Poll

Is Trump Support a Deal Breaker for You?

Yes
No
Maybe
Yes - except for Family
I want it to be, but I'm not able to act on it.
I follow the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy when it comes to Trump and/or Politics.  I don't want to know.

Author Topic: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?  (Read 15375 times)

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #150 on: October 09, 2020, 04:06:18 AM »
Quote
I think that a more reasonable argument might be made for providing the same opportunities for everyone.  Is that what you had in mind?
I just want to point out that this wording is problematic, too.

For example the German FDP (rich people's party) seem to mean with "same opportunity": Everyone can open a business, the child from a social security family living at a highway with a disabled parent - the same as the rich boy with private tutors, a 10 million starting help from dad and dozen of contacts into the business world before he turns 18.

I don't think it is the same opportunity if your chances are 10000 times lower than someone else's just because of your birth.

And that is even ignoring that luck is the most deciding single factor in high competition fields.
Just imagine the parents of Bill Gates didn't had a garage where their son could start his first business in (or spandypants cluttered it full)...

talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #151 on: October 09, 2020, 06:01:42 AM »
The Gates parents didn't just have a garage, they had a helicopter.

What Gates created is still impressive. What he tries to do today to give back is admirable. But even he acknowledges that he had many advantages that are not available to others.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #152 on: October 09, 2020, 07:51:27 AM »
What criteria do you have in mind for determining how to treat people differently?

I guess it would depend upon relevant criteria.  I wouldn't gesture to something if the man in front of me is blind for example.  It would be stupid to treat all people the same way.

We do seem to disagree on the methodology, if not the reality of treating people differently.  I argue for a "presumption of ability" such that each individual is considered to be maximally competent unless proven otherwise.  Even for an obviously blind man - is it more moral to assume their disability needs to be accommodated than to hope it does not limit them and they may be able to discern your arm movement despite their apparent limitations?  I know this sounds ridiculous in this example but the intent should be clear.

The intent is clear.  But in practice what you propose is worse than ridiculous.  In the example given, forcing the blind man to explain to you what you should plainly be able to ascertain forces the man to constantly tell people that he's less able than they are.  This has real negative impacts on the blind person that I feel you're not considering.



On the subject of providing exactly equal opportunities, I would say it is an interesting idea but falls down when considering a parents desire to have a better life for their children.  Sacrifices and hard work should be acknowledged. If there is no point in attempting to aid the next generation because everyone is equal in outcome no matter their ability, culture, or upbringing, society falls apart.

I'm glad you brought this point up.  It's a very important one.

All parents desire to have a better life for their children.  The wealth that a parent accumulates can be passed to children so that these children receive an unearned step up in life over others.  It makes for a less equal playing field and benefits some in this new generation.

The inverse is also true.

In the US, white slave owners became rich because they exploited black slaves.  This went on for generations.  After they were forced to give up slave ownership white former slave owners continued to monopolize generations of unequal advantage that they leveraged into power to continue to oppress their former slaves.  This also went on for generations (and still - in various measurable forms - goes on today).  Today, many of the decedents of those black slaves are disadvantaged by multiple lifetimes of lost opportunity.

Knowing that a very large percentage of black people in the US start out with generations of unearned disadvantage, and knowing that a very large percentage of white people in the US start out with unearned generations of advantage . . . it seems pretty unfair to argue that the best course forward is to treat both the exactly the same way.

Treating people with unequal opportunity in the same way will result in the same thing on average - those who start with less end up with less in the end.

Nigerian Americans are one of the most successful ethnic minorities in the US, far exceeding White Americans' financial success on average.  It is therefore very difficult to see an argument that their race somehow holds them back.  At the same time, multi-generational Black Americans descended from slaves have horrific outcomes on average.  I argue it is a question of culture, which has been largely transformed from the goals of equality and self-determination espoused in the US civil rights movement to the brutal acceptance of Democrat policies deciding that Black Americans need to be treated differently because they are functionally inferior due to societal oppression.

You are however clearly right that multi-generational discrimination has held back the Black population as a whole in exactly the manner you describe.  I ask that this stops and we treat everyone as equals and not treat people of any race differently because of past oppression, thereby perpetuating a victim mentality and sense of entitlement as opposed to a sense of purpose and ability.  Treating people differently due to their race or other uncontrollable characteristics hurts those it is intended to help. Outcomes will not change overnight, but they will change as there is no real argument for essential racial inferiority. Attempting to tilt the scales to more quickly produce the desired outcomes will not see success because it undermines the very characteristics that tend to produce success.

I didn't mention any attempt to tilt scales - just pointed out that what you're proposing guarantees that people who were oppressed in the past will stay oppressed for a very long time.  That ensures that unequal outcomes will continue to occur because of uncontrollable characteristics (such as race and accident of birth).  This is a difficult problem to solve, but I'm not sure that your approach of simply ignoring it and hoping it goes away is very likely to work.  It has (after all) been more than 150 years since slavery was abolished . . . and yet the results of that practice are still very evident.

Part of the problem is that we demonstrably do not treat minorities the same way as white people right now.  Killings and arrest rates by police are disproportionate to crimes committed by race for example.  Even applying for a job with a black sounding name ensures that you will receive less call backs than applying to the same job with the same resume with a white sounding name.  There are a great many other examples.  Is the world less racist today in 2020 than thirty years ago in 1990?  Could be, but I don't really see any evidence of this.  And if things haven't improved in the last 30 years, then how many generations of people need to live through the unfairness that's baked in to society before things get better for them?

A key issue is simply the one you identified in your post.  Generally, the passing of unearned wealth to others is a bad idea for society.  It inevitably creates a wealthy (and therefore powerful) elite who are sheltered from ever having to earn income . . . whose only claim to this wealth is accident of birth.  It does the inverse for the poorest in society.  This typically ends up limiting social mobility and weakens meritocracy.  Absolutely, this is a difficult issue to address but it needs to be acknowledged as something that we're doing wrong.



This is not contending with the idea that we should treat people equally though!  Some people will be more successful than others, from luck or skill.  This does not make them better people or deserving of different treatment.

Success in life certainly doesn't make you a better or worse person than another (although how you define success is a whole other conversation).  A well-functioning capitalist system works best when it differentiates people - treating them differently based upon their skill.  Communist countries have attempted to implement your 'treat everyone equally' philosophy and it hasn't treated them well.  Proponents of communism would argue that they just didn't treat people equally enough . . . but I'd argue that doing so is fundamentally incompatible with being human.  Treating everyone equally is fighting nature - which always differentiates.

Communist countries certainly don't treat people equally unless you think "from each according to their ability and to each according to their need" represents equality.  My perspective is not about economic equality irrespective of ability - this clearly does not work.  It is instead to give compassion, understanding, and respect for all humans and to not look down on individuals or discriminate based on their demographics or perspectives.  Equality in this sense simply means that no human is set above any other on inherent moral or value-based grounds regardless of their societal status.

It is, as you say, against human nature to do so.  It doesn't feel good to treat everyone as equals.  It feels great to discriminate and fight.

I'm not sure you can completely divorce economics from how people are treated.  In every society I can think of in recorded history the wealthy are treated better than the poor.  You can argue that people shouldn't look down on the poor and look up to the wealthy/powerful . . . but that argument is doomed to failure in reality.  The rich are always set above the poor.  This is especially true in the US today.  It's entrenched in how law enforcement in our system works.  Take a look at this case of 'equality':

Parking fines are set amounts.  Everyone pays the same dollar figure.  Equal, right?  A poor person can receive a parking fine that they're unable to pay and be jailed.  A middle class person can receive the same fine and it's a minor annoyance - but no risk of jail time or being unable to pay at all.  The same fine to a massively rich person is of no consequence at all, and therefore no deterrent at all so he continues to park wherever the hell he wants.  All three are treated equally, but because of radically different initial opportunity it ends up impacting each very differently.  Because the opportunities for each are so radically different, we can see that the people are not being treated equally at all.  Society is effectively telling the poor person that he deserves to be in jail for his lack of money . . . and telling the rich person that he's above these minor laws.

If to make the fine a little more equal for rich and poor alike, you could to do something like set the fine at a percentage of the net yearly income of the person receiving it.  Doing this they'll all pay different amounts, but the poor person might pay 20$, the middle class guy 200$, and the rich guy 20,000$ . . . but the actual impact of the fine and the level of deterrent is made much more equal.

When you talk about treating people equal, it's not as simple as you're making out at all.  Giving everyone the same dollar fine (for example) seems equal on the surface but consistently leads to and perpetuates unequal treatment.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #153 on: October 09, 2020, 07:53:40 AM »
Quote
I think that a more reasonable argument might be made for providing the same opportunities for everyone.  Is that what you had in mind?
I just want to point out that this wording is problematic, too.

For example the German FDP (rich people's party) seem to mean with "same opportunity": Everyone can open a business, the child from a social security family living at a highway with a disabled parent - the same as the rich boy with private tutors, a 10 million starting help from dad and dozen of contacts into the business world before he turns 18.

I don't think it is the same opportunity if your chances are 10000 times lower than someone else's just because of your birth.

Agreed!  This is the point I was trying to make at the end of my last post with the parking tickets.  Treating people "equally" is sometimes very unequal treatment.  It's important that a more holistic approach be used when considering situations.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #154 on: October 09, 2020, 09:27:11 AM »
Biggest of many reasons why voting for Democrat party over Republicans (or third party) for foreseeable future is they acknowledge climate change is real, that we as a government need to act now to mitigate it. We are past being able to prevent it, but at least try to decrease some of damage. Voting Dem is actionable versus voting for a third party that may be more progressive ideologically but very unlikely to be elected.

joleran

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #155 on: October 09, 2020, 10:11:26 AM »
What criteria do you have in mind for determining how to treat people differently?

I guess it would depend upon relevant criteria.  I wouldn't gesture to something if the man in front of me is blind for example.  It would be stupid to treat all people the same way.

We do seem to disagree on the methodology, if not the reality of treating people differently.  I argue for a "presumption of ability" such that each individual is considered to be maximally competent unless proven otherwise.  Even for an obviously blind man - is it more moral to assume their disability needs to be accommodated than to hope it does not limit them and they may be able to discern your arm movement despite their apparent limitations?  I know this sounds ridiculous in this example but the intent should be clear.

The intent is clear.  But in practice what you propose is worse than ridiculous.  In the example given, forcing the blind man to explain to you what you should plainly be able to ascertain forces the man to constantly tell people that he's less able than they are.  This has real negative impacts on the blind person that I feel you're not considering.

There is a vast divide between forcing a person to explain their disability in order to be accommodated and presuming an apparent disability requires such a person to be accommodated.  I do not make an argument to ignore evidence, but instead to look for this evidence and give the presumption of ability absent any specific evidence.  That is to say that I find the idea of assuming limitations based on preconceptions to be far more objectionable than not doing so.  Further, I disagree that the idea that explaining a disability inherently causes a negative impact on the person with the disability rather than there merely being an overwhelming societal perception as such.  There should be no shame in expressing facts or personal limitations in general and I argue that this should be normalized.

On the subject of providing exactly equal opportunities, I would say it is an interesting idea but falls down when considering a parents desire to have a better life for their children.  Sacrifices and hard work should be acknowledged. If there is no point in attempting to aid the next generation because everyone is equal in outcome no matter their ability, culture, or upbringing, society falls apart.

I'm glad you brought this point up.  It's a very important one.

All parents desire to have a better life for their children.  The wealth that a parent accumulates can be passed to children so that these children receive an unearned step up in life over others.  It makes for a less equal playing field and benefits some in this new generation.

The inverse is also true.

In the US, white slave owners became rich because they exploited black slaves.  This went on for generations.  After they were forced to give up slave ownership white former slave owners continued to monopolize generations of unequal advantage that they leveraged into power to continue to oppress their former slaves.  This also went on for generations (and still - in various measurable forms - goes on today).  Today, many of the decedents of those black slaves are disadvantaged by multiple lifetimes of lost opportunity.

Knowing that a very large percentage of black people in the US start out with generations of unearned disadvantage, and knowing that a very large percentage of white people in the US start out with unearned generations of advantage . . . it seems pretty unfair to argue that the best course forward is to treat both the exactly the same way.

Treating people with unequal opportunity in the same way will result in the same thing on average - those who start with less end up with less in the end.

Nigerian Americans are one of the most successful ethnic minorities in the US, far exceeding White Americans' financial success on average.  It is therefore very difficult to see an argument that their race somehow holds them back.  At the same time, multi-generational Black Americans descended from slaves have horrific outcomes on average.  I argue it is a question of culture, which has been largely transformed from the goals of equality and self-determination espoused in the US civil rights movement to the brutal acceptance of Democrat policies deciding that Black Americans need to be treated differently because they are functionally inferior due to societal oppression.

You are however clearly right that multi-generational discrimination has held back the Black population as a whole in exactly the manner you describe.  I ask that this stops and we treat everyone as equals and not treat people of any race differently because of past oppression, thereby perpetuating a victim mentality and sense of entitlement as opposed to a sense of purpose and ability.  Treating people differently due to their race or other uncontrollable characteristics hurts those it is intended to help. Outcomes will not change overnight, but they will change as there is no real argument for essential racial inferiority. Attempting to tilt the scales to more quickly produce the desired outcomes will not see success because it undermines the very characteristics that tend to produce success.

I didn't mention any attempt to tilt scales - just pointed out that what you're proposing guarantees that people who were oppressed in the past will stay oppressed for a very long time.  That ensures that unequal outcomes will continue to occur because of uncontrollable characteristics (such as race and accident of birth).  This is a difficult problem to solve, but I'm not sure that your approach of simply ignoring it and hoping it goes away is very likely to work.  It has (after all) been more than 150 years since slavery was abolished . . . and yet the results of that practice are still very evident.

Part of the problem is that we demonstrably do not treat minorities the same way as white people right now.  Killings and arrest rates by police are disproportionate to crimes committed by race for example.  Even applying for a job with a black sounding name ensures that you will receive less call backs than applying to the same job with the same resume with a white sounding name.  There are a great many other examples.  Is the world less racist today in 2020 than thirty years ago in 1990?  Could be, but I don't really see any evidence of this.  And if things haven't improved in the last 30 years, then how many generations of people need to live through the unfairness that's baked in to society before things get better for them?

A key issue is simply the one you identified in your post.  Generally, the passing of unearned wealth to others is a bad idea for society.  It inevitably creates a wealthy (and therefore powerful) elite who are sheltered from ever having to earn income . . . whose only claim to this wealth is accident of birth.  It does the inverse for the poorest in society.  This typically ends up limiting social mobility and weakens meritocracy.  Absolutely, this is a difficult issue to address but it needs to be acknowledged as something that we're doing wrong.

It does not seem like we agree with the definition of "oppression" here - unequal financial outcomes across demographics are not fundamentally oppressive but are certainly representative of problems that need to be addressed.  Unequal outcomes from unequal beginnings are expected.  I reiterate my argument that success due to accidents of birth, as you put it, are not purely arbitrary but a result of long term and multi-generational contributions that should not be denied but instead celebrated and shared to increase equality over the long term.

I do not agree with your interpretation of publicly available crime statistics, namely that "Killings and arrest rates by police are disproportionate to crimes committed by race for example."  This is highly contentious.  Here is a blatantly political article against this: https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020/07/14/fact-check-police-do-kill-more-white-people-but-theres-more-to-the-story/  Here is a blatantly politcal argument for this: https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-people-are-not-more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police/  The statistics can clearly be manipulated to show either perspective.

The truth that people with "black-sounding" names are discriminated against in job hirings is clear.  I wholly condemn this but would not agree with the leftist position that this means that racial discrimination is the cause.  Would you consider someone with the given name of "Jim-Bob" as being likely to succeed?  It is a classist argument, but not a racial one.  The solution is simply to presume ability, but not to give people arbitrary advantages.

Again, on the position of unequal starting points - they are not inherently deserved but neither are they entirely morally dismissable because they are predicated on the success of ones forebears.  It is one's parents and other ancestors to thank for this unearned success and their happiness should not taken out of the equation.  Should more be done to reduce the contributions of one's family to their success?  I believe it's a hard argument to make against the motivational factors and societal benefit of creating what is ideally a long-lived legacy.

I need to take a break, but will reply to your last statements in the near future.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #156 on: October 09, 2020, 11:41:55 AM »
Since this is about money, ineuqlity and politics and this stuff - did you know what the democracy in the US and and the democracy in a China controlled Hongkong have in common?
In both cases the same % of people decide who has a chance to get elected: 0,2%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #157 on: October 09, 2020, 12:49:18 PM »
What criteria do you have in mind for determining how to treat people differently?

I guess it would depend upon relevant criteria.  I wouldn't gesture to something if the man in front of me is blind for example.  It would be stupid to treat all people the same way.

We do seem to disagree on the methodology, if not the reality of treating people differently.  I argue for a "presumption of ability" such that each individual is considered to be maximally competent unless proven otherwise.  Even for an obviously blind man - is it more moral to assume their disability needs to be accommodated than to hope it does not limit them and they may be able to discern your arm movement despite their apparent limitations?  I know this sounds ridiculous in this example but the intent should be clear.

The intent is clear.  But in practice what you propose is worse than ridiculous.  In the example given, forcing the blind man to explain to you what you should plainly be able to ascertain forces the man to constantly tell people that he's less able than they are.  This has real negative impacts on the blind person that I feel you're not considering.

There is a vast divide between forcing a person to explain their disability in order to be accommodated and presuming an apparent disability requires such a person to be accommodated.  I do not make an argument to ignore evidence, but instead to look for this evidence and give the presumption of ability absent any specific evidence.  That is to say that I find the idea of assuming limitations based on preconceptions to be far more objectionable than not doing so.  Further, I disagree that the idea that explaining a disability inherently causes a negative impact on the person with the disability rather than there merely being an overwhelming societal perception as such.  There should be no shame in expressing facts or personal limitations in general and I argue that this should be normalized.

My dad lost his right leg just below the knee in a motorcycle accident many years ago.  He can get by pretty well with his prosthetic, can walk pretty well, can climb a ladder, can drive (it gets more exciting when he's driving manual - but that's another story), and generally does well.  To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever shamed him for having one leg.  But he certainly doesn't want to be reminded of it or advertise the fact that he is missing a leg.  He never, ever wears shorts.  He never goes swimming.  He never parks in handicapped parking spots.

While I agree with you that there should be no shame in expressing facts or personal limitations and that they should be normalized, that's just not the case for many who have disabilities.  If my father had to tell everyone that he needed a special accommodation to use an elevator or escalator because he was unable to climb a long set of stairs, it wouldn't happen.  He just wouldn't go to that place.



On the subject of providing exactly equal opportunities, I would say it is an interesting idea but falls down when considering a parents desire to have a better life for their children.  Sacrifices and hard work should be acknowledged. If there is no point in attempting to aid the next generation because everyone is equal in outcome no matter their ability, culture, or upbringing, society falls apart.

I'm glad you brought this point up.  It's a very important one.

All parents desire to have a better life for their children.  The wealth that a parent accumulates can be passed to children so that these children receive an unearned step up in life over others.  It makes for a less equal playing field and benefits some in this new generation.

The inverse is also true.

In the US, white slave owners became rich because they exploited black slaves.  This went on for generations.  After they were forced to give up slave ownership white former slave owners continued to monopolize generations of unequal advantage that they leveraged into power to continue to oppress their former slaves.  This also went on for generations (and still - in various measurable forms - goes on today).  Today, many of the decedents of those black slaves are disadvantaged by multiple lifetimes of lost opportunity.

Knowing that a very large percentage of black people in the US start out with generations of unearned disadvantage, and knowing that a very large percentage of white people in the US start out with unearned generations of advantage . . . it seems pretty unfair to argue that the best course forward is to treat both the exactly the same way.

Treating people with unequal opportunity in the same way will result in the same thing on average - those who start with less end up with less in the end.

Nigerian Americans are one of the most successful ethnic minorities in the US, far exceeding White Americans' financial success on average.  It is therefore very difficult to see an argument that their race somehow holds them back.  At the same time, multi-generational Black Americans descended from slaves have horrific outcomes on average.  I argue it is a question of culture, which has been largely transformed from the goals of equality and self-determination espoused in the US civil rights movement to the brutal acceptance of Democrat policies deciding that Black Americans need to be treated differently because they are functionally inferior due to societal oppression.

You are however clearly right that multi-generational discrimination has held back the Black population as a whole in exactly the manner you describe.  I ask that this stops and we treat everyone as equals and not treat people of any race differently because of past oppression, thereby perpetuating a victim mentality and sense of entitlement as opposed to a sense of purpose and ability.  Treating people differently due to their race or other uncontrollable characteristics hurts those it is intended to help. Outcomes will not change overnight, but they will change as there is no real argument for essential racial inferiority. Attempting to tilt the scales to more quickly produce the desired outcomes will not see success because it undermines the very characteristics that tend to produce success.

I didn't mention any attempt to tilt scales - just pointed out that what you're proposing guarantees that people who were oppressed in the past will stay oppressed for a very long time.  That ensures that unequal outcomes will continue to occur because of uncontrollable characteristics (such as race and accident of birth).  This is a difficult problem to solve, but I'm not sure that your approach of simply ignoring it and hoping it goes away is very likely to work.  It has (after all) been more than 150 years since slavery was abolished . . . and yet the results of that practice are still very evident.

Part of the problem is that we demonstrably do not treat minorities the same way as white people right now.  Killings and arrest rates by police are disproportionate to crimes committed by race for example.  Even applying for a job with a black sounding name ensures that you will receive less call backs than applying to the same job with the same resume with a white sounding name.  There are a great many other examples.  Is the world less racist today in 2020 than thirty years ago in 1990?  Could be, but I don't really see any evidence of this.  And if things haven't improved in the last 30 years, then how many generations of people need to live through the unfairness that's baked in to society before things get better for them?

A key issue is simply the one you identified in your post.  Generally, the passing of unearned wealth to others is a bad idea for society.  It inevitably creates a wealthy (and therefore powerful) elite who are sheltered from ever having to earn income . . . whose only claim to this wealth is accident of birth.  It does the inverse for the poorest in society.  This typically ends up limiting social mobility and weakens meritocracy.  Absolutely, this is a difficult issue to address but it needs to be acknowledged as something that we're doing wrong.

It does not seem like we agree with the definition of "oppression" here - unequal financial outcomes across demographics are not fundamentally oppressive but are certainly representative of problems that need to be addressed.  Unequal outcomes from unequal beginnings are expected.  I reiterate my argument that success due to accidents of birth, as you put it, are not purely arbitrary but a result of long term and multi-generational contributions that should not be denied but instead celebrated and shared to increase equality over the long term.

I do not agree with your interpretation of publicly available crime statistics, namely that "Killings and arrest rates by police are disproportionate to crimes committed by race for example."  This is highly contentious.  Here is a blatantly political article against this: https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020/07/14/fact-check-police-do-kill-more-white-people-but-theres-more-to-the-story/  Here is a blatantly politcal argument for this: https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-people-are-not-more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police/  The statistics can clearly be manipulated to show either perspective.

Your argument here that appears to be that there exists no objective reality but what political pundits tell people and that statistics are meaningless.  That kind of defeatism bothers me.  How about we look at the actual data in the articles, instead of giving up because understanding things is hard?

Breitbart:
* More white people are shot by police than black - True, but unrelated to disproportionate criminality
* I'm going to just skip over the part where the article references cartoonist and retired engineer Scott Adams as a paywalled opinion source
* Reference Fryer's 2016 study (available here: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/fryer_police_aer.pdf).  This study analyzes only newspaper reporting of police shootings.  This data set is obviously flawed and indeed, this is mentioned in the report:
"these data are far from a representative sample of police departments and do not contain any experimental variation"
So the conclusions to be drawn from them are rather suspect from the get go.  Interestingly, the study does show significant racial bias in police shootings:
"Perhaps the most striking finding is when one replicates the analysis in Ross (2015) across all five datasets: calculating the probability of being black, unarmed, and shot by police divided by the probability of being white, unarmed, and shot by police. A quantity greater than one is consistent with racial bias. Using the data from Ross (2015), this ratio is 3.28. Using the data from the Post database I get 6.20 and 5.99 if using the data in Fryer (forthcoming). In other words, if I ignore the detail available in the Fryer data and simply report the descriptive statistics reported in Ross (2015), I could conclude that the data provided evidence of even more racial bias than that reported in Ross (2015)."

It goes on to argue the authors hypothesis that this is not evidence of racism when controlling for wages, incarceration and teen pregnancy.

Northeastern.edu (a small student run school newspaper):
* This article appears to almost entirely be an interview with a professor who works at the university
* Mentions a Harvard study (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/blacks-whites-police-deaths-disparity/) that agrees with Fryer's study in the Breitbart article - black people are killed more frequently by police than their proportion of the national population


OK, so we've conclusively proven that black people are disproportionately killed by police.  The disagreement only seems to be whether or not this is because of their economic status (which as mentioned is often tied directly back to racist generational wealth drain), or more direct racism on the part of the police officers.



The truth that people with "black-sounding" names are discriminated against in job hirings is clear.  I wholly condemn this but would not agree with the leftist position that this means that racial discrimination is the cause.  Would you consider someone with the given name of "Jim-Bob" as being likely to succeed?  It is a classist argument, but not a racial one.  The solution is simply to presume ability, but not to give people arbitrary advantages.

I do a lot of hiring, and truth be told I usually try very hard to avoid looking at a person's name when going through them to avoid any unconscious bias . . . jump to the skills section, previous history then only look at their name when scheduling the first interview.  Honestly, I was surprised that this wasn't the way most people do things.  But OK, you've created a hypothesis.  "The black names used sound like losers who you wouldn't want to hire and the white names weren't."  Cool.  Let's check out the study to see if your hypothesis is correct:  https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf

The white sounding names:
Emily
Anne
Jill
Allison
Laurie
Sarah
Meredith
Carrie
Kristen
Todd
Neil
Geoffrey
Brett
Brendan
Greg
Matthew
Jay
Brad

The black sounding names:
Aisha
Keisha
Tamika
Lakisha
Tanisha
Latoya
Kenya
Latonya
Ebony
Rasheed
Tremayne
Kareem
Darnell
Tyrone
Hakim
Jamal
Leroy
Jermaine


Which are the loser names?  At first glance, none of them (white or black) sound like someone I would instinctively not hire.  Which ones would you fail to hire because of their name?



Again, on the position of unequal starting points - they are not inherently deserved but neither are they entirely morally dismissable because they are predicated on the success of ones forebears.  It is one's parents and other ancestors to thank for this unearned success and their happiness should not taken out of the equation.  Should more be done to reduce the contributions of one's family to their success?  I believe it's a hard argument to make against the motivational factors and societal benefit of creating what is ideally a long-lived legacy.

There's no moral obligation to coddle the children of the rich and create a class of aristocracy who will inevitable end up ruling everyone else.  That said, I acknowledge that there is some benefit (both to society as an individual motivational factor) to being able to better your offspring's position.

How to reconcile the two?  It's not possible to see treating everyone the same way as fair if we acknowledge that each person is starting from a totally different point because of what their parents did, but we don't want to lose the benefits of being able to pass some wealth on to your offspring.

What I envision is something along the lines of a cap or limit on the total amount of wealth that can be transferred to the young (overages are taxed upon death), in combination with (and at least partially paid for by the overages) strong social programs available for use by the poor for food, nutrition, health, criminal re-education/re-integration, and education.  It wouldn't result in a perfectly level playing field, but it would be a lot better than what we've currently got and would help to push up the middle and minimize those stuck at the extreme ends of poverty/wealth.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #158 on: October 10, 2020, 01:14:25 AM »
Just want to mention that several studies with the same resume/different name in Germany have found that having a "muslim" name severely decreases your chance. (Black also, but less.)

That is why there are anonymous resumes. A few big companies make this.

joleran

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #159 on: October 10, 2020, 06:56:19 AM »
My dad lost his right leg just below the knee in a motorcycle accident many years ago.  He can get by pretty well with his prosthetic, can walk pretty well, can climb a ladder, can drive (it gets more exciting when he's driving manual - but that's another story), and generally does well.  To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever shamed him for having one leg.  But he certainly doesn't want to be reminded of it or advertise the fact that he is missing a leg.  He never, ever wears shorts.  He never goes swimming.  He never parks in handicapped parking spots.

While I agree with you that there should be no shame in expressing facts or personal limitations and that they should be normalized, that's just not the case for many who have disabilities.  If my father had to tell everyone that he needed a special accommodation to use an elevator or escalator because he was unable to climb a long set of stairs, it wouldn't happen.  He just wouldn't go to that place.
Sounds like you've had some fun with him driving :)  Why is it painful or undesirable for him to acknowledge his disability?  It would seem to me that fear of societal judgment is at the heart of the issue, but perhaps it is directly uncomfortable to address what is personally seen as a a loss or failing?  Regardless, he sounds like exactly the sort of resilient person I would tend to admire.  It does not seem consistent to take his described behavior as a guide to his thoughts, and to then highlight the existence of his physical limitations and suggest that he be treated differently based on others notions of his ability.  Rather, it appears he desires a sense of normalcy and avoids situations that cause his disability to be apparent.  While offering presumptive accommodations appears to be compassionate, it can instead highlight disabilities that would rather not be thought about and do not actually present limitations.  "The soft bigotry of low expectations" is politically charged but certainly springs to mind as analogous.

I'm not sure you can completely divorce economics from how people are treated.  In every society I can think of in recorded history the wealthy are treated better than the poor.  You can argue that people shouldn't look down on the poor and look up to the wealthy/powerful . . . but that argument is doomed to failure in reality.  The rich are always set above the poor.  This is especially true in the US today.  It's entrenched in how law enforcement in our system works.  Take a look at this case of 'equality':

Parking fines are set amounts.  Everyone pays the same dollar figure.  Equal, right?  A poor person can receive a parking fine that they're unable to pay and be jailed.  A middle class person can receive the same fine and it's a minor annoyance - but no risk of jail time or being unable to pay at all.  The same fine to a massively rich person is of no consequence at all, and therefore no deterrent at all so he continues to park wherever the hell he wants.  All three are treated equally, but because of radically different initial opportunity it ends up impacting each very differently.  Because the opportunities for each are so radically different, we can see that the people are not being treated equally at all.  Society is effectively telling the poor person that he deserves to be in jail for his lack of money . . . and telling the rich person that he's above these minor laws.

If to make the fine a little more equal for rich and poor alike, you could to do something like set the fine at a percentage of the net yearly income of the person receiving it.  Doing this they'll all pay different amounts, but the poor person might pay 20$, the middle class guy 200$, and the rich guy 20,000$ . . . but the actual impact of the fine and the level of deterrent is made much more equal.

When you talk about treating people equal, it's not as simple as you're making out at all.  Giving everyone the same dollar fine (for example) seems equal on the surface but consistently leads to and perpetuates unequal treatment.

An interesting argument, but where does it end?  Perhaps the person who is expected to drop $20k on a fine can easily afford it, but perhaps this is a greater relative imposition on them than the person paying $20 and requires greater effort and sacrifice to avoid more personally serious consequences. The mechanisms of determining a person's ability to pay would need to be extensively explored to avoid injustice in the edge cases, which also creates an unfair advantage (not to mention the extreme incentive) for those who can game the system due to knowledge, or use wealth to buy said knowledge more cheaply than the potential fines.  It is simple to just control for earned income, but this ignores the ability of e.g. early retirees to game the system.

Your argument here that appears to be that there exists no objective reality but what political pundits tell people and that statistics are meaningless.  That kind of defeatism bothers me.  How about we look at the actual data in the articles, instead of giving up because understanding things is hard?
I made a poor and lazy argument there.  I am also having a difficult time finding the data I previously believed to exist - namely that, after controlling for various factors, the racial disparity goes away or even reverses.  I intend to revisit this but am prepared to admit I was incorrect as well.

The truth that people with "black-sounding" names are discriminated against in job hirings is clear.  I wholly condemn this but would not agree with the leftist position that this means that racial discrimination is the cause.  Would you consider someone with the given name of "Jim-Bob" as being likely to succeed?  It is a classist argument, but not a racial one.  The solution is simply to presume ability, but not to give people arbitrary advantages.

I do a lot of hiring, and truth be told I usually try very hard to avoid looking at a person's name when going through them to avoid any unconscious bias . . . jump to the skills section, previous history then only look at their name when scheduling the first interview.  Honestly, I was surprised that this wasn't the way most people do things.  But OK, you've created a hypothesis.  "The black names used sound like losers who you wouldn't want to hire and the white names weren't."  Cool.  Let's check out the study to see if your hypothesis is correct:  https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf

Which are the loser names?  At first glance, none of them (white or black) sound like someone I would instinctively not hire.  Which ones would you fail to hire because of their name?

The "loser" names are statistically the black ones in this example. I argue this remains a classist argument that intersects with racial discrimination, but is not inherently racial simply because of correlation.  It is intriguing to think of the idea of a "poverty mindset" - short term and scarcity based thinking.  I argue that is what is being fundamentally discriminated against; not the implied ethnicity of a name per se but the perceived probability of poor outcomes due to implied cultural beliefs. This is of course a feedback mechanism that creates racial discrimination in reality while not in intent.  I would reiterate the expectation that names seen as belonging to impoverished whites will see similar outcomes but am not aware of any studies on this.

Again, on the position of unequal starting points - they are not inherently deserved but neither are they entirely morally dismissable because they are predicated on the success of ones forebears.  It is one's parents and other ancestors to thank for this unearned success and their happiness should not taken out of the equation.  Should more be done to reduce the contributions of one's family to their success?  I believe it's a hard argument to make against the motivational factors and societal benefit of creating what is ideally a long-lived legacy.

There's no moral obligation to coddle the children of the rich and create a class of aristocracy who will inevitable end up ruling everyone else.  That said, I acknowledge that there is some benefit (both to society as an individual motivational factor) to being able to better your offspring's position.

How to reconcile the two?  It's not possible to see treating everyone the same way as fair if we acknowledge that each person is starting from a totally different point because of what their parents did, but we don't want to lose the benefits of being able to pass some wealth on to your offspring.

What I envision is something along the lines of a cap or limit on the total amount of wealth that can be transferred to the young (overages are taxed upon death), in combination with (and at least partially paid for by the overages) strong social programs available for use by the poor for food, nutrition, health, criminal re-education/re-integration, and education.  It wouldn't result in a perfectly level playing field, but it would be a lot better than what we've currently got and would help to push up the middle and minimize those stuck at the extreme ends of poverty/wealth.

In the US, there is what is called an "estate tax" that significantly taxes assets passed on at death beyond a certain point, but does not impose a true cap.   The level at which assets even begin to be taxed is excessive even for fatFIRE with a single inheritor, but might get down to regular FIRE levels with a group of descendants.  There are tax strategies such as irrevocable trusts, founding corporations, and life insurance that can help bypass the intent of the law however.  Should this be more or less restrictive?  I do tend to agree that reasonable limitations to avoid dynastic wealth make sense but am also aware of the challenges involved in multi-generational wealth management often produce paradoxically poor outcomes for the rich inheritors.  When there is no struggle remaining, it is very easy to see no purpose in life and fritter away even the most ridiculously beneficial advantages.

Many strong social programs already exist in the USA - I comfortably live with a wife and kids on an amount that qualifies us for governmental food support that I do not take advantage of.  My health insurance under the ACA is cheaper than when I was employed for both premiums and benefits.  Government benefits are abundant and generous, but there often requires a great deal of knowledge to take advantage of them.

It is easy to live in perpetuity after acquiring wealth.  Perhaps too easy?  The US tax system is structured to encourage investment and wealth accumulation and I have near maximally taken it up on the offer.  I often feel conflicted about continuing to game the system, structuring assets to avoid taxation and retain significant government benefits.

joleran

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #160 on: October 10, 2020, 07:41:47 AM »
Just want to mention that several studies with the same resume/different name in Germany have found that having a "muslim" name severely decreases your chance. (Black also, but less.)

That is why there are anonymous resumes. A few big companies make this.

I recall reading that anonymous resumes did not provide the expected benefits, but am not particularly well-read on the matter.  A quick search produced this interesting paper: http://ftp.iza.org/dp8517.pdf which I am still in the process of reading but would love to talk about.  I am interested to see if my argument that it is not inherently racial, but more circumstantial based on perceived class, holds up.  My initial thought is that if removing obvious racial markers from resumes is harmful to minorities that there would potentially even be an anti-racial bias in place.

"Drawing on a sample of about 600 firms participating in the program, we find the surprising result that anonymization leads to a large and significant widening of the gap in interview rates: the interview rate of minority candidates decreases, while that of majority candidates increases."

LetItGrow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #161 on: October 12, 2020, 01:40:37 PM »
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.

If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.

Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.


talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #162 on: October 12, 2020, 02:36:31 PM »
I suspect the data would show much more name diversity today than in previous eras.

There's an analysis in the book Freakonomics (which came out in 2005). Two trends I remember: general diversity, and--to an extent--higher status families moving ahead with names that are picked up by lower-education and lower-wealth families with a lag.

jeninco

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3997
  • Location: .... duh?
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #163 on: October 12, 2020, 08:40:07 PM »
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.

If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.

Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.

Definitely one of my favorite noms de plume...

Glad I'm not the only one who also reads AAM!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #164 on: October 13, 2020, 07:41:48 AM »
My dad lost his right leg just below the knee in a motorcycle accident many years ago.  He can get by pretty well with his prosthetic, can walk pretty well, can climb a ladder, can drive (it gets more exciting when he's driving manual - but that's another story), and generally does well.  To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever shamed him for having one leg.  But he certainly doesn't want to be reminded of it or advertise the fact that he is missing a leg.  He never, ever wears shorts.  He never goes swimming.  He never parks in handicapped parking spots.

While I agree with you that there should be no shame in expressing facts or personal limitations and that they should be normalized, that's just not the case for many who have disabilities.  If my father had to tell everyone that he needed a special accommodation to use an elevator or escalator because he was unable to climb a long set of stairs, it wouldn't happen.  He just wouldn't go to that place.
Sounds like you've had some fun with him driving :)  Why is it painful or undesirable for him to acknowledge his disability?  It would seem to me that fear of societal judgment is at the heart of the issue, but perhaps it is directly uncomfortable to address what is personally seen as a a loss or failing?  Regardless, he sounds like exactly the sort of resilient person I would tend to admire.  It does not seem consistent to take his described behavior as a guide to his thoughts, and to then highlight the existence of his physical limitations and suggest that he be treated differently based on others notions of his ability.  Rather, it appears he desires a sense of normalcy and avoids situations that cause his disability to be apparent.  While offering presumptive accommodations appears to be compassionate, it can instead highlight disabilities that would rather not be thought about and do not actually present limitations.  "The soft bigotry of low expectations" is politically charged but certainly springs to mind as analogous.

I think that I follow where your concerns on this matter are.  And you raise valid points.  It's possible to overdo things to the point that accommodations made are patronizing and unwelcome.  But I believe the approach you've been advocating (of no accommodations unless demanded by someone ) is probably a step too far and is overcompensating for the issue you've identified.  There's a balance to be struck between not doing enough, and doing too much.



I'm not sure you can completely divorce economics from how people are treated.  In every society I can think of in recorded history the wealthy are treated better than the poor.  You can argue that people shouldn't look down on the poor and look up to the wealthy/powerful . . . but that argument is doomed to failure in reality.  The rich are always set above the poor.  This is especially true in the US today.  It's entrenched in how law enforcement in our system works.  Take a look at this case of 'equality':

Parking fines are set amounts.  Everyone pays the same dollar figure.  Equal, right?  A poor person can receive a parking fine that they're unable to pay and be jailed.  A middle class person can receive the same fine and it's a minor annoyance - but no risk of jail time or being unable to pay at all.  The same fine to a massively rich person is of no consequence at all, and therefore no deterrent at all so he continues to park wherever the hell he wants.  All three are treated equally, but because of radically different initial opportunity it ends up impacting each very differently.  Because the opportunities for each are so radically different, we can see that the people are not being treated equally at all.  Society is effectively telling the poor person that he deserves to be in jail for his lack of money . . . and telling the rich person that he's above these minor laws.

If to make the fine a little more equal for rich and poor alike, you could to do something like set the fine at a percentage of the net yearly income of the person receiving it.  Doing this they'll all pay different amounts, but the poor person might pay 20$, the middle class guy 200$, and the rich guy 20,000$ . . . but the actual impact of the fine and the level of deterrent is made much more equal.

When you talk about treating people equal, it's not as simple as you're making out at all.  Giving everyone the same dollar fine (for example) seems equal on the surface but consistently leads to and perpetuates unequal treatment.

An interesting argument, but where does it end?  Perhaps the person who is expected to drop $20k on a fine can easily afford it, but perhaps this is a greater relative imposition on them than the person paying $20 and requires greater effort and sacrifice to avoid more personally serious consequences. The mechanisms of determining a person's ability to pay would need to be extensively explored to avoid injustice in the edge cases, which also creates an unfair advantage (not to mention the extreme incentive) for those who can game the system due to knowledge, or use wealth to buy said knowledge more cheaply than the potential fines.  It is simple to just control for earned income, but this ignores the ability of e.g. early retirees to game the system.

My goal wasn't to fix all the world's woes . . . it was to try to clearly identify a problem.  The problem is that right now we bake wealth inequality into an awful lot of stuff that we do and accept every day out of hand - and do it under the guise of 'treating people equal'.  Maintaining the status quo (in a great many cases) as you've been putting forth as an argument is going to perpetuate this inequality in our society - and harden patterns of discrimination into something monolithic and unchanging.



Again, on the position of unequal starting points - they are not inherently deserved but neither are they entirely morally dismissable because they are predicated on the success of ones forebears.  It is one's parents and other ancestors to thank for this unearned success and their happiness should not taken out of the equation.  Should more be done to reduce the contributions of one's family to their success?  I believe it's a hard argument to make against the motivational factors and societal benefit of creating what is ideally a long-lived legacy.

There's no moral obligation to coddle the children of the rich and create a class of aristocracy who will inevitable end up ruling everyone else.  That said, I acknowledge that there is some benefit (both to society as an individual motivational factor) to being able to better your offspring's position.

How to reconcile the two?  It's not possible to see treating everyone the same way as fair if we acknowledge that each person is starting from a totally different point because of what their parents did, but we don't want to lose the benefits of being able to pass some wealth on to your offspring.

What I envision is something along the lines of a cap or limit on the total amount of wealth that can be transferred to the young (overages are taxed upon death), in combination with (and at least partially paid for by the overages) strong social programs available for use by the poor for food, nutrition, health, criminal re-education/re-integration, and education.  It wouldn't result in a perfectly level playing field, but it would be a lot better than what we've currently got and would help to push up the middle and minimize those stuck at the extreme ends of poverty/wealth.

In the US, there is what is called an "estate tax" that significantly taxes assets passed on at death beyond a certain point, but does not impose a true cap.   The level at which assets even begin to be taxed is excessive even for fatFIRE with a single inheritor, but might get down to regular FIRE levels with a group of descendants.  There are tax strategies such as irrevocable trusts, founding corporations, and life insurance that can help bypass the intent of the law however.  Should this be more or less restrictive?  I do tend to agree that reasonable limitations to avoid dynastic wealth make sense but am also aware of the challenges involved in multi-generational wealth management often produce paradoxically poor outcomes for the rich inheritors.  When there is no struggle remaining, it is very easy to see no purpose in life and fritter away even the most ridiculously beneficial advantages.

Many strong social programs already exist in the USA - I comfortably live with a wife and kids on an amount that qualifies us for governmental food support that I do not take advantage of.  My health insurance under the ACA is cheaper than when I was employed for both premiums and benefits.  Government benefits are abundant and generous, but there often requires a great deal of knowledge to take advantage of them.

It is easy to live in perpetuity after acquiring wealth.  Perhaps too easy?  The US tax system is structured to encourage investment and wealth accumulation and I have near maximally taken it up on the offer.  I often feel conflicted about continuing to game the system, structuring assets to avoid taxation and retain significant government benefits.

I agree with you, the US tax system is structured in a way that tends to benefits the rich (seemingly at the expense of the poor).  Poor people don't have excess wealth to invest.  Their wealth doesn't then grow in a tax sheltered way and accumulate to make them even richer and wealthier - and these benefits tend to continue in a generational way.

Earlier in your post you make an interesting point about the need for struggle to give purpose in life.  I agree with this . . . but would add that there's also a balance to be found with this struggle.  If you start off with no difficulties/problems in your way it's going to handicap you as far as personal development and figuring things out.  By the same token, if you start out with seemingly insurmountable difficulties in your way it's going to handicap you as well.

Our society functions best when we minimize people at the top and bottom of this bell curve.  We want a strong middle class.  To do this we need to minimize both the accumulation of great quantities of wealth and poverty.  The current policies we're following seem to be doing the opposite.  Wealth inequality is increasing.  The middle class is shrinking.  We can't keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #165 on: October 13, 2020, 07:54:24 AM »
Just want to mention that several studies with the same resume/different name in Germany have found that having a "muslim" name severely decreases your chance. (Black also, but less.)

That is why there are anonymous resumes. A few big companies make this.

I recall reading that anonymous resumes did not provide the expected benefits, but am not particularly well-read on the matter.  A quick search produced this interesting paper: http://ftp.iza.org/dp8517.pdf which I am still in the process of reading but would love to talk about.  I am interested to see if my argument that it is not inherently racial, but more circumstantial based on perceived class, holds up.  My initial thought is that if removing obvious racial markers from resumes is harmful to minorities that there would potentially even be an anti-racial bias in place.

"Drawing on a sample of about 600 firms participating in the program, we find the surprising result that anonymization leads to a large and significant widening of the gap in interview rates: the interview rate of minority candidates decreases, while that of majority candidates increases."

The study you posted was of self-selected French companies.  It seems likely that the companies most interested in increasing diversity might sign up for the study so it actually makes some sense that in these companies more ethnic sounding names might get preference in their normal hiring procedures.  The study mentions similar on page 19:
Quote
non-participating firms strongly differ from participating ones by interviewing and hiring significantly fewer minority candidates.

and on page 20:
Quote
combined with the experimental results in the previous section, they suggest a consistent story in which firms participating in the experiment had a positive valuation of minority candidates’ resumes, so that anonymous resumes made their decision become less favorable to those candidates

Given that confounding variable, I'm not sure that we can draw much of a conclusion from the result you mentioned.  If the group studied was not self-selected I think we would have much better data to pull from (although still we would have the issue that it's dealing with French rather than US companies - I'm not aware of French race relation problems or how they compare to those in the US).

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #166 on: October 13, 2020, 07:59:34 AM »
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.

If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.

Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.

Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.

If the underlying problem is racism (whether intentional or not) the person's name doesn't matter at all.  In fact, it's probably a benefit that their resume gets thrown in the trash before they have to waste time at an interview with someone who will discard them as an employee because of their race.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17394
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #167 on: October 15, 2020, 12:33:58 PM »
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.

If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.

Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.

I hear you, but let me put this as gently as I possibly can, since I'm positive that you don't mean any offense by this.
Choosing to white wash (pun intended) over culture because it's easier the more one can pass as white is not seen as a positive response to systemic racism.

Erasing culture is not seen as a desirable response to prejudice. 

LetItGrow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #168 on: October 15, 2020, 01:03:42 PM »
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.

If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.

Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.

Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.


Yeah, without a doubt. But, it is At least something that could be controlled. I have the same internal symptoms versus cause argument in my head when I think about sexual harassment / rape and things like 'provocative dress'.

While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions. Because the struggle is how do you swim upstream and get those would-be-whatever-bad-thing people until they take action? Rooting them out is hard. In fact, sometimes letting them slide under the radar might be even worse long term.

So if the premise is a name is getting a resume tossed because of perceived bias, then I would think adopting a different name would be better.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #169 on: October 15, 2020, 01:13:10 PM »
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.

If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.

Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.

Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.


Yeah, without a doubt. But, it is At least something that could be controlled. I have the same internal symptoms versus cause argument in my head when I think about sexual harassment / rape and things like 'provocative dress'.

*snip*

So if the premise is a name is getting a resume tossed because of perceived bias, then I would think adopting a different name would be better.

As mentioned though, the problem isn't the name.  I don't think the folks submitting resumes want a just a call-back - they probably want a job.  They can change their name to dodge racism and get a call back/interview.  That isn't going to get them a job though.

If racism is present (the whole reason they're changing their name remember) they're likely not going to get the job once they are observed to be black.

So is there really a benefit in controlling the name?

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17394
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #170 on: October 15, 2020, 01:28:02 PM »
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.

If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.

Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.

Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.


Yeah, without a doubt. But, it is At least something that could be controlled. I have the same internal symptoms versus cause argument in my head when I think about sexual harassment / rape and things like 'provocative dress'.

While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions. Because the struggle is how do you swim upstream and get those would-be-whatever-bad-thing people until they take action? Rooting them out is hard. In fact, sometimes letting them slide under the radar might be even worse long term.

So if the premise is a name is getting a resume tossed because of perceived bias, then I would think adopting a different name would be better.

I would strongly recommend that you explore why what you are saying might be received very poorly.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #171 on: October 15, 2020, 01:51:03 PM »
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.

I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings.  The strong feelings haven't gone away though.

Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification.  Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other.  From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.

Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape.  Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing.  The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.

Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.

LetItGrow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #172 on: October 15, 2020, 01:55:32 PM »
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.

If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.

Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.

Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.


Yeah, without a doubt. But, it is At least something that could be controlled. I have the same internal symptoms versus cause argument in my head when I think about sexual harassment / rape and things like 'provocative dress'.

While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions. Because the struggle is how do you swim upstream and get those would-be-whatever-bad-thing people until they take action? Rooting them out is hard. In fact, sometimes letting them slide under the radar might be even worse long term.

So if the premise is a name is getting a resume tossed because of perceived bias, then I would think adopting a different name would be better.

I would strongly recommend that you explore why what you are saying might be received very poorly.

Oh I get it. I would suggest you do the same. It seems you and gtrstv want others to act differently, and that’s fine, it’s fine to want and I applaud working to educate people. But at the end of the day you have no control over other people.

Me: take control of what you can and be accountable. If you name your kid Joebob, you are not allowed to complain that they can’t get a fair shake. I don’t care if daddy, daddy’s daddy and so on are all Joebob. I have the same opinion about weird personal styles. Walk in with your pants down to your knees, fine you are allowed to. But you are not allowed to complain about being judged for it.

Another horrible analogy. If you are a music type person, and searching for a new song to listen to, would you be biased by the band name? Would you click on a song by 'racists rock the house'? But yet the song may be exactly the type of song you would really enjoy. And if the song was by 'Malcats are Magnificent' you very well may click on it.

Now, with Gtrstv's point, if there is actually racism, then Yeah, if the song is bad, it’s bad. My point of names is not an actual solution, it’s a piece of a whole stack of actions that can help things get better.


LetItGrow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #173 on: October 15, 2020, 01:59:42 PM »
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.

I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings.  The strong feelings haven't gone away though.

Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification.  Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other.  From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.

Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape.  Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing.  The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.

Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.

Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6657
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #174 on: October 15, 2020, 02:01:43 PM »
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.

If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.

Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.

I hear you, but let me put this as gently as I possibly can, since I'm positive that you don't mean any offense by this.
Choosing to white wash (pun intended) over culture because it's easier the more one can pass as white is not seen as a positive response to systemic racism.

Erasing culture is not seen as a desirable response to prejudice.

Thanks for this.  I'd typed and deleted several responses.

It's like telling women that the solution to rape is to drink less and not walk home alone.  Those may be valid choices for someone to consider or even to make, but they shouldn't have to make them and suggesting that's the solution to a problem created by someone else is shifting the responsibility to a victim rather than the the perpetrators. 

Would I name my imaginary kid an "ethnic" (and by that of course it's always meant "brown ethnicities" because "Sven" isn't the same as "Tyrese")name?  No, just as I wouldn't accept a drink from a stranger in a bar.  But when someone talks about women being rufied and the answer is, "well don't be foolish enough to take a drink that has ever been out of your sight", it's a problem.  A big, big, big problem. 

And when names that may be a part of someone's culture are compared to "Princess Banana Hammock", that too is a problem. 

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6657
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #175 on: October 15, 2020, 02:03:29 PM »
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.

I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings.  The strong feelings haven't gone away though.

Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification.  Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other.  From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.

Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape.  Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing.  The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.

Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.

Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?

Imagine your wife or daughter coming home and saying that her boss grabbed her ass at work today.  Would "wear a longer skirt" really be what you said to her?  Christ. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #176 on: October 15, 2020, 02:06:07 PM »
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.

I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings.  The strong feelings haven't gone away though.

Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification.  Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other.  From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.

Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape.  Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing.  The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.

Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.

Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?

I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.

The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too.  The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour.  What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.

Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'.  Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #177 on: October 15, 2020, 02:10:42 PM »
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.

I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings.  The strong feelings haven't gone away though.

Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification.  Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other.  From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.

Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape.  Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing.  The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.

Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.

Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?

I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.

The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too.  The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour.  What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.

Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'.  Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.

Exactly this.

Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.

Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17394
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #178 on: October 15, 2020, 03:13:28 PM »
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.

If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.

Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.

Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.


Yeah, without a doubt. But, it is At least something that could be controlled. I have the same internal symptoms versus cause argument in my head when I think about sexual harassment / rape and things like 'provocative dress'.

While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions. Because the struggle is how do you swim upstream and get those would-be-whatever-bad-thing people until they take action? Rooting them out is hard. In fact, sometimes letting them slide under the radar might be even worse long term.

So if the premise is a name is getting a resume tossed because of perceived bias, then I would think adopting a different name would be better.

I would strongly recommend that you explore why what you are saying might be received very poorly.

Oh I get it. I would suggest you do the same. It seems you and gtrstv want others to act differently, and that’s fine, it’s fine to want and I applaud working to educate people. But at the end of the day you have no control over other people.

Me: take control of what you can and be accountable. If you name your kid Joebob, you are not allowed to complain that they can’t get a fair shake. I don’t care if daddy, daddy’s daddy and so on are all Joebob. I have the same opinion about weird personal styles. Walk in with your pants down to your knees, fine you are allowed to. But you are not allowed to complain about being judged for it.

Another horrible analogy. If you are a music type person, and searching for a new song to listen to, would you be biased by the band name? Would you click on a song by 'racists rock the house'? But yet the song may be exactly the type of song you would really enjoy. And if the song was by 'Malcats are Magnificent' you very well may click on it.

Now, with Gtrstv's point, if there is actually racism, then Yeah, if the song is bad, it’s bad. My point of names is not an actual solution, it’s a piece of a whole stack of actions that can help things get better.

You seem to misunderstand me.
You are more than welcome to ignore my suggestion of considering the power of your words.

I don't for a second aim to control the behaviour of others, but I do give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they may want to reconsider saying certain things if they had a better understanding of the affects on the populations they are speaking about.

If you fully understand the impact of your words and stand behind them, then by all means, you are entitled to that position. I just assumed that you meant well in what you were saying and that if you weren't aware of how hurtful what you were saying was, you might want to be respectfully nudged to learn.

That doesn't mean you have to, I'm not your mother so I don't get to tell you what to do.

I am, however, someone who has more than a minor degree of knowledge about reconciliation with oppressed cultures, and happen to have way more knowledge about the experience of sexual assault victims than I would ever like to know. That doesn't mean you have to listen to me, but if you wanted to, you could.

ETA: I will add one fun fact not just for you, but for the folks reading along, re: sexual assault. I spent a few decades of my life dressing, uh, very very sexy. Meanwhile, the only time I ever had a stranger touch me without consent was when I was dressed very conservatively, and was stuck walking around with a cane. It happened multiple times actually, it seems that being visibly unable to run actually made me far more of a target of unwanted touching than dressing like, well, an expensive sex worker ever did.

Just an interesting personal anecdotes about unsolicited touching from strange men.

Fucked up, no?
« Last Edit: October 15, 2020, 03:19:09 PM by Malcat »

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20747
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #179 on: October 15, 2020, 03:28:15 PM »
^^ Its about the power and vulnerability.  Not the "sexiness". 

LetItGrow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #180 on: October 15, 2020, 03:35:01 PM »
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.

I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings.  The strong feelings haven't gone away though.

Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification.  Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other.  From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.

Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape.  Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing.  The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.

Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.

Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?

I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.

The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too.  The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour.  What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.

Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'.  Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.

Exactly this.

Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.

Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.

Again, you can only for sure control your actions. You can 'onus' me all you want but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t work.

I think your last line is the point I struggle with, HOW do you make a man stop assaulting? I don’t see a solution there. Taking actions to minimize your risk at least may locally help. I really started to think about this when a coworker talked about how she would route to her apartment at college. I started thinking, how do you get those bad guys? Can you make them good guys? I really have no idea. I don’t think just being safer will do it, but I don’t think it would hurt???




Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #181 on: October 15, 2020, 03:37:11 PM »
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.

I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings.  The strong feelings haven't gone away though.

Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification.  Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other.  From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.

Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape.  Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing.  The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.

Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.

Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?

I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.

The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too.  The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour.  What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.

Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'.  Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.

Exactly this.

Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.

Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.

Again, you can only for sure control your actions. You can 'onus' me all you want but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t work.

I think your last line is the point I struggle with, HOW do you make a man stop assaulting? I don’t see a solution there. Taking actions to minimize your risk at least may locally help. I really started to think about this when a coworker talked about how she would route to her apartment at college. I started thinking, how do you get those bad guys? Can you make them good guys? I really have no idea. I don’t think just being safer will do it, but I don’t think it would hurt???

I've been catcalled, followed, harassed, or groped while wearing everything from business clothes, to going out clothes, to jeans and a T-shirt, to workout clothes, to shorts and a tank top. I am not a bad-looking woman, but I assure you, I don't routinely dress in any way that a reasonable person would consider "provocative." And I still managed to "provoke" these reactions.

Following your logic, what is the solution for me? Should I just "become ugly"? Gain 300 pounds? Stop showering, wearing makeup, or styling my hair? Wear a large blanket and a face mask everywhere I go? Am I required to make myself as physically unappealing as possible whenever I leave my house in order for men to stop harassing me?

Do you not see how obscene that line of reasoning is?

How do you make a man stop assaulting?

By creating a world where he doesn’t think he’ll get away with it.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17394
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #182 on: October 15, 2020, 03:37:44 PM »
^^ Its about the power and vulnerability.  Not the "sexiness".

It's not about my sexy, sexy cane?

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6657
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #183 on: October 15, 2020, 03:40:19 PM »
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.

If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.

Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.

Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.


Yeah, without a doubt. But, it is At least something that could be controlled. I have the same internal symptoms versus cause argument in my head when I think about sexual harassment / rape and things like 'provocative dress'.

While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions. Because the struggle is how do you swim upstream and get those would-be-whatever-bad-thing people until they take action? Rooting them out is hard. In fact, sometimes letting them slide under the radar might be even worse long term.

So if the premise is a name is getting a resume tossed because of perceived bias, then I would think adopting a different name would be better.

I would strongly recommend that you explore why what you are saying might be received very poorly.

Oh I get it. I would suggest you do the same. It seems you and gtrstv want others to act differently, and that’s fine, it’s fine to want and I applaud working to educate people. But at the end of the day you have no control over other people.

Me: take control of what you can and be accountable. If you name your kid Joebob, you are not allowed to complain that they can’t get a fair shake. I don’t care if daddy, daddy’s daddy and so on are all Joebob. I have the same opinion about weird personal styles. Walk in with your pants down to your knees, fine you are allowed to. But you are not allowed to complain about being judged for it.

Another horrible analogy. If you are a music type person, and searching for a new song to listen to, would you be biased by the band name? Would you click on a song by 'racists rock the house'? But yet the song may be exactly the type of song you would really enjoy. And if the song was by 'Malcats are Magnificent' you very well may click on it.

Now, with Gtrstv's point, if there is actually racism, then Yeah, if the song is bad, it’s bad. My point of names is not an actual solution, it’s a piece of a whole stack of actions that can help things get better.

You seem to misunderstand me.
You are more than welcome to ignore my suggestion of considering the power of your words.

I don't for a second aim to control the behaviour of others, but I do give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they may want to reconsider saying certain things if they had a better understanding of the affects on the populations they are speaking about.

If you fully understand the impact of your words and stand behind them, then by all means, you are entitled to that position. I just assumed that you meant well in what you were saying and that if you weren't aware of how hurtful what you were saying was, you might want to be respectfully nudged to learn.

That doesn't mean you have to, I'm not your mother so I don't get to tell you what to do.

I am, however, someone who has more than a minor degree of knowledge about reconciliation with oppressed cultures, and happen to have way more knowledge about the experience of sexual assault victims than I would ever like to know. That doesn't mean you have to listen to me, but if you wanted to, you could.

ETA: I will add one fun fact not just for you, but for the folks reading along, re: sexual assault. I spent a few decades of my life dressing, uh, very very sexy. Meanwhile, the only time I ever had a stranger touch me without consent was when I was dressed very conservatively, and was stuck walking around with a cane. It happened multiple times actually, it seems that being visibly unable to run actually made me far more of a target of unwanted touching than dressing like, well, an expensive sex worker ever did.

Just an interesting personal anecdotes about unsolicited touching from strange men.

Fucked up, no?

Obviously you should have never left the house or had an escort all the time while you needed that cane.  You could have fixed the sexual assault problem and simply chose not to.  /s

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #184 on: October 15, 2020, 03:47:11 PM »
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.

I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings.  The strong feelings haven't gone away though.

Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification.  Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other.  From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.

Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape.  Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing.  The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.

Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.

Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?

I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.

The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too.  The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour.  What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.

Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'.  Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.

Exactly this.

Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.

Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.

Again, you can only for sure control your actions.

Exactly!  So don't try to control the actions of others by changing the way you dress.  That's a fools errand (and I've already given you some pretty strong evidence that it doesn't work.)


I think your last line is the point I struggle with, HOW do you make a man stop assaulting?

I think the best way to do this is societal pressure.

You ensure that everyone is aware of responsibility for actions (this responsibility lies on the perpetrator not the victim).  You (and me, and everyone) report it to authorities and do your best to show that that kind of behaviour is unacceptable.  You do everything in your power to minimize any kind of shame that a victim might feel that would prevent them from reporting an incident.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17394
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #185 on: October 15, 2020, 03:58:44 PM »
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.

I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings.  The strong feelings haven't gone away though.

Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification.  Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other.  From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.

Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape.  Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing.  The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.

Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.

Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?

I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.

The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too.  The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour.  What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.

Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'.  Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.

Exactly this.

Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.

Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.

Again, you can only for sure control your actions. You can 'onus' me all you want but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t work.

I think your last line is the point I struggle with, HOW do you make a man stop assaulting? I don’t see a solution there. Taking actions to minimize your risk at least may locally help. I really started to think about this when a coworker talked about how she would route to her apartment at college. I started thinking, how do you get those bad guys? Can you make them good guys? I really have no idea. I don’t think just being safer will do it, but I don’t think it would hurt???

Well, it helps first to fully understand the issue.

I wish I had been taught the actual risk factors for being raped before it happened to me, namely that it was infinitely more likely to happen with a male I knew and trusted than a stranger.

I was raped by the guy that my parents were happy I was out with because they felt he would keep me safe. They actively taught me to not go places at night without him because he was such a nice and trustworthy boy from a good family, and my parents knew his parents.

Yeah...a heads up about that might have been helpful, and I may have perceived his protectiveness and possessiveness more as threatening rather than reassuring. I mean, yeah, the warning signs were there, but my dad sure as shit didn't teach me how to see them.

There's a lot of really great advice out there for women to protect themselves from sexual assault. If you are genuinely interested, any rape crisis center can point you to resources.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20747
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #186 on: October 15, 2020, 06:12:26 PM »
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.

I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings.  The strong feelings haven't gone away though.

Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification.  Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other.  From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.

Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape.  Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing.  The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.

Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.

Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?

I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.

The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too.  The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour.  What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.

Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'.  Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.

Exactly this.

Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.

Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.

Again, you can only for sure control your actions. You can 'onus' me all you want but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t work.

I think your last line is the point I struggle with, HOW do you make a man stop assaulting? I don’t see a solution there. Taking actions to minimize your risk at least may locally help. I really started to think about this when a coworker talked about how she would route to her apartment at college. I started thinking, how do you get those bad guys? Can you make them good guys? I really have no idea. I don’t think just being safer will do it, but I don’t think it would hurt???

Well, it helps first to fully understand the issue.

I wish I had been taught the actual risk factors for being raped before it happened to me, namely that it was infinitely more likely to happen with a male I knew and trusted than a stranger.

I was raped by the guy that my parents were happy I was out with because they felt he would keep me safe. They actively taught me to not go places at night without him because he was such a nice and trustworthy boy from a good family, and my parents knew his parents.

Yeah...a heads up about that might have been helpful, and I may have perceived his protectiveness and possessiveness more as threatening rather than reassuring. I mean, yeah, the warning signs were there, but my dad sure as shit didn't teach me how to see them.

There's a lot of really great advice out there for women to protect themselves from sexual assault. If you are genuinely interested, any rape crisis center can point you to resources.

Captain Awkward is really good too.  I wish she had been blogging when DD was little.  I signed DD up for karate lessons instead. 

Your cane would have been a lot sexier if it had been a sword-stick, eh?

talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #187 on: October 16, 2020, 06:10:02 AM »
How odd that--from a starting point of Trump and relationships--we get to a discussion of sexual assault.

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #188 on: October 16, 2020, 06:33:09 AM »
How odd that--from a starting point of Trump and relationships--we get to a discussion of sexual assault.

And almost exactly 4 years after “grab ‘em by the pussy.”

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #189 on: October 16, 2020, 07:54:32 AM »
The best way to stop sexual assault is to stop the culture of men objectifying women. Don't blame the women. Blame the men. I have made mistakes on that front and I acknowledge them.

To me, Trump and his ilk are just angry, frustrated men who can't deal with the fact that they no longer have absolute privilege in society. It's no longer okay to ogle women or sexually harass them or throw money at them for sexual favours. Or at the very least, it's no longer okay to say that this is okay. Just like it's no longer okay to lynch blacks. And people like Trump and a lot of his supporters aren't okay with that. They're white men who are used to having all sorts of entitlements and this irks them. First they had to accommodate blacks, and now women?!? They don't like the idea of having to share power with others. Well guess what assholes. Welcome to the 21st century.

On a different note, the difficulty with those who want more 'equality' is that it's impossible to make parents equal. Parents imbue their children with different genes, different home environments and different propensities towards education. You can't change genes and you can only marginally change home environments. If we really want more equality we need to funnel more money into early education and early intervention; by the time the kid is 5 or 6 years old, it's too late to help the most disadvantaged ones. They're too far behind.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 07:57:11 AM by Bloop Bloop »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #190 on: October 16, 2020, 08:24:38 AM »
Captain Awkward is really good too.  I wish she had been blogging when DD was little.  I signed DD up for karate lessons instead.

In all honesty, I'd recommend that any woman interested in learning self-defense seriously look at Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.  In BJJ you learn to control and escape from a larger, stronger person who has knocked you to the ground and is on top of you.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #191 on: October 16, 2020, 12:01:52 PM »
Captain Awkward is really good too.  I wish she had been blogging when DD was little.  I signed DD up for karate lessons instead.

In all honesty, I'd recommend that any woman interested in learning self-defense seriously look at Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.  In BJJ you learn to control and escape from a larger, stronger person who has knocked you to the ground and is on top of you.
I'm not one of knowledge in the arcane fields of martial arts, but I would second to go for a "soft" art and not a hard one, especially karate, if that is your aim. Of course it also depends on the person.
But I would wager that strongly build fierce looking women are less likely to get unwanted attention when they are alone than the small timid ones.

Ishmael

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 130
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #192 on: October 16, 2020, 12:50:57 PM »
Trump has no redeeming qualities as a human being. He's almost a complete list of everything that believe can contribute to being a bad person. Therefore, anyone that thinks Trump is admirable in any way isn't someone I could bear to be around.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20747
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #193 on: October 16, 2020, 12:59:01 PM »
Captain Awkward is really good too.  I wish she had been blogging when DD was little.  I signed DD up for karate lessons instead.

In all honesty, I'd recommend that any woman interested in learning self-defense seriously look at Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.  In BJJ you learn to control and escape from a larger, stronger person who has knocked you to the ground and is on top of you.

Good advice for someone with a young daughter.

Mine is all grown up now so that is water under the bridge.  Plus the only martial arts classes available were karate and tai-kwon-do.  I figured any potential boyfriend who had violent tendencies would just avoid dating a brown belt girlfriend. 

GreenToTheCore

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #194 on: October 18, 2020, 09:47:19 PM »
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.

I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings.  The strong feelings haven't gone away though.

Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification.  Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other.  From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.

Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape.  Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing.  The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.

Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.

Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?

I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.

The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too.  The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour.  What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.

Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'.  Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.

Exactly this.

Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.

Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.

Again, you can only for sure control your actions.

Exactly!  So don't try to control the actions of others by changing the way you dress.  That's a fools errand (and I've already given you some pretty strong evidence that it doesn't work.)


@LetItGrow  If visuals are more impactful, the exhibit "What Were You Wearing?" might be helpful to learn about how inaccurate it is to think *just don't wear a skirt*:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html

LetItGrow

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #195 on: October 19, 2020, 08:41:26 AM »


@LetItGrow  If visuals are more impactful, the exhibit "What Were You Wearing?" might be helpful to learn about how inaccurate it is to think *just don't wear a skirt*:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html

If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.

One way to think about risk mitigation is to think about the endless list of possible failure modes and working to eliminate a many as possible. how you dress, how you act, how you react, where you go, with whom you go, etc. etc. are all possible methods to reduce (hopefully eliminate) some of those failure modes. Safety is a game of small margins sometimes, so every little bit could count. Can one do everything right and still have a problem? Of course, but I don’t believe in any instance of any sort of attack, there wasn’t an action that could have been taken that would have prevented the harm to yourself. Maybe pure luck like catching a red light that prevented getting tee-boned by someone texting, or a line at a bathroom being too short to allow enough time for someone to spike your drink. But maybe it was how you reacted when some thug grabbed your shoulder and made a crude comment. But maybe, just maybe, your choice of dress caused some opportunistic dirtbag to ignore you.

Make it require a horribly unlucky string of events for you to be a victim.




PoutineLover

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1570
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #196 on: October 19, 2020, 09:01:46 AM »


@LetItGrow  If visuals are more impactful, the exhibit "What Were You Wearing?" might be helpful to learn about how inaccurate it is to think *just don't wear a skirt*:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html

If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.

One way to think about risk mitigation is to think about the endless list of possible failure modes and working to eliminate a many as possible. how you dress, how you act, how you react, where you go, with whom you go, etc. etc. are all possible methods to reduce (hopefully eliminate) some of those failure modes. Safety is a game of small margins sometimes, so every little bit could count. Can one do everything right and still have a problem? Of course, but I don’t believe in any instance of any sort of attack, there wasn’t an action that could have been taken that would have prevented the harm to yourself. Maybe pure luck like catching a red light that prevented getting tee-boned by someone texting, or a line at a bathroom being too short to allow enough time for someone to spike your drink. But maybe it was how you reacted when some thug grabbed your shoulder and made a crude comment. But maybe, just maybe, your choice of dress caused some opportunistic dirtbag to ignore you.

Make it require a horribly unlucky string of events for you to be a victim.




Please stop victim blaming, it's extremely hurtful to survivors of sexual assault. Multiple people have told you why your ideas are wrong and harmful. Rapists are to blame for rape, period. There is no outfit or magical series of behaviours that make someone immune to rape. Second guessing what victims did or wore just makes us less likely to report and allows people to make excuses for why it happened, resulting in rapists getting away with it and feeling emboldened because society focuses on the wrong end of the crime.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #197 on: October 19, 2020, 09:11:30 AM »


@LetItGrow  If visuals are more impactful, the exhibit "What Were You Wearing?" might be helpful to learn about how inaccurate it is to think *just don't wear a skirt*:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html

If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.

One way to think about risk mitigation is to think about the endless list of possible failure modes and working to eliminate a many as possible. how you dress, how you act, how you react, where you go, with whom you go, etc. etc. are all possible methods to reduce (hopefully eliminate) some of those failure modes. Safety is a game of small margins sometimes, so every little bit could count. Can one do everything right and still have a problem? Of course, but I don’t believe in any instance of any sort of attack, there wasn’t an action that could have been taken that would have prevented the harm to yourself. Maybe pure luck like catching a red light that prevented getting tee-boned by someone texting, or a line at a bathroom being too short to allow enough time for someone to spike your drink. But maybe it was how you reacted when some thug grabbed your shoulder and made a crude comment. But maybe, just maybe, your choice of dress caused some opportunistic dirtbag to ignore you.

Make it require a horribly unlucky string of events for you to be a victim.

Funny how you completely ignored my post that disputes this victim-blaming b.s., and then just went right back to this garbage. Lord.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #198 on: October 19, 2020, 09:22:35 AM »
If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.

I think the problem is that so far you've asserted that a woman changing her clothing makes her less likely to be raped but have not brought forth evidence of any kind to support your argument.  At the same time you've ignored evidence that points to the opposite being true.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20747
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker?
« Reply #199 on: October 19, 2020, 10:14:14 AM »
If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.

I think the problem is that so far you've asserted that a woman changing her clothing makes her less likely to be raped but have not brought forth evidence of any kind to support your argument.  At the same time you've ignored evidence that points to the opposite being true.

Women already assess their environment much more than men do, for safety reasons.  Reminds me of the old saying "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them.  Women are afraid that men will kill them".

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!