proof do you have of that? You really think team's are drafting certain players and paying them millions just because they're black? 

White men really can't jump, if we're being 100% honest.

[htownbrown]

4 hours ago, cccjwh said:

Yes, I understand it is 17 years old. But since you don't like the more recent studies, let go back to the simple one.  Great, maybe you can find one 17 years older than that so we can see even more irrelevant data.

We have to take baby steps here. So 17 years ago there was a problem with bias of people with black names. Right?  Ok

There are no clubs to blame the bias on in this study.  Ok

Why did people with black names have to send out more resume for the same result of the white names resumes?  I already said I get the point, but your looking for me to say a certain word because you're being Captain Obvious again.  So here it is:  RACISM.  Ewww, in my face!!!  

Now let's hop in the DeLorean and go back to the future.  In the more recent study you posted, a whopping 7% of black people name "whitened".  Doesn't sound to me like the vast majority of black people think it's as big of a fucking deal as you do.  The "unwhitened" names got a 10% call back and the "whitened" names got a 13% call back.  You want to pull over a Confederate statue on your buddies head over 3%?  Guess what happens when you don't include black activism.  You get to 18% call back.  Go fucking figure.  Plus, we're 4 years removed from those numbers, which means they're probably better.

Seems to me, you're the one living in the past around here.  Try and keep up.

 

 

[cccjwh]

On 6/27/2020 at 11:37 PM, htownbrown said:

 

Hey we have a break through! Great. You can admit there was racism 17 years ago, well thank Non Cheetos Jesus that has all changed since then. The new studies may still show there is less racism now, but it just racism against clubs.

 

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9353zv/facebooks-ad-problem-just-turned-into-a-full-blown-crisis?utm_source=reddit.com

It started as a murmur of dissent, but over the weekend, the campaign to persuade brands to boycott Facebook ads for the month of July turned into a major crisis for the social media giant.

It began badly on Friday when Unilever, one of the world’s biggest advertisers, announced it was joining the Stop Hate for Profit campaign, which had already been backed by Verizon, Patagonia, and Ben and Jerry’s.

Coca-Cola and Hershey’s joined the campaign soon after, and throughout Saturday and Sunday, dozens of more companies, large and small, added their names to the list.

Global drinks giant Diageo, which owns brands like Guinness, Smirnoff, and Johnnie Walker, said Saturday it would stop buying ads on all social media platforms from July 1, and “will continue to discuss with media partners how they deal with unacceptable content.”

 

 

 

[Canton Dawg]