2016 Presidential Horse Race

[MJ12666]

You have never, in your entire life, ever seen something racist? That's unbelievable.

You're either lying, completely unaware of your surroundings or willfully ignoring day to day life. I find it hard to believe that you have never heard someone call a black person a n***er. I find it hard to believe that you haven't seen a white person scared by the mere presence of a black male. I find it hard to believe that you have never had even a second hand account of racism. You must be the only person in America with that level of luck.

As to the limited instances that you are using for examples of racism you are correct. I have hardly lived a sheltered life. I have heard whites use racist terms when referring to blacks and I have heard blacks using racist terms when referring to whites. However, strictly from a "big picture" perspective, Corporate America does not tolerate racism. For what it is worth, I would say for the four Fortune 500 companies that I have worked for the exact opposite is true. They have all gone to extraordinary lengths to recruit and promote minorities.

 

[woolybug25]

As to the limited instances that you are using for examples of racism you are correct. I have hardly lived a sheltered life. I have heard whites use racist terms when referring to blacks and I have heard blacks using racist terms when referring to whites. However, strictly from a "big picture" perspective, Corporate America does not tolerate racism. For what it is worth, I would say for the four Fortune 500 companies that I have worked for the exact opposite is true. They have all gone to extraordinary lengths to recruit and promote minorities.

I agree with all of that.

 

[ACamp1900]

So much stupid in the last couple of pages of this thread...


freakin white people.

 

[wizards8507]

As to the limited instances that you are using for examples of racism you are correct. I have hardly lived a sheltered life. I have heard whites use racist terms when referring to blacks and I have heard blacks using racist terms when referring to whites. However, strictly from a "big picture" perspective, Corporate America does not tolerate racism. For what it is worth, I would say for the four Fortune 500 companies that I have worked for the exact opposite is true. They have all gone to extraordinary lengths to recruit and promote minorities.

And that's really what we're talking about here, isn't it? I don't particularly care if someone has a racist uncle. Obviously I'm aware that racism exists in the world, but the issue is whether that racism requires structural changes to our society or if it's just the product of diverse people living side-by-side in a diverse country. Some of these diverse people are going to be shitheads, forever and for always. Some of them will hate black people, some of them will hate white people, some of them will want to have sex with Asian people, some of them will hate fat people. That doesn't mean we have a racist, Asian-fetishist, fat-shaming society.

 

[MJ12666]

And that's really what we're talking about here, isn't it? I don't particularly care if someone has a racist uncle. Obviously I'm aware that racism exists in the world, but the issue is whether that racism requires structural changes to our society or if it's just the product of diverse people living side-by-side in a diverse country. Some of these diverse people are going to be shitheads, forever and for always. Some of them will hate black people, some of them will hate white people, some of them will want to have sex with Asian people, some of them will hate fat people. That doesn't mean we have a racist, Asian-fetishist, fat-shaming society.

Agreed.

 

[pkt77242]

As to the limited instances that you are using for examples of racism you are correct. I have hardly lived a sheltered life. I have heard whites use racist terms when referring to blacks and I have heard blacks using racist terms when referring to whites. However, strictly from a "big picture" perspective, Corporate America does not tolerate racism. For what it is worth, I would say for the four Fortune 500 companies that I have worked for the exact opposite is true. They have all gone to extraordinary lengths to recruit and promote minorities.

While that is generally true research shows that there is still some going on. People with black names on applications are less likely to get called for interviews than people with white sounding names even with identical resumes. There is also research on how potential borrowers with "black" names are treated by MLOs Study: Does a 'black' name hurt your loan chances?. I agree that the corporate world is much less racist than most areas of society but there are definitely some things that could be worked on to improve it.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I think it's getting old that under a banner of "anti PC" people can say stupid shit like "I have never seen anything racist in my entire life" and we are supposed to let them explain. That somehow it's not acceptable to simply take an ignorant comment for what it is, an ignorant comment. When did it become okay to not have to answer for the things you actually say? It seems like anyone with something offensive to say has a free pass to do so while anybody that disagrees has to take a time out and let them rephrase before responding. It's ludicrous.

Well I agree with some of that, but I think its worth trying to figure out what people are really getting at. The anti-PC stuff is annoying too, but its still not where the power is. A lot of people on both sides are feeling alienated right now, in my opinion, and I think people need to be heard out a little more right now.

I don't think Wizard actually meant there is no racism in America, he was being hyperbolic.

EDIT: as he has spelled out...

And that's really what we're talking about here, isn't it? I don't particularly care if someone has a racist uncle. Obviously I'm aware that racism exists in the world, but the issue is whether that racism requires structural changes to our society or if it's just the product of diverse people living side-by-side in a diverse country. Some of these diverse people are going to be shitheads, forever and for always. Some of them will hate black people, some of them will hate white people, some of them will want to have sex with Asian people, some of them will hate fat people. That doesn't mean we have a racist, Asian-fetishist, fat-shaming society.

 

[MJ12666]

While that is generally true research shows that there is still some going on. People with black names on applications are less likely to get called for interviews than people with white sounding names even with identical resumes. There is also research on how potential borrowers with "black" names are treated by MLOs Study: Does a 'black' name hurt your loan chances?. I agree that the corporate world is much less racist than most areas of society but there are definitely some things that could be worked on to improve it.

Now it has been a long time since I took a statistics course but given the facts included in the article, I disagree with the conclusions. When there is only a 1.8% difference in response based on name from the MLOs queried I don't think this is statistically relevant and therefore it does not prove institutional racism. Same for the 8.5% difference in response between "high credit score' applicants versus those applicants that did not include a credit score. I actually am surprised the percentage wasn't higher.

 

[pkt77242]

Now it has been a long time since I took a statistics course but given the facts included in the article, I disagree with the conclusions. When there is only a 1.8% difference in response based on name from the MLOs queried I don't think this is statistically relevant and therefore it does not prove institutional racism. Same for the 8.5% difference in response between "high credit score' applicants versus those applicants that did not include a credit score. I actually am surprised the percentage wasn't higher.

Yes but a black person is treated as if their credit score is 70 points lower and that is a significant change.

Also don't forget all of the other research dealing with having a "black" name and applying for jobs. There is no doubt that in the corporate world there is significantly less racism today then yesterday but there still is some areas that could use some improvement.

 

[wizards8507]

Yes but a black person is treated as if their credit score is 70 points lower and that is a significant change.

The article says that, but the data presented even within the article doesn't back it up. The test was whether they got a response an e-mail they sent. That's not how mortgages are approved or underwritten. Manual underwriting is extremely uncommon and 99% of mortgages are underwritten by a computer program. That computer program is going to calculate terms based on the borrower's ACTUAL credit score. It's virtually impossible for the most racist banker on earth to deny a borrower's request for a loan even if that was his express intent. Data is entered into the software and the software spits out "approve at X% LTV and Y% APR." There's no way to make the software racist by 70 points.

 

[MJ12666]

Yes but a black person is treated as if their credit score is 70 points lower and that is a significant change.

Also don't forget all of the other research dealing with having a "black" name and applying for jobs. There is no doubt that in the corporate world there is significantly less racism today then yesterday but there still is some areas that could use some improvement.

Maybe I missed it but I did not see any statistics in the article dealing with job applications, so I can only go by personal experience which does not back this up. One final point (got to run to the store) the study was done by an economist. Economists are notorious from never getting anything correct.

 

[pkt77242]

The article says that, but the data presented even within the article doesn't back it up. The test was whether they got a response an e-mail they sent. That's not how mortgages are approved or underwritten. Manual underwriting is extremely uncommon and 99% of mortgages are underwritten by a computer program. That computer program is going to calculate terms based on the borrower's ACTUAL credit score. It's virtually impossible for the most racist banker on earth to deny a borrower's request for a loan even if that was his express intent. Data is entered into the software and the software spits out "approve at X% LTV and Y% APR." There's no way to make the software racist by 70 points.

LOL. The software isn't but the MLO can be. The point is that the MLO treats the person as if their score is 70 points lower. As in is slower to return calls, may not email them back, etc. So while the computer isn't racist, they still have to get through the initial part (getting someone to respond to them, usually multiple times) to get to the computerized underwriting. I don't know if you failed reading comprehension or if you just ignore things that don't fit your view of the world.

 

[wizards8507]

LOL. The software isn't but the MLO can be. The point is that the MLO treats the person as if their score is 70 points lower. As in is slower to return calls, may not email them back, etc. So while the computer isn't racist, they still have to get through the initial part (getting someone to respond to them, usually multiple times) to get to the computerized underwriting. I don't know if you failed reading comprehension or if you just ignore things that don't fit your view of the world.

There's zero evidence in those numbers to support that conclusion. First of all, the premise that the names they used "sounded" particularly black or white is bunk and, frankly, shows some racism on the part of the people doing the study. Second, anyone who has applied for multiple mortgages knows you get vastly different responses even as an individual, which has nothing to do with name disparities. I've had banks harass me and try to hard-sell me on their services, and I've had other banks that I've had to chase to get them to answer the phone. I don't care if your name is Effme Intheasshole, if you submit your information to something like LendingTree.com, you're going to get calls from MANY financial institutions fighting for your business. The premise is disingenuous at best.

 

[pkt77242]

Maybe I missed it but I did not see any statistics in the article dealing with job applications, so I can only go by personal experience which does not back this up. One final point (got to run to the store) the study was done by an economist. Economists are notorious from never getting anything correct.

There is a 2003 study that shows a massive difference Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

There is a more recent study showing a more moderate difference. In hiring, racial bias is still a problem. But not always for reasons you think - Fortune.

 

[wizards8507]

Here's a study for you, pkt.

https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission Preferences Espenshade Chung Walling Dec 2004.pdf

The athlete advantage is weaker than the preference for African Americans, but stronger than the preference for Hispanic or legacy applicants. The legacy preference, while substantial, is less than that shown to Hispanics. Using the estimated logistic regression coefficients, it is possible to convert the magnitude of these preferences to a common SAT metric. The bonus for African-American applicants is roughly equivalent to an extra 230 SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), to 185 points for Hispanics, 200 points for athletes, and 160 points for children of alumni. The Asian disadvantage is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points.

 

[pkt77242]

There's zero evidence in those numbers to support that conclusion. First of all, the premise that the names they used "sounded" particularly black or white is bunk and, frankly, shows some racism on the part of the people doing the study. Second, anyone who has applied for multiple mortgages knows you get vastly different responses even as an individual, which has nothing to do with name disparities. I've had banks harass me and try to hard-sell me on their services, and I've had other banks that I've had to chase to get them to answer the phone. I don't care if your name is Effme Intheasshole, if you submit your information to something like LendingTree.com, you're going to get calls from MANY financial institutions fighting for your business. The premise is disingenuous at best.

1.They actually match up names to a race by looking at birth certificates and the race listed. Thus they can get names that are generally "belong" to that race.

2. That is why studies are done with large sample sizes to remove the randomness out of it (well you can't ever completely remove the randomness out of it but you can temper it). Also people with lower credit scores are less likely to get responses from a MLO or get a slower response from the MLO. I have worked with many MLOs in my life and you had better believe that they call people with higher credit scores back first (usually less work to get the loan through) and if MLO's implicit bias makes them treat a black person as having a 70 point lower credit score then it sure as shit matters.

 

[pkt77242]

Here's a study for you, pkt.

https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Admission Preferences Espenshade Chung Walling Dec 2004.pdf

And? Point?

I am not going to disagree with it conclusions.

 

[wizards8507]

1.They actually match up names to a race by looking at birth certificates and the race listed. Thus they can get names that are generally "belong" to that race.

That's not a legitimate way to measure bias though. As the hypothetical MLO, I have absolutely no idea whether "Maxwell Baker" is statistically more likely to be a black name or a white name because I've never studied the New York birth records, therefore I have no way of assigning "Maxwell Baker" to a particular race in my mind. Bias is not just about whether a name that is statistically more likely to be black is correlated to MLO response rates, it's about the perception of whether the name is black or white and whether that perception is correlated to MLO response rates. In other words, unless the MLO knew that "Maxwell Baker" was a white name, there's no way to measure whether his treatment of Maxwell Baker was based on race, whether explicitly or implicitly.

2. That is why studies are done with large sample sizes to remove the randomness out of it (well you can't ever completely remove the randomness out of it but you can temper it). Also people with lower credit scores are less likely to get responses from a MLO or get a slower response from the MLO. I have worked with many MLOs in my life and you had better believe that they call people with higher credit scores back first (usually less work to get the loan through) and if MLO's implicit bias makes them treat a black person as having a 70 point lower credit score then it sure as shit matters.

1.8% of them, at worst. Meaning if a qualified person with a "black name" reaches out to five MLOs, he's likely to hear back from 4.9 of them... approximately all five. If a qualified person with a "black name" reaches out to 100 MLOs, he's going to hear back from 98 of them. It's statistically irrelevant because it has zero actual bearing on the person with the "black name's" ability to get a loan.

 

[pkt77242]

That's not a legitimate way to measure bias though. As the hypothetical MLO, I have absolutely no idea whether "Maxwell Baker" is statistically more likely to be a black name or a white name because I've never studied the New York birth records, therefore I have no way of assigning "Maxwell Baker" to a particular race in my mind. Bias is not just about whether a name that is statistically more likely to be black is correlated to MLO response rates, it's about the perception of whether the name is black or white and whether that perception is correlated to MLO response rates. In other words, unless the MLO knew that "Maxwell Baker" was a white name, there's no way to measure whether his treatment of Maxwell Baker was based on race, whether explicitly or implicitly.


1.8% of them, at worst. Meaning if a qualified person with a "black name" reaches out to five MLOs, he's likely to hear back from 4.9 of them... approximately all five. If a qualified person with a "black name" reaches out to 100 MLOs, he's going to hear back from 98 of them. It's statistically irrelevant because it has zero actual bearing on the person with the "black name's" ability to get a loan.

I find it funny you arguing about names. Any person that frequently deals with people picks up on names. For example, how many white people have the name DaQuan? To argue that seems, well ridiculous. Go talk to a nurse and she will probably pick out the ethnicity of the name 95% of the time. If every day you work with people, whether you mean to or not, you pick up on those clues (even if you aren't thinking of it, your brain still processes it).

Second, you are also missing the point that they were less likely to have follow up correspondence with the "black" borrowers, and they provided more details to white borrowers. If this study had a population of 100 lenders then the small difference 1.8% wouldn't statistically matter but with such a large sample (5000 lenders) it does matter. Also who the fuck contacts 100 lenders? I work in banking and I would say that most people contact 1-2 places. So yes it can matter.

 

[EddytoNow]

You have never, in your entire life, ever seen something racist? That's unbelievable.

You're either lying, completely unaware of your surroundings or willfully ignoring day to day life. I find it hard to believe that you have never heard someone call a black person a n***er. I find it hard to believe that you haven't seen a white person scared by the mere presence of a black male. I find it hard to believe that you have never had even a second hand account of racism. You must be the only person in America with that level of luck.

Wizard hears no evil, sees no evil, and speaks no evil.

Well, two out of three ain't bad.

 

[Buster Bluth]

1.8% of them, at worst. Meaning if a qualified person with a "black name" reaches out to five MLOs, he's likely to hear back from 4.9 of them... approximately all five. If a qualified person with a "black name" reaches out to 100 MLOs, he's going to hear back from 98 of them. It's statistically irrelevant because it has zero actual bearing on the person with the "black name's" ability to get a loan.

Again I think you're missing the structural racism.

Today it's not that bankers individually say "that there's an African't, don't lend to him!" it's the residual effect of explicit racism from previous decades. It's not that blacks with the same credit don't get the loan, it's that there are disturbingly fewer blacks able to build that credit in the first place due to XYZ.

An issue we have today is that a particular side of the political spectrum wants to act like since explicit racism is illegal and stupid in the business world, racism simply doesn't exist any more. Or, its effects on populations of people are irrelevant to an individual.

Maybe the simplest way to put it is that our economy, society, government constantly favor the rich and screw the poor and due to centuries of explicit racism in this country black populations are still so far behind in almost every measure of stature. Numerous institutions, from public education to prison rates, seem racist to those who are living it because the things that affect the poor hit blacks at the same time. At least that's my take on it.

And if you've never seen a racist moment in your life I think you've probably teamed up with ndgrad to troll this forum at this point. I have the luxury of working in the world of construction, racism is practically ubiquitous. From public engineers joking that they can't build a proper road because "we give all the money to mooching blacks" to laborers making comments about every black person they see in a nice care buying it "because he sells his food stamps," it's everywhere.

 

[GoIrish41]

Again I think you're missing the structural racism.

Today it's not that bankers individually say "that there's an African't, don't lend to him!" it's the residual effect of explicit racism from previous decades. It's not that blacks with the same credit don't get the loan, it's that there are disturbingly fewer blacks able to build that credit in the first place due to XYZ.

An issue we have today is that a particular side of the political spectrum wants to act like since explicit racism is illegal and stupid in the business world, racism simply doesn't exist any more. Or, its effects on populations of people are irrelevant to an individual.

Maybe the simplest way to put it is that our economy, society, government constantly favor the rich and screw the poor and due to centuries of explicit racism in this country black populations are still so far behind in almost every measure of stature. Numerous institutions, from public education to prison rates, seem racist to those who are living it because the things that affect the poor hit blacks at the same time. At least that's my take on it.

And if you've never seen a racist moment in your life I think you've probably teamed up with ndgrad to troll this forum at this point. I have the luxury of working in the world of construction, racism is practically ubiquitous. From public engineers joking that they can't build a proper road because "we give all the money to mooching blacks" to laborers making comments about every black person they see in a nice care buying it "because he sells his food stamps," it's everywhere.

Insert slow deliberate clap.

 

[phgreek]

Again I think you're missing the structural racism.

Today it's not that bankers individually say "that there's an African't, don't lend to him!" it's the residual effect of explicit racism from previous decades. It's not that blacks with the same credit don't get the loan, it's that there are disturbingly fewer blacks able to build that credit in the first place due to XYZ.

An issue we have today is that a particular side of the political spectrum wants to act like since explicit racism is illegal and stupid in the business world, racism simply doesn't exist any more. Or, its effects on populations of people are irrelevant to an individual.

Maybe the simplest way to put it is that our economy, society, government constantly favor the rich and screw the poor and due to centuries of explicit racism in this country black populations are still so far behind in almost every measure of stature. Numerous institutions, from public education to prison rates, seem racist to those who are living it because the things that affect the poor hit blacks at the same time. At least that's my take on it.

And if you've never seen a racist moment in your life I think you've probably teamed up with ndgrad to troll this forum at this point. I have the luxury of working in the world of construction, racism is practically ubiquitous. From public engineers joking that they can't build a proper road because "we give all the money to mooching blacks" to laborers making comments about every black person they see in a nice care buying it "because he sells his food stamps," it's everywhere.

That actually has some merit

...thats why maybe the affirmative action programs designed to address overt racism don't fit, and other programs might be required (not in addition to...but revamped, redesigned programs targeted at the "hangover"?). However, the thing I do know, having heritage made up of only Irish and Italian, and knowing our history...much is in a name. BUT, much is also in the expectations your family and community have for you. I want to help the poor, as do most, but I don't think what we've done over the last 50 years has "fixed" much. When my ancestors were first generation immigrants, there was no help, per se. Why'd they break out? Is there not something we can take from them?

 

[Irish YJ]

Insert slow deliberate clap.

 

[wizards8507]

Again I think you're missing the structural racism.

Today it's not that bankers individually say "that there's an African't, don't lend to him!" it's the residual effect of explicit racism from previous decades. It's not that blacks with the same credit don't get the loan, it's that there are disturbingly fewer blacks able to build that credit in the first place due to XYZ.

An issue we have today is that a particular side of the political spectrum wants to act like since explicit racism is illegal and stupid in the business world, racism simply doesn't exist any more. Or, its effects on populations of people are irrelevant to an individual.

I agree that these things exist, but that's not what racism is, and it's insulting to victims of actual racism to label it as such. Racism is an evil thing, the hatred one man has for another based on the color of his skin. The lingering effects of past racism are not, in themselves, racism. You can't have racism without racists. I liken it to a wound. There are societal scars from past wounds that are now largely healed. But the Left wants to paint society as if there are people out there actively making new wounds. I'll copy a post I shared in the Alton Sterling threat that summarizes my thoughts on the matter:

"Shouting 'institutional racism' does not actually combat racism. You have to find individual instances and you have to show me who the racists are so we can fight them together. I hate racism. I think it's evil. But if you're just going to say 'institutional racism' every time something bad happens, there's no way to fight it. I need a policy that you're proposing, or I need a person who's actually racist so we can fight it together, or we can determine whether the policy is good. What I find really problematic is the virtue signalling that I see by so many people on the other side which is, 'I don't have to give you the racist, I don't have to tell you who he is or what measures I'm proposing, I just say "institutional racism," everybody cheers for me because that's an approved point of view, and now we move on with our lives.' You haven't helped anybody, you've just made yourself feel better."

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8yDHK0x2j80" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Maybe the simplest way to put it is that our economy, society, government constantly favor the rich and screw the poor and due to centuries of explicit racism in this country black populations are still so far behind in almost every measure of stature. Numerous institutions, from public education to prison rates, seem racist to those who are living it because the things that affect the poor hit blacks at the same time. At least that's my take on it.

Yet the policies of the Left make sure it's as difficult as possible for the poor to improve their station. Want to break cyclical poverty? School choice, free markets, lower taxes, fewer regulations, elimination of the minimum wage, and strong families. The Left's anti-poverty programs are all about making people comfortable in their poverty and do nothing to lift them out of it. Even worse, programs like the $15 minimum wage are going to ensure that no poor black teenager ever gets an entry level job to build basic skills ever again.

And if you've never seen a racist moment in your life I think you've probably teamed up with ndgrad to troll this forum at this point. I have the luxury of working in the world of construction, racism is practically ubiquitous. From public engineers joking that they can't build a proper road because "we give all the money to mooching blacks" to laborers making comments about every black person they see in a nice care buying it "because he sells his food stamps," it's everywhere.

I'm not going to apologize to you, Wooly, or GoIrish that my friends, family, and colleagues aren't racists. I'm supposed to be ashamed that I don't have the street cred of knowing a bunch of racist assholes? Fuck that. It's a source of pride that I don't associate with hateful people.

 

[GATTACA!]

I'm not going to apologize to you, Wooly, or GoIrish that my friends, family, and colleagues aren't racists. I'm supposed to be ashamed that I don't have the street cred of knowing a bunch of racist assholes? Fuck that. It's a source of pride that I don't associate with hateful people.

How do you identify and avoid those hateful people if you've never even seen racism?

 

[pkt77242]

I agree that these things exist, but that's not what racism is, and it's insulting to victims of actual racism to label it as such. Racism is an evil thing, the hatred one man has for another based on the color of his skin. The lingering effects of past racism are not, in themselves, racism. You can't have racism without racists. I liken it to a wound. There are societal scars from past wounds that are now largely healed. But the Left wants to paint society as if there are people out there actively making new wounds. I'll copy a post I shared in the Alton Sterling threat that summarizes my thoughts on the matter:

"Shouting 'institutional racism' does not actually combat racism. You have to find individual instances and you have to show me who the racists are so we can fight them together. I hate racism. I think it's evil. But if you're just going to say 'institutional racism' every time something bad happens, there's no way to fight it. I need a policy that you're proposing, or I need a person who's actually racist so we can fight it together, or we can determine whether the policy is good. What I find really problematic is the virtue signalling that I see by so many people on the other side which is, 'I don't have to give you the racist, I don't have to tell you who he is or what measures I'm proposing, I just say "institutional racism," everybody cheers for me because that's an approved point of view, and now we move on with our lives.' You haven't helped anybody, you've just made yourself feel better."

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8yDHK0x2j80" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Yet the policies of the Left make sure it's as difficult as possible for the poor to improve their station. Want to break cyclical poverty? School choice, free markets, lower taxes, fewer regulations, elimination of the minimum wage, and strong families. The Left's anti-poverty programs are all about making people comfortable in their poverty and do nothing to lift them out of it. Even worse, programs like the $15 minimum wage are going to ensure that no poor black teenager ever gets an entry level job to build basic skills ever again.


I'm not going to apologize to you, Wooly, or GoIrish that my friends, family, and colleagues aren't racists. I'm supposed to be ashamed that I don't have the street cred of knowing a bunch of racist assholes? Fuck that. It's a source of pride that I don't associate with hateful people.

As to your last point, it is just very hard to believe that you didn't go to school with a racist (HS or Undergrad), encounter some at store, restaurants or anywhere in public.

 

[kmoose]

Again I think you're missing the structural racism.

Today it's not that bankers individually say "that there's an African't, don't lend to him!" it's the residual effect of explicit racism from previous decades. It's not that blacks with the same credit don't get the loan, it's that there are disturbingly fewer blacks able to build that credit in the first place due to XYZ.

The Irish and the Chinese who were encouraged to emigrate to America to work on the railroads found themselves discriminated against at every turn. They overcame the effects of institutional racism. Why were they able to do it and blacks weren't?

 

[phgreek]

Um there's this guy named Donald Trump and he makes the Clintons look like amateur hour in that regard.

What Scandal are we talking about here? I mean I guess the crazy shit he says is somehow equivalent to the laundry list of Clinton Bullshit????

 

[pkt77242]

The Irish and the Chinese who were encouraged to emigrate to America to work on the railroads found themselves discriminated against at every turn. They overcame the effects of institutional racism. Why were they able to do it and blacks weren't?

Wait you are comparing what they went through to slavery and Jim Crow? GTFO.


Also the Chinese faced significantly more racism then the Irish when working on the railroad. The Chinese had to do more dangerous work for less money and less "perks".

In short, basically there are different levels of racism. Not all racism is the same.

ETA: Not saying that any racism is ok, because racism is never ok.