Rick Reilly Gets One Right

[IrishLax]

You are a silly person. I'm not trying to distort the meaning of anything. The word means what it means. I don't know why you can't acknowledge that you weren't talking about job qualifications, which would have made complete sense in the context of the converstion. What you are trying to pretend you were talking about was two identical twins applying for the same job, and the parents decided to call one son Joe and the other something ridiculous. That is the only way two people might even come close to being the same in every respect. You are trying to make it sound as though you meant one person was a carbon copy of another person and you are too stubborn to acknowledge that isn't what you meant. I'm borded with this stupid conversation and with your dumb idea about why it is OK to discriminate against people that YOU think have stupid names. Someday when you are facing a lawsuit for discriminatiion because a name on a resume gave you some sort of God-like insight into a person's character, you can look back on this thread and realize that you could have avoided the trouble you face.

Cool, so you still can't defend either of the three gigantically inaccurate points you made that I've been pointing out for days now.

And you can't respond to where I succinctly laid out the argument one more time just to make if crystal clear.

But you'll continue "arguing the argument" as if semantics can validate all of the crap you've posted so far. So perfect on so many levels.

And you keep talking about how it gives me "God-like insight into someone's character" WHEN I NEVER EVER MENTIONED IT HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH SOMEONE'S CHARACTER OR CAPABILITY. But YOU do that in post #105. Hypocrite? Hypocrite.

And I'd love to know how I could face a discrimination lawsuit when DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SOMEONE'S NAME IS NOT LEGALLY PROTECTED FOR THE BILLIONTH TIME. Oh wait, you can't support that crap either.

You just aren't even trying to think logically or rationally. Or maybe you're just incapable of it. I'm not sure. It's really, really sad to watch.

Oh, and you still can't spell discrimination. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[IrishLax]

That is racial discrimination. And THAT is the point. You are saying you are picking a diffent guy because YOU THINK it will offend the racial sensibilities of customers. THAT is illegal.

This makes no sense. I'm saying that there are many names from many races that would be problematic... as in race is completely irrelevant and that a name being stupid is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF RACE... so what are you even saying? It doesn't make any sense.

Can you read? I mean that seriously. This is pointless if you can't comprehend the English language effectively. You obviously can't spell discrimination. The example with elderly white Alabama people was picked just to be an illustration of CONSERVATIVE people that would have issues with non-traditional names of many different flavors.

NOTHING IN THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH RACE AS MUCH AS YOU WANT IT TO. I get it. This is your MO. You have a giant hard-on for race issues and intolerance and everything else liberal. It makes you feel good or something to be ignorant and preachy on the internet and try to force people to adopt a position that you can rail against.

No one is buying it.

 

[GoIrish41]

This makes no sense. I'm saying that there are many names from many races that would be problematic... as in race is completely irrelevant... so what are you even saying? It doesn't make any sense.

Can you read?

Yeah, tell that to the guy filing the lawsuit.

 

[IrishLax]

Yeah, tell that to the guy filing the lawsuit.

I won't have to, any judge with half a brain would throw it out on summary. If I hired an equally qualified white guy named Joe over a white guy named Ransom... or a black guy named Jamaal over a black guy named Lemonjello... where exactly is the lawsuit?

Oh yeah, there isn't one.

At least have a cursory grasp of what you're talking about. I love how you STILL can't respond to your three completely erroneous statements.

 

[wizards8507]

I won't have to, any judge with half a brain would throw it out on summary. If I hired an equally qualified white guy named Joe over a white guy named Ransom... or a black guy named Jamaal over a black guy named Lemonjello... where exactly is the lawsuit?

Oh yeah, there isn't one.

At least have a cursory grasp of what you're talking about. I love how you STILL can't respond to your three completely erroneous statements.

There SHOULDN'T be one, but clown attorneys would file one anyways because it's cheaper for the hiring company to settle than be dragged through the mud of racism allegations. It's called "deep pockets theory." I work for Disney and we get sued for the most stupid sh*t on a daily basis and a lot of times we just pay them to go away even if the claim is totally frivolous.

 

[IrishLax]

There SHOULDN'T be one, but clown attorneys would file one anyways because it's cheaper for the hiring company to settle than be dragged through the mud of racism allegations. It's called "deep pockets theory." I work for Disney and we get sued for the most stupid sh*t on a daily basis and a lot of times we just pay them to go away even if the claim is totally frivolous.

Yup. Can't stop someone from suing over nothing. I could file a suit the GoIrish41's ridiculousness is causing me pain and suffering. Doesn't mean it's a legitimate lawsuit. The joys of the American legal system.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I won't have to, any judge with half a brain would throw it out on summary. If I hired an equally qualified white guy named Joe over a white guy named Ransom... or a black guy named Jamaal over a black guy named Lemonjello... where exactly is the lawsuit?

Oh yeah, there isn't one.

At least have a cursory grasp of what you're talking about. I love how you STILL can't respond to your three completely erroneous statements.

Yep. Name Discrimination is not a thing.

 

[GoIrish41]

I won't have to, any judge with half a brain would throw it out on summary. If I hired an equally qualified white guy named Joe over a white guy named Ransom... or a black guy named Jamaal over a black guy named Lemonjello... where exactly is the lawsuit?

Oh yeah, there isn't one.

At least have a cursory grasp of what you're talking about. I love how you STILL can't respond to your three completely erroneous statements.

But you just said in your explaination that the reason had a race element.

The issue comes in with specific jobs... like phone sales to elderly white people in Alabama... where it is just common sense that there are a small amount of people that would have a negative reaction to a name like Da'Rick (or Ransom or any non-traditional name) over the phone and therefor a completely equal "Rick" would be more effective.

It is not names, your own explaination says it is about race. Knowing that, if I'm Da'Rick, I file the lawsuit.

 

[IrishLax]

But you just said in your explaination that the reason had a race element.

The issue comes in with specific jobs... like phone sales to elderly white people in Alabama... where it is just common sense that there are a small amount of people that would have a negative reaction to a name like Da'Rick (or Ransom or any non-traditional name) over the phone and therefor a completely equal "Rick" would be more effective.

It is not names, your own explaination says it is about race. Knowing that, if I'm Da'Rick, I file the lawsuit.

In fact, I clearly say it DOESN'T have a race element. That's incredibly clear from what you quote. I was just trying to come up with an imaginary conservative constituency that wouldn't like "flair" to names... and I clearly put in the name Ransom (as we've established that for pages as an equivocal real life "white trash" style name) to show that it's not a white/black thing... it's a name thing. What is hard about this to understand? Seriously? This is really, really simple. You are the only person that can't grasp this fundamental concept, even when it is spelled out in painstaking detail.

If I hired an equally qualified black Jamaal over black Da'Rick, explain to me how he sues. If I hire a white Joe, over a white Ransom, how does he sue? Quote me the law he could sue under. I'll wait. Hint: he can't, because there isn't a law.

Heck, what about a white Joe over a white Da'Rick? You're implicitly being racist for even assuming Da'Rick is black. Why is that? Don't be a racist. I'll have to rat on you to all your progressive friends.

And while you're at it... I'm still waiting for you to defend you're three ridiculously erroneous points that I've been bringing to your attention for literally days now. They're in post #118.

 

[IrishLax]

Re-posting these gems or your intelligence and logic for everyone to see. You've said:
1. That turning someone down for a job because they have an unpalatable name is illegal. That is factually incorrect. There are many forms of discrimination that are legally protected against, that is not one of them. I'm allowed to not hire someone named Ransom or Labia for customer service if I think their name doesn't represent my company well. (Post #80).

2. That your name is something you can't chose. That is factually incorrect. Literally billions of people in the world change their names legally during their life, and many more use nicknames, etc. (post #100)

3. You said there was no basis to choose someone based on a name, and then turned around and said you wouldn't pick someone with a boring name like Joe because it somehow implies that they're less creative. This statement is in fact far more judgmental of a person for a name than ANYTHING I said... my entire premise is based on how someone's name might be perceived by OTHERS that they deal with (i.e. if you call up with a problem and customer service rep named Ransom answers the phone, they might be inclined at first blush to not take the person seriously), not that it says something about the inherent QUALITIES of the person. (Post #105)
----
Why I'm not letting you off the hook is that I'm sick and tired of people... whether conservative, liberal, or in-between (remember, I banned Pat)... from pontificating on subjects when they either:
1. Don't understand the law/policy associated with it.
2. Don't bother to understand someone's premise and try to drag it off track to be about what they want it to be so they can beat the straw man to death.

You're doing both. You hijacked the premise because you wanted to make it about racism, and then you don't even understand laws associated with name "discrimination." So I'll be here as long as you want to continue digging.