Bill Cosby...stirring it up!

I've been a fan of Cosby from way back. We had an intersting thread on his comments about not wanting to be considered a black entertainer, but an entertainer... He smacked Donehue down pretty solidly on the subject in the 80's.

I know he has provided millions of dollars in grants for traditionally black colleges--and no one could convince me he didn't have the best interest of blacks at heart when he said what he did--

That said, the double standard issue is a really irritating spectre, IMO. I think blacks and whites alike should be judged on the content of their words, rather than the content, juxtaposed with their color, or ethnicity.

That being-- I feel that when Cosby singled out blacks for his statements, they were racist statements. I do not feel Cosby IS a racist, owing to my benefit of the doubt of his intent--but the comments....yeah. Racist. He lumped blacks for a lecture many of them didn't need, and excluded others from other races for the same failings. That, to me, constitutes a racist statement.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Because some people are just too eager to point the finger and charge racism

Including yourself, you said your position was racist several times.

Anywho, I apologize for quoting "expect" as that wasn't your wording and my memory had failed me. What you said was "assume in advance".

Sme difference but I attributed in error with quotation marks. Here is the post I mention (in its entirety):

OCCOM BILL on Mon 08 Dec, 2003 12:32 pm Post: 473836 wrote:

Yikes, this one might get me in trouble. I, as you can see by my avatar, I am a stereotypical white man. I would like to think I exercise no racist beliefs, but that's not true.
When hiring sales people; I hire the most qualified applicants, but; I assume in advance that the black applicants are not likely to perform as well as their equally qualified white counterparts. Black applicants with ethnic sounding names or speech are far less likely to meet quota. I've measured the performance of hundreds of sales persons, while selling tens of thousands of products. As a capitalist, my aspiration is to make as much money as possible. The best person for the job, is the one that is most profitable to employ. Perhaps the white majority in America is less likely to buy from blacks. Perhaps the blacks I've hired lacked the social skills to match their white counterparts performance. Perhaps blacks don't try to sell as hard as whites (this one I know is false). Perhaps I'm a closet racist who lies about the observed results in order to justify my racism (also false). Regardless of the reason, the results remain the same. I've heard of Sales managers who automatically: "If the first name ryhmes with honda, the application goes in the circular file." Unfair? Certainly. Ecconomically sound? Probably. Racially biased? Definitely. Sales 'Leads" can be tremendously expensive to generate. A closing ratio variation of 1% is enormous! My companies profit margin is frequently less than 1%.
Conclusion: Ecconomic resposibility sometimes overrides my desire to be racially blind. The ugly truth is that this fiscal reality does help propetuate Noah's claims.

So, people with African ancestors have a bit of a dissadvantage when looking for work... So what. So do fat people. So do ugly people. So do intellectually challanged people. Depending on where you are; an accent from New York or Georgia will put you at a disadvantage. Young people, old people, tall people, short people are all disadvantaged as well.

It is my contention that every single person is an individual. We all have our crosses to carry. I've read about people with Down Syndrome gratuating college. The person most responsible for success or failure, in this country at least, is the person you look at in the mirror. Am I a racist?

My answer? Yes.

But I think you have a good heart and that to some extent everyone harbours some racism. IMO we just need to fight our prejudices and not excuse them.

For example, while it may be understandable for you to "assume in advance" above it certainly is not fair. Now you openly admit that it's not fair but it should be and just because life's not fair and not perfect isn't a reason to excuse willingly making it so.

The assumption might become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fight it, give each person a chance to stand on their own, free of any bias you experience might cause.

Each person deserves at least that, to be judged on their own merits and not on the merits of other people people group them with mentally.

Do you ahve some racist positions? Yes. I bet I do too.

Would I call you a racist? Maybe, but I think I'd be wrong to (heat of the moment stuff). I think the word would not have meaning if it were applied to the position you espouse.

But I do think the position is wrong, and that it propagates racism (e.g. taking market factors into account above is simply taking racism in the market as justification for discriminating hiring practices, but you know this).

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

He lumped blacks for a lecture many of them didn't need....

Show me where. I see him addressing the "knuckleheads" within the race and not the race.

0 Replies

I would look on that from a slightly different angle. I think that IF anything is racistic in his comments is the fact that he "cares" or "has best interest" of blacks ONLY.

0 Replies

Agreed that we all harbor racist feelings and thoughts--even those of us, who are horrified at the thought. I believe it is impossible to be devoid of them, though we may valiantly try.

0 Replies

Sofia, It seems we're pretty close on our thinking on this subject; he should include all those in the disadvantaged class rather than singling out blacks. That's MHO anywhos.

0 Replies

Cosby has come a long way from "Black History: Lost, stolen, or strayed."

He called Mr. Bojangles Shirley Temple's pet.

0 Replies

I'm not very enthusiastic about finding fault with Cosby, Craven. I happened to agree with some of what he said. Especially the 'nigger' issue. Blacks have used this word against their own children and one another so long--it really weakens their umbrage at others' use. (I personally don't know why anyone would use it.)

But,I think I felt worse about him referring to the "black community's dirty laundry"-- as if they are the sole owners of wife-beating, poor usage of the language, and blaming someone else for their problems. I guess that wide swat, and the stereotypical blacks he portrayed...

I'm not on firm ground with my argument-- I mean, what would have made the whole thing more palatable to me? If he'd made a disclaimer, "Of course, we aren't the only ones with this problem"... or "Of course, this doesn't apply to all blacks..." I'm sure that's a given... I just wish everyone was able to speak the same words, and receive the same response. A white person should be able to say the same thing, and have the same result.

A white man would have lost his job and reputation over the same words; and not be given the credence that he cared about the black community.

I guess I'm still pushing for a lost cause. True equality.

0 Replies

Lol Craven. That post is going to haunt me forever. As much as I'd like to; I still can't change it. It's still accurate and if I were in that position again tomorrow my behavior would be the same. But, not really liking being called a racist, I'll respond again.

Particular areas of particular cities are going to bring you applicants with particular things in common. I'd be a liar if I said I didn't notice and a fool if I said I didn't care. Training a new person can cost a small fortune. This "give everyone who walks in the door a shot" philosophy is for people who aren't affected by the bottom line. For an extreme example: If I went the other way with my hiring policies and showed a preference for people who speak like those Cosby was complaining about, I would likely spend $200,000 a year staying in business, which I obviously can't afford to do. When you are in a business with high ad costs and a small profit margin; economic feasibility demands a low tolerance for failure. If you choose to talk like a banger, experience tells me your sales will suffer and consequently you'll likely not work for me. That is the simple cold hard facts of the matter.

I'll change the world on my personal time, thank you.

Ps. when a man calls another a knucklehead, what is the most important consideration?
A. What color is the accuser?
B. What color is the accused?
C. Is it a fair description? Idea

0 Replies

I wasn't saying that to give people a shot you need to hire people who are not qualified, I'm saying that assuming they don't in advance is unfair.

What I'm talking about doesn't affect your bottom line at all, just the point at which you make a decision (namely after having met the individual in question).

pre to post

0 Replies

Bill is the man. I completely agree with everything he said. It's about time that prominent blacks start talking about things the race needs to correct for themselves. I'm sick and tired of intelligent blacks sticking up for the lowest common denominator of the race.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I wasn't saying that to give people a shot you need to hire people who are not qualified, I'm saying that assuming they don't in advance is unfair.

You mean I should;

In the original post that Bill's eternally damned to hell for, he wrote:

When hiring sales people; I hire the most qualified applicants, but;

What is still troubling you? What would you have me do?
A. pretend statistical facts don't exist when hiring.
B. pretend statistical facts don't exist when talking about hiring?
C. pretend I don't care if I lose money?

You of all people should understand that facts can be pesky things. They're not always fair, convenient or politically correct. Occasionally, fiscal realities will clash with social ideals. People who choose to behave in an ignorant fashion reside on the bottom of my charity priority list. If you catch me pretending I consider overzealous PC nonsense more important than money, do let me know, for then you can show hypocrisy in my beliefs. In the mean time Cosby's right: If you want to be respected in business, it would behoove you to dress, act and yes, speak the part.

Craven de Kere wrote:

What I'm talking about doesn't affect your bottom line at all, just the point at which you make a decision (namely after having met the individual in question).

I meet everyone before deciding whether to hire them or not Craven. Your desire to label me racist is causing you to post your inferences as if they were founded in fact. ("Namely" I've said nothing to support that supposition. :wink: )

Craven de Kere wrote:

pre to post

I don't know what that means, sorry.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You mean I should;

In the original post that Bill's eternally damned to hell for, he wrote:
When hiring sales people; I hire the most qualified applicants, but;

What is still troubling you? What would you have me do?
A. pretend statistical facts don't exist when hiring.
B. pretend statistical facts don't exist when talking about hiring?
C. pretend I don't care if I lose money?

Dammit Bill you are being way more dense about this that you really are.

Lemme spell it out real simple-like.

I think you should hire the person most qualified for the job but do not "assume in advance" that black people will not be qualified. They are individuals, let them each stand on their own merit without pre-judging them.

Note the "pre".

That's as simple as refusing to judge them prior to meeting them. If after an interview you can genuinely say someone is not qualified then cool, that's post. The problem is the prejudice, to pre-judge to "assume in advance".

Quote:

You of all people should understand that facts can be pesky things. They're not always fair, convenient or politically correct. Occasionally, fiscal realities will clash with social ideals. People who choose to behave in an ignorant fashion reside on the bottom of my charity priority list. If you catch me pretending I consider overzealous PC nonsense more important than money, do let me know, for then you can show hypocrisy in my beliefs. In the mean time Cosby's right: If you want to be respected in business, it would behoove you to dress, act and yes, speak the part.

Bill it's not about "facts", not about "PC" and not about hiring blacks.

It's about pre vs. post.

Let each individual represent themselves. It's only fair.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
What I'm talking about doesn't affect your bottom line at all, just the point at which you make a decision (namely after having met the individual in question).
I meet everyone before deciding whether to hire them or not Craven.

Yes, but you said you "assume in advance" that blacks won't be qualified. To do so can become a self-fulfiling prophecy and is not right.

Quote:

Your desire to label me racist is causing you to post your inferences as if they were founded in fact. ("Namely" I've said nothing to support that supposition. :wink: )

Dude, I've no desire to call you racist. I think you hold racist positions just like all of us do and I think yours are important ones but I think you ahve a good heart (mean that) and I do not think you can be called a racist.

similarly, everyone lies, but not everyone qualifies for the meaning of liar (if it describes everything it describes nothing).

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
pre to post
I don't know what that means, sorry.

[/QUOTE]

Simple, don't "assume in advance". That is prejudice.

You keep bringing up the qualified part and the education, that's not the point of disagreement.

The point is that pre is not right and post costs you nothing.

0 Replies

I'll remember not to apply for any jobs w/i O'Bill's company

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You mean I should;

In the original post that Bill's eternally damned to hell for, he wrote:
When hiring sales people; I hire the most qualified applicants, but;

What is still troubling you? What would you have me do?
A. pretend statistical facts don't exist when hiring.
B. pretend statistical facts don't exist when talking about hiring?
C. pretend I don't care if I lose money?

Dammit Bill you are being way more dense about this that you really are.

Lemme spell it out real simple-like.

I'm not the one misquoting to establish a false premise to defend here Craven, you are.

Craven de Kere wrote:

I think you should hire the person most qualified for the job but do not "assume in advance" that black people will not be qualified. They are individuals, let them each stand on their own merit without pre-judging them.

That is precisely what I do. You can't change my words just because they don't say what you want them to in order to justify your false accusations. Let's look again.

In the original post that Bill's eternally damned to hell for, he wrote:

"When hiring sales people; I hire the most qualified applicants, but; I assume in advance that the black applicants are not likely to perform as well as their equally qualified white counterparts."

You will notice I'm not assuming anyone isn't qualified in advance and that I do indeed hire the most qualified applicants. You will also notice that your case crumbles when you stop misquoting me. And please, stop attributing additional meanings to my words as if they are fact. Onyxelle's comment should show you the affect you are having and why I feel compelled to defend myself against these unprovoked, out of place, off topic attacks. If you refer back to the topic that your quote came from; you will see that I clarified the nearest words to your false quote shortly after I said them.

Right after that eternally damnable quote I wrote:

"I've lent a considerable amount of money to employees, and no, race was never a factor. Stereotypes and generalizations become irrelevant when accessing individuals In my first post, I should have used the word prediction instead of assumption in relating to a new employees anticipated performance. I am not the one who uses the circular file mentioned. Does this clear anything up?"

Well, it did clear things up for that person, but obviously not well enough for you. I believe this is now the 4rth thread I've been attacked on with this same nonsense. Like I told the last attacker; at least try and get it out of your system, because I get sick of defending the same statements with the same arguments over and over again on thread after thread. Actually, I think the argument killed the last thread I was attacked on, so why don't we pick it up there instead of doing the same old thing here?

Craven de Kere wrote:

Note the "pre".

That's as simple as refusing to judge them prior to meeting them. If after an interview you can genuinely say someone is not qualified then cool, that's post. The problem is the prejudice, to pre-judge to "assume in advance".

This remains a figment of your imagination. Please support it with something accurate or retract your assumption.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
You of all people should understand that facts can be pesky things. They're not always fair, convenient or politically correct. Occasionally, fiscal realities will clash with social ideals. People who choose to behave in an ignorant fashion reside on the bottom of my charity priority list. If you catch me pretending I consider overzealous PC nonsense more important than money, do let me know, for then you can show hypocrisy in my beliefs. In the mean time Cosby's right: If you want to be respected in business, it would behoove you to dress, act and yes, speak the part.

Bill it's not about "facts", not about "PC" and not about hiring blacks.

It's about pre vs. post.

Let each individual represent themselves. It's only fair.

Repeating this false charge makes you appear to have a point but doesn't intellectual honesty require you to be able to fortify it? Since I do treat individuals as individuals (hell, I defy you to find someone who believes more strongly in the responsibility of the individual than I do), your assumption is completely false.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
What I'm talking about doesn't affect your bottom line at all, just the point at which you make a decision (namely after having met the individual in question).
I meet everyone before deciding whether to hire them or not Craven.

Yes, but you said you "assume in advance" that blacks won't be qualified. To do so can become a self-fulfiling prophecy and is not right.

NO Craven I never said that. You are still attributing a false assumption to me to make a false point.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
Your desire to label me racist is causing you to post your inferences as if they were founded in fact. ("Namely" I've said nothing to support that supposition. :wink: )

Dude, I've no desire to call you racist. I think you hold racist positions just like all of us do and I think yours are important ones but I think you ahve a good heart (mean that) and I do not think you can be called a racist.

similarly, everyone lies, but not everyone qualifies for the meaning of liar (if it describes everything it describes nothing).

Thank you. I'd be even more appreciative if the balance of your statements and unsupported suppositions weren't saying the exact opposite. Idea

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
pre to post
I don't know what that means, sorry.

Simple, don't "assume in advance". That is prejudice.

You have yet to provide an accurate example of me wronging someone in such a way. Knowing and admitting to knowing statistical facts is not evidence that I unfairly use them. Here; I'll give you another example so you can either understand, or sight it as further racism:

Example: When I was in school; I waited tables at a nice restaurant. I noticed that black people usually don't tip as well as white people. Statistically, I averaged 23.5 % overall but only about 13% from black people. Knowing these numbers in advance, I still delivered the very best service I could to every table. Would you have me:
a) pretend the observed data didn't exist
b) keep it to myself
c) or is the mere recognition proof of my racism?

Craven de Kere wrote:

You keep bringing up the qualified part and the education, that's not the point of disagreement.

The point is that pre is not right and post costs you nothing.

You still have provided no evidence of this baseless charge. Please do so with an accurate quote or stop chanting the nonsense altogether.

I think I asked you this on the last thread you did this on, but, what's motivating you here boss?

0 Replies

onyxelle wrote:

I'll remember not to apply for any jobs w/i O'Bill's company

I'm sorry you feel that way. I currently have no company to apply to anyway, but that's not the point. If you'd like a more accurate read on my company policies and procedures, I'll be happy to point out the threads where this was discussed at length. Craven's excerpts and interpretations of same are painting me in a much worse light than I deserve. I may be guilty insensitivity, but a racist I am not.

0 Replies

In the original post that Bill's eternally damned to hell for, he wrote:

"When hiring sales people; I hire the most qualified applicants, but; I assume in advance that the black applicants are not likely to perform as well as their equally qualified white counterparts."

Quote:

You will notice I'm not assuming anyone isn't qualified in advance

Right after that eternally damnable quote I wrote:

"I've lent a considerable amount of money to employees, and no, race was never a factor. Stereotypes and generalizations become irrelevant when accessing individuals In my first post, I should have used the word prediction instead of assumption in relating to a new employees anticipated performance. I am not the one who uses the circular file mentioned. Does this clear anything up?"

Quote:

Well, it did clear things up for that person, but obviously not well enough for you.

Whether you use the word "assume" or "predict", it is still something you believe before you go into it. You can't have it both ways Bill. Either you have a pre-concieved idea, and realize that it may affect your decisions, or you don't have a pre-concieved notion. You can't say that you assume that equally-qualified blacks won't perform as well, and then fail to acknowledge that this assumption might color your decisions, which is a little bit racist. That, it seems to me, is what Craven is trying to explain to you.

He's probably done it a lot clearer than me though, so if you don't see it from his posts, I'm sure you will disagree with me too. I just thought I'd give it a shot.

And yes, you are damned to hell for all eternity. Enjoy the lake of fire. Smile

0 Replies

I suggest that everyone here watch the movie, Something the Lord Made. It's based on a true story and Alan Rickman does a superb job. For the day and the time, this was what objectivity was all about, and it doesn't paint Rickman as a hero, either.

I taught a young girl named Lynette, who was a group reject, not because she was a light-skinned negro, but because she was "different" in the respect that she was born out of wedlock and because she stuttered.She adopted me as her surrogate mother and called me Mia, because that was the term for mother on Vulcan. I took her under my wing because I saw her brilliance, and for no other reason than that.

She became a respiratory therapist, and I have never heard a word about her since.

I haven't detected any racism in wild Bill, but then, I wasn't looking for it.

0 Replies

OB and Craven
I suspect Craven won't like my suggestion, but it would be helpful if Occom Bill and Craven continued their pissing match via private messages so the rest of us could get back to Cosby's remarks and whether or not they have value.

Please! BBB Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Whether you use the word "assume" or "predict", it is still something you believe before you go into it. You can't have it both ways Bill.

Nor have I tried to, Kicky. Like Craven, you seem to have a hang-up about truthful observations that involve race in general. I don't. Watch:
Example: When I went to the University of Wisconsin, Asian's appeared to be more studious than whites or blacks. I say this because I observed a disproportionate number of Asians in the library and computer rooms.

This statement requires race to be considered, but is it a racist statement? I think not.
Now there were those who no doubt pretended not to notice this phenomenon for fear of appearing un-PC and I say they are silly.

Try this:

Example: The average black man can run faster and jump higher than the average white man. True or false? Don't answer! It will show that you took race into consideration. Silly isn't it? Does this assumption take race into consideration? Yes. Is it accurate? Yes.

Now if I had a job that required a lot of running and jumping; I'd probably assume in advance that the white applicants were not likely to perform as well as their equally qualified black counterparts. Why? Because I'm not an idiot (observed data demands recognition). Does that mean that I would simply hire all the black guys and not the white? NO! Why? Because I'm not an idiot and I know that "stereotypes become meaningless when accessing individuals".

Letty wrote:

I haven't detected any racism in wild Bill, but then, I wasn't looking for it.

Bingo!

0 Replies

Bill Cosby...stirring it up!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know