Bill Cosby...stirring it up!

Sorry BBB, I suggested the same thing above, but feel compelled to defend my good name against the forces of evil (overzealous PC nonsense) wherever and whenever it rears its ugly head! :wink: Laughing

0 Replies

BBB, don't think Craven has much time for PMing, but we haven't strayed from Cosby's admonition. The entire thing is just looking at what he said then and what he's saying now. Perhaps it's change--perhaps it's flip flop--perhaps it's "show people", but mostly, this thread simply gives all of us here a chance to examine our motives and decide who WE are and where WE fit.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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".

Methinks Bill doth protest too much.

It's not that I have a hang up with truthful observations about race. My argument with you is about your belief that your thoughts have no effect on your actions.

What you are saying amounts to completely divorcing your thoughts from your actions. You can't do that. It's impossible. Of course, intellectually, you can think that you are, and you might not even think about it consciously, but that thought is a part of your ideas about people, and it DOES color what you do, to some degree. Just like everybody else.

I am NOT saying you are a racist. I'm saying that your pre-concieved notions about black people, however they have been acquired, have an effect on how you deal with them. I know from seeing you around a2k that you are not an ignorant person, but you seem to be worried that people here are assuming you are in line with the KKK or something. There are degrees, Bill. And to some degree, your past observations have an affect on your actions. That's all I'm saying.

So there!

0 Replies

Elmtree wrote:

Exactly. Some effectiveness is inevitably lost when you preach about the stupidity of $500 sneakers while at the same time donning a $2000 tux...

Does he not see his own affluence as pertinent (or contradictory) to his conclusions?

Dr. Cosby is a multi-millionaire. Thus, wearing a $2000 tux isn't really such a big deal. Razz

0 Replies

Dr. Cosby and reality? I suspect he knows the "reality" of what it's been like, to be a black man in America. He's lived it his whole life. Much has changed and brother, much hasn't.

0 Replies

Letty wrote:

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

He called Mr. Bojangles Shirley Temple's pet.[/[/b]quote

Bojangles Robinson was probably the greatest of the great, tap dancer of all time. Is Bill jealous, he can't tap?

0 Replies

<smile>Miller, the film that we showed in Humanities Class, was definitely racist. Both my colleague and I were shocked. We should have both previewed the film first. The particular unit that we were studying, was called Social Conscience. Even the black kids in our two hour block course were surprised; however, it did lead to a truly good discussion about the nature of racism. I prefer Frederick Douglas' wonderful thesis on What the Black Man Wants. He absolutely had it pegged for that day and time. The general tenor of his message was: "What does the black man want? He wants nothing except to be left alone. If you see him on his way to school, leave him alone. If you see him stumble and fall, leave him alone. Had America followed his advice, politicians would not have had the opportunity to exploit the black man and his newly discovered freedom.

Shut up, Letty. The thunder storms are threatening and advancing, so get off this damn computer.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Methinks Bill doth protest too much.

You weren't attacked for the fourth time on the fourth thread for the same thing you've answered for three times in the past. Methinks Bill doesn't care if you think he protests too much. Idea

kickycan wrote:

It's not that I have a hang up with truthful observations about race. My argument with you is about your belief that your thoughts have no effect on your actions.

Then your argument is with yourself, because I never said any such thing. Laughing

The balance of your latest post is an extrapolated version of this false inference. You state the obvious and then tell me I disagree without providing any basis for your contention that I disagree. Would you now like me to defend positions that I don't hold? Rolling Eyes

If you are trying to emulate Craven, you are failing miserably. :wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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

I did not misquote you. I supplied a verbatim quote in its entirety. I did make a mistake on "qualified" vs "perform as well" but that is wholly immaterial to my position.

Quote:

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

This is immaterial, you assume in advance that blacks are not as good for whatever reasons.

Quote:

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.

Bill this is no attack, you are simply embarassed by your words, words that I did not misconstrue.

Quote:

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?

No. You tried to liken your position to Cosby's here. Your position is nothing like Cosby's.

You asserted a double standard and I explained that at least to some people, the two positions are very different.

Quote:

Quote:
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.

Figment of my imagination my ass:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I assume in advance that the black applicants are not likely to perform as well as their equally qualified white counterparts.

Here is a link: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=473836#473836

Quote:

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.

I disagree. <shrugs>

It's a perfectly valid charge.

Quote:

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

Bill, whine about getting the insignificant part wrong it you want the relevant part is that you assume in advance that blacks are not as good as whites for the positions you spoke of.

Again, the verbatim quote, this should dispell any nonsense about "false" points:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I assume in advance that the black applicants are not likely to perform as well as their equally qualified white counterparts.

Here is a link: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=473836#473836

Quote:

You have yet to provide an accurate example of me wronging someone in such a way.

No kidding, I have no evidence that you have wronged anyone in this way and have never said or implied as much. In my opinion you read more into my qualm than exists.

Quote:

Knowing and admitting to knowing statistical facts is not evidence that I unfairly use them.

No, but saying that you do use them is, and my caution was against their use in assumption, that is all.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I assume in advance that the black applicants are not likely to perform as well as their equally qualified white counterparts.

That is a statement of what you do, not what you know. The assumption is critical.

Quote:

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?

"Recognition of statistics" is not racism Bill. What conclusions and actions you draw from it is.

If you decided to think that blacks tip less than whites because of a genetic difference it would probably be racism, as it may be something so simple as a difference in wealth.

"Recognition" of differences means different things to different people. I have no problem with "recognition" I have a problem with "assume in advance".

In this example you clearly did not do so:

Quote:

I still delivered the very best service I could to every table.

If you had "assumed in advance that the blacks would not tip well" then perhaps it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Quote:

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.

No, Bill, I have. But you complained about a meaningless mistake (assume not qualified versus assume not perform as well, either way it's an assumption of a negative).

Quote:

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

I'm a big fan of truth. I do not think it was an accurate comparison to compare your words to Cosby. Nothing motivates me beyond that.

As I have said, I do not think your position makes you a racist. I think you have a good heart and the fact that this is uncomfortable for you is just more proof of that.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Kicky. Like Craven, you seem to have a hang-up about truthful observations that involve race in general.

No Bill. I have no problem with "truthful observations".

We aren't talking about "truthful observations" but "assuming in advance" something negative about a person merely on the basis of race.

This is a difference Bill, and I brought this up again because you continue to act like the problem people have with your position is mere recognition of "truth".

That's a load of bull Bill. I very clearly referenced the problem I have with your position. Kicky understood it well.

It has f--k all to do with "recognition of truth" Bill.

It has to do with assuming something negative about a person in advance merely on the basis of their race.

Let's examine your statements:

Quote:

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.

What's the big deal? Wanna get more specific? Then narrow it down to Asian women.

Now if this mere statistical trend makes you derive certain conclusions I might have a problem but this observation doesn't.

Quote:

Example: The average black man can run faster and jump higher than the average white man. True or false?

True. There are well documented physiological reasons for this.

Quote:

Don't answer!

Why? Because if we do it doesn't fit well into your attempt to write off our objections as inordinate racial sensitivity?

I've no problem with what you said there at all. But I will below and if you really do want to understand my objection instead of defend against it (something I do not think you have to be defensive about) then pay attention to where I start to have a problem.

Quote:

It will show that you took race into consideration. Silly isn't it?

Not at all. Who says we are not ever supposed to take race into consideration?

I sure didn't.

Quote:

Does this assumption take race into consideration? Yes. Is it accurate? Yes.

So?

Quote:

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.

Well, I have a problem with this. They are eminently quantifiable qualities and your assumption is not necessary. You can determine this for yourself without reliance on the stereotype.

Now, if you could not do so, then perhaps the reliance on the stereotype is sound but there's no reason within this example not to.

Now with running or jumping your assumption is probably not going to color results. But with more subjective evaluation it might, and in those situations I caution against it.

Quote:

Why? Because I'm not an idiot (observed data demands recognition).

Again Bill you try to characterize the objection as being about "recognition". It's not.

Quote:

[/b] 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".

****, now you are on the other extreme and I'll be arguing for stereotypes.

Stereotypes are not meaningless when accessing individuals.

Now I'm sorry to be so picky but this is a nuance of logic.

Generalizations have their flaws. I have spent a good deal of this conversation arguing that the assumption in advance can be a dangerous generalization.

But despite the bad rap, generalizations are not allways bad and are often simple truths (for practical purposes).

Watch:

All human beings will eventually die.

Bill, like I said, I don't think you should be defensive about this. I do not think your position is as bad as you think I do.

Ony might have the wrong impression but that is because she is not as familiar with the whole of your position that I am. Because we are discussing the differences and objections we have the conversation is understandably about the elements on which we disagree (as opposed to the majority of our positions that we are on the same page about).

I'm not on a crusade to label you a racist. I have repeatedly said I do not think you are.

We all hold prejudices and I have asserted what I believe to be one you hold. If you spent less time defending against it and trying to make it an issue of PC it would be a very short exchange.

Anywho, if I were black, I'd not avoid applying for a job with you because of race. I'd avoid it because you are a cheese head.

0 Replies

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

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

Your suspicions are correct. If you do not wish to read our exchange neither of us will force you to.

This exchange is directly related to Bill Cosby's word's "stirring it up".

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Methinks Bill doth protest too much.
You weren't attacked for the fourth time on the fourth thread for the same thing you've answered for three times in the past. Methinks Bill doesn't care if you think he protests too much.

kickycan wrote:
It's not that I have a hang up with truthful observations about race. My argument with you is about your belief that your thoughts have no effect on your actions.
Then your argument is with yourself, because I never said any such thing.

The balance of your latest post is an extrapolated version of this false inference. You state the obvious and then tell me I disagree without providing any basis for your contention that I disagree. Would you now like me to defend positions that I don't hold?

If you are trying to emulate Craven, you are failing miserably. :wink:

You just don't get what I'm saying at all. And by the way, I'm not trying to emulate craven. I'm only trying to argue with a stubborn mule.

I give up Bill. Yes, you are the first person in the history of the world who can completely divorce their thoughts from their actions. I know you didn't say that in those exact words, but that is what your idiotic statements amount to. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I did not misquote you. I supplied a verbatim quote in its entirety. I did make a mistake on "qualified" vs "perform as well" but that is wholly immaterial to my position.

It is wholly immaterial to your position, because your position is slandering me... and anything negative that came from PRE will suffice. It is very much "material" to my position because as I've maintained from the get-go, observed data is where my PRE comes from. You don't recognize the difference because you are looking for fault, and anything negative provides the fault you seek. Now stop fault seeking for a minute, and listen.

A person with 2-years experience and working knowledge of widgets is "qualified" to sell them. However, in sales "performance" is measured in tiny degrees (after qualification has resulted in hiring). It cannot be accurately predicted by examining "qualifications"... an educated guess is all you have at hiring time. Typically, I spent several thousand dollars on an employee between the time that I learn they are qualified (and were therefore hired) and the time I learn if their performance is going to be adequate. Now, if you go through a process like this 50-150 times a year, and it costs you thousands each time you do it, do you think that's immaterial? Do you honestly think you could avoid learning which traits translate to lower sales?... or ignore this knowledge if it happened to occur in larger numbers with a particular group? BS. If you think you would not notice or not pay heed to this finding; you are a fool or a liar or both.

Most of my sales positions were "inside sales", meaning telephone work. Which means how you come across on a telephone is paramount to success or failure. If you sound like a gang-banger or an illiterate, you would likely not do well. If you sound intelligent and have a reasonable grasp of the English language, your chances of success are better. There are dozens of attributes that matter, but that one is the one that relates to this topic (and loosely to the one you quoted from). I've managed 100's of sales people and can tell you that on hiring day it is still a crapshoot. There is no magic formula for figuring out who will perform well and who won't in advance. So, when you see a particular criterion, be it positive or negative, that just happens to be an attribute shared by a large group of people it's pretty tough not to notice. I maintain that discriminating based on ability to speak English is not the same as discriminating based on race. Hence, it doesn't constitute racism. Hence, your charge is false. Your insistence that this is unrelated to the topic confuses me. How could it not be? Cosby specifically mentioned poor speech making it difficult to find work and I concurred. The reason I concurred is the reason for the line you like to quote so much:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I assume in advance that the black applicants are not likely to perform as well as their equally qualified white counterparts.

I could provide reams of data to suggest that this assumption proves spot on. My ACT software tracked virtually every conceivable number for the purpose of constantly improving the numbers. "Sales" of all kinds boils down to a numbers game. It also makes my point in spades. The problem with your argument, accusation really, is that this same data also suggests that White people who talk like bangers are usually underperformers as well. Since I apply the same lesson in determining their potential; how can you not recognize this as a speech issue?

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
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?

"Recognition of statistics" is not racism Bill. What conclusions and actions you draw from it is.

If you decided to think that blacks tip less than whites because of a genetic difference it would probably be racism, as it may be something so simple as a difference in wealth.

Where do you see a parallel to this in any of my statements? (A genetic difference? That's a good example of one of your oh-so-clever ways of strengthening your argument by introducing BS that is nothing like anything I've ever said. It worked on Kicky though, congrats. Kicky probably hasn't read several pages of this debate before, so some of these explanations are going to be new to him. You have, and for whatever reason are behaving like you haven't.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
I still delivered the very best service I could to every table.

If you had "assumed in advance that the blacks would not tip well" then perhaps it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Standard PC minded nonsense. I did assume in advance that the blacks would not tip well, and did not allow this very accurate assumption to alter my performance. FACT: In 2 years time only one black customer ever tipped me equal to my overall average (which was lofty, I'll grant you :wink: ). This isn't a racist opinion... it is a statement of fact.

Just like in sales, the observed data provided me with an accurate assumption of probability. Just like in school, observed data told me on average Asians were going to get better grades.

I have never maintained a double standard for hiring. You will be able to provide no quote that says otherwise. Your amazing ability to debate has served you well, but it cannot change the facts. My assumptions or predictions or whatever you'd like to call them are simply honest revelations. Your insistence to the contrary is no pursuit of truth, for the truth lies right in front of you.

I can't believe there is still more to respond to, and I've deleted a lot.

Craven de Kere wrote:

This is a difference Bill, and I brought this up again because you continue to act like the problem people have with your position is mere recognition of "truth".

Craven, before you brought it up, again, no one but you was having a problem with it and you are still wrong. Razz

Craven de Kere wrote:

That's a load of bull Bill. I very clearly referenced the problem I have with your position. Kicky understood it well.

No, Kicky understood your position not to be confused with my position because they are largely unrelated. Like you, he assumed an action of some kind consistent with racism when no such action exists.

Craven de Kere wrote:

It has f--k all to do with "recognition of truth" Bill.

It is entirely about "recognition of truth".

Craven de Kere wrote:

It has to do with assuming something negative about a person in advance merely on the basis of their race.

No, it is assuming a higher probability of something negative about a group because of observed data. Said assumption has proven accurate time and time again.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Let's examine your statements:

Quote:
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.

What's the big deal? Wanna get more specific? Then narrow it down to Asian women.

Now if this mere statistical trend makes you derive certain conclusions I might have a problem but this observation doesn't.

It does. I assume these kids got better grades on average and I'd bet 2 to 1 I'd be right. The reason you don't have a problem is because it's not a negative assumption.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
Example: The average black man can run faster and jump higher than the average white man. True or false?

True. There are well documented physiological reasons for this.

Quote:
Don't answer!

Why? Because if we do it doesn't fit well into your attempt to write off our objections as inordinate racial sensitivity?

Quote:
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.

Well, I have a problem with this. They are eminently quantifiable qualities and your assumption is not necessary. You can determine this for yourself without reliance on the stereotype.

Now, if you could not do so, then perhaps the reliance on the stereotype is sound but there's no reason within this example not to.

LOL Craven, unless you can tell me how to quantify the qualities that make a high performing salesman (we'll be very rich!), you have just contradicted your entire complaint.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Anywho, if I were black, I'd not avoid applying for a job with you because of race. I'd avoid it because you are a cheese head.

I suppose you'd have to on principal you see, I'm assuming that that a few of the black players on the team are going to elevate their level of play this year to the point that they become unstoppable!

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

You just don't get what I'm saying at all. And by the way, I'm not trying to emulate craven. I'm only trying to argue with a stubborn mule.

How about that, I'm guilty and innocent at the same time. Laughing

kickycan wrote:

I give up Bill. Yes, you are the first person in the history of the world who can completely divorce their thoughts from their actions.

I would have to disagree... and wonder where you came up with this fantasy in the first place. Rolling Eyes

kickycan wrote:

I know you didn't say that in those exact words, but that is what your idiotic statements amount to.

Sez you.
(touches thumb to nose wiggles fingers vigorously)

0 Replies

Are you guys having fun yet? <shakes head>

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I did not misquote you. I supplied a verbatim quote in its entirety. I did make a mistake on "qualified" vs "perform as well" but that is wholly immaterial to my position.

It is wholly immaterial to your position, because your position is slandering me... and anything negative that came from PRE will suffice.

This is untrue Bill. I have no desire to "slander" you.

Let's make this clear:

I have a qualm with a specific position, this is not related to whether or not you hold this position. I'm starting to believe that even though you stated this position you do not really hold it and feel compelled to defend it for some godforsaken reason.

My qualm is: "assuming in advance" something negative about an individual merely on the basis of their race.

Do you hold this position or not?

Quote:

It is very much "material" to my position because as I've maintained from the get-go, observed data is where my PRE comes from.

"Observed data" about a race with prejudice toward future individuals from that race.

Quote:

You don't recognize the difference because you are looking for fault, and anything negative provides the fault you seek. Now stop fault seeking for a minute, and listen.

I am not looking for faults Bill. And I have been listening.

Quote:

Do you honestly think you could avoid learning which traits translate to lower sales?... or ignore this knowledge if it happened to occur in larger numbers with a particular group? BS. If you think you would not notice or not pay heed to this finding; you are a fool or a liar or both.

Again Bill let's not get distracted.

I have never faulted your accessment on which traits will translate into more success.

I have faulted your "assuming in advance" that individuals will have negative traits merely on the basis of race.

Get it?

Quote:

If you sound like a gang-banger or an illiterate, you would likely not do well.

Indeed, and if you sound like an illiterate hick too.

But again, Bill, I have never faulted your accessment on which traits will translate into more success.

I have faulted your "assuming in advance" that individuals will have negative traits merely on the basis of race.

Quote:

If you sound intelligent and have a reasonable grasp of the English language, your chances of success are better.

Great, so in an interview you can determine these characteristics without needing to assume lacking ability in advance merely on the basis of race.

Correct?

Quote:

I've managed 100's of sales people and can tell you that on hiring day it is still a crapshoot. There is no magic formula for figuring out who will perform well and who won't in advance. So, when you see a particular criterion, be it positive or negative, that just happens to be an attribute shared by a large group of people it's pretty tough not to notice.

Are you trying to say you lack the ability to determine whether someone is illiterate or sounds "like a gang-banger" and that you need to use assumptions based on race?

Look, a functional grasp of English either is or is not a criteria. It's also not something you need to make racially based assumptions about this can be discerned through a very brief conversation.

Quote:

I maintain that discriminating based on ability to speak English is not the same as discriminating based on race.

I agree, but you yourself said you use race as a discriminating factor so which is it? < sincere question

OCCOM BILL 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.

You seem to be denying the race-based criteria but this is a contradiction of the position we are discussing. Read your own damn words Bill!

OCCOM BILL, in the post we are discussing wrote:

Racially biased? Definitely

OCCOM BILL, in the post we are discussing wrote:

So, people with African ancestors have a bit of a dissadvantage when looking for work... So what.

Don't act like I came up with the race factor, it is something you were very explicit about.

Quote:

Hence, it doesn't constitute racism.

Then why did you say that it was "racially biased"?

Quote:

Hence, your charge is false.

Is it Bill? Was it false when you called it "racist beliefs" or just when I did?

I'm starting to get sick of you painting this as me making a racial issue out of what was not one.

The post we are discussing was on a thread about race and in which you reference your "racist beliefs" and "racially biased" practices of some within the marketplace.

So don't act like I am spinning a race issue out of this. It started as a race issue.

Quote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I assume in advance that the black applicants are not likely to perform as well as their equally qualified white counterparts.
I could provide reams of data to suggest that this assumption proves spot on.

Whether or not the assumption is "spot on" if you use it to pre-judge individuals merely on the basis of their race it is racial prejudice.

And I refer you again to the post in which you seem to agree:

OCCOM BILL, in the post we are discussing wrote:

Racially biased? Definitely

Quote:

Since I apply the same lesson in determining their potential; how can you not recognize this as a speech issue?

I recognize a speech issue. And I refer again to something I tire of repeating:

I have never faulted your accessment on which traits will translate into more success.

I have faulted your "assuming in advance" that individuals will have those negative traits merely on the basis of race.

Quote:

Where do you see a parallel to this in any of my statements? (A genetic difference? That's a good example of one of your oh-so-clever ways of strengthening your argument by introducing BS that is nothing like anything I've ever said.

Bill I said nothing of you and genetics it was an example of what I would consider a flawed and racist conclusion based on a statistical trend.

I intentionally used an example that you are unlikely to agree with to illustrate the deficiencies of the types of conclusions I spoke of.

Hint: not all examples are about you.

Quote:

It worked on Kicky though, congrats. Kicky probably hasn't read several pages of this debate before, so some of these explanations are going to be new to him. You have, and for whatever reason are behaving like you haven't.

Bill, you may just want to consider that kicky simply disagrees with you and retains the ability to make up his own mind on this.

While I can see myself growing fond of the implication that I could have such power of pursuasion over Kicky I am unconvinced that this has been the case.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
I still delivered the very best service I could to every table.

If you had "assumed in advance that the blacks would not tip well" then perhaps it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Standard PC minded nonsense. I did assume in advance that the blacks would not tip well, and did not allow this very accurate assumption to alter my performance.

I said "perhaps it would", if it didn't Bill, that does not make my statement "wrong, wrong, wrong. Standard PC minded nonsense."

Quote:

FACT: In 2 years time only one black customer ever tipped me equal to my overall average (which was lofty, I'll grant you :wink: ). This isn't a racist opinion... it is a statement of fact.

FACT: I never claimed it was a racist opinion. In fact I did the opposite:

Craven de Kere wrote:

"Recognition of statistics" is not racism Bill.

Quote:

Just like in sales, the observed data provided me with an accurate assumption of probability. Just like in school, observed data told me on average Asians were going to get better grades.

Craven de Kere wrote:

"Recognition of statistics" is not racism Bill.

Quote:

I have never maintained a double standard for hiring.

I sincerely believe you Bill. I think that you have a good heart and that you fight your own prejudices like we all must.

I just wish you'd stop caring about being considered racist (again, and for what must be the 5th time, I do not consider you this way) for enough time to recognize the difference between the recognition of stats and pre-judging individuals on this basis.

Maybe it would help if I spoke of some of the racist or prejudiced positions I have had to divest myself of.

I grew up being taught that blacks were cursed. I grew up being taught that homosexuals were sinners.

I grew up being taught to be an anti-semite. But this didn't stick. I always thought it was stupid.

I grew up being taught to hate America (Babylon the whore).

I grew up being taught to hate a lot of things that I have had to divest myself of.

When I was kicked out and came to America away from my family to study I fell in love with America and Americans.

In fact, when I no longer had a place to live as a 13 year old and was going to be sent away from America I put all my things in a bag and was going to live in a barn near my school. Friends took me in but I was eventually forced back to my parents.

I told them to **** off and that I'd find my way back to America to go to school in America. It was rough stuff but I grew out of my prejudices about America right quick.

I lost my prejudices about blacks pretty quickly too. It only took meeting a few.

I was poor because I had to support myself and in America I was not allowed to work so I spent a lot of time in parks and libraries.

Fortunately lots of times they were adjacent and I played a lot of basketball and made a lot of black friends. Most of my friends were black and we all had to overcome our racism (they were racist towards me too).

I grew out of my racism. This does not mean I never found fault with elements of black culture.

While on the streets I did fall into ganster culture, but after losing friends I shunned it.

I have no respect for "gang-bangers" talk and ignorance Bill. But I recognize (as do you to an extent) that this was not inherent to the race at all.

If you go elsewhere you will see that blacks in other countries are different. This is circumstantial culture issues and not race issues.

The correct prejudice would be against the behavior and not the race.

We are on the same page on this Bill, just to different degrees. I maintain that you should assume on the basis on the behavior that you justifiably access as a negative and not assume on the basis of race.

Anywho, more on how predjudiced I used to be on some things:

My homophobic prejudices about gays took longer to shed. School was a very homophobic culture and I met no gays until I had to find a new place to live and worked and lived with a lady who had arthiritis.

At that point I was virulently prejudiced. I clearly remember arguing that gays should be sent to an island to die off and that if they wanted things in their asses I recommended a shotgun.

Ugly, very ugly.

The lady's brother was gay and he came to live with us. We slept in the same quarters and I must have clenched for the first few nights.

On my brithday they all gave me hugs and I hesitated when it came to him.

But eventually this too was something I overcame.

Now at the risk of sounding very patronizing my point is that this isn't "Bill bashing" to me. I have held far more despicable positions than the positions we are talking about now Bill. I still like me. And I still like you.

I see this issue as a pretty minor one, that is exacerbated by your vehemence in not coming across as racist.

God dammit Bill you are not a racist! If you were you would not care about this perception.

So please, we all have prejudices and we all must fight them. This (having a racial prejudice) is something you acknowleged yourself.

It comes across as bashing or a witch hunt only because of your defensiveness and my obdurate love of expansive discussion.

I have no desire to bash you and I will try to make this my last post on this subject because it is fruitless. I was discussing a position you espoused (that I am starting to think you no longer hold but for some god damn reason feel obligated to defend) and not a characterization of you. The discussion has long outlasted it's edification for either of us.

0 Replies

The best way to rate applicants are 1) background and experience, 2) blind verbals (similar to musical instrument playing behind a curtain), and 3) group interviewing where 'all' races are represented.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The discussion has long outlasted it's edification for either of us.

Yes and no. I'm weary of the argument too, but found reading more about your personal history fascinating. Perhaps you'll get a better feel for where I'm coming from by reading a little of my own.

The only true prejudice (unacceptable one that is) I've ever held coincides with one of yours and I'm sorry to report it wasn't against blacks. We had hardly any black people in rural Wisconsin certainly not enough to develop a hate for. The handful of black kids I went to school with behaved no differently than anyone else, so I didn't know anyone hated them or viewed them differently until much later. I didn't leave that general area until I was 25 years old; long after I had evolved into the fight the good fight type that you're talking to now. Any prejudices I have against black people are very behavior-specific, since I grew up with none.

The only people my parents ever told me to hate were people who tried to hurt girls (you may have noticed it worked :wink: ). In fact, the only time I was allowed to start a fight was if I saw a boy "trying to hurt a little girl then you hit him with everything you got, Billy Words to live by, really.

But it was a case of homophobia that equated to my only true prejudice. Couldn't understand them for the life of me, not that I can now, but for some reason I felt like I had to be intense about it. Then one day working at the restaurant I mentioned earlier, a queer who I despised for hitting on me in the break room the day before was promoted to food and beverage director (my new boss). Within 2 days he proved to be 20 times the man the incompetent moron he replaced was, and my respect for his skill made my prejudice evaporate. Our mutual respect grew into friendship. He never did stop hitting on me; it just stopped bothering me. Now I'm a little disappointed if gay men don't find me attractive. I still don't understand what kind of genetic disaster (kidding) takes place in a man to make him gay (I wouldn't like men if I were a woman), but don't judge them for it. Frankly, I couldn't care less. I still like to poke fun at my gay friends and live to imply that homophobes are gay. I love gay jokes. What could be more fun than accusing your buddy of being gay? Well, that's probably more babbling about that then was necessary so back to the point.

Your skills are unmatched. I don't even agree with you and I find myself laughing at me and as ready as I am to leave well enough alone, I just can't let you slide on some of that slander. (Relax Craven, I'm not offended at all. It is a life long habit to go overboard defending myself.)

Here's a couple final points that I just can't let you get away with. :wink:

Craven de Kere wrote:

Indeed, and if you sound like an illiterate hick too

Actually, no. Hicks are perceived as honest, which is monstrous-good in sales. Give me a talented salesman that can play hick and I'll show you a top performer. I've even seen hicks who were truly one step above illiteracy perform pretty well in big ticket sales. <shrugs>

If you really think you can tell who a salesman is going to be 30 days after an interview, consistently, go ahead and try it. During an interview people are on their best behavior. 3,000 sales calls later, they are frequently a different person altogether. Believe it. And keep in mind each time you guess wrong it costs thousands. Idea

Out of the goodness of my heart, I'm going to go ahead and assume you didn't notice that this little quote is taken completely out of context and in fact was used to describe someone other than myself that I agree wholeheartedly was overtly racist.

OCCOM BILL, in the post we are discussing wrote:

Racially biased? Definitely

You used it repeatedly and effectively, but FALSELY. Slanderer! Pretty much the same thing with this quote. This one had nothing to do with my alleged racism either

OCCOM BILL, in the post we are discussing wrote:

So, people with African ancestors have a bit of a disadvantage when looking for work... So what.

More slander, slanderer. Shocked

I'll go ahead and right it off to boredom that you'd do something so intellectually lazy. Rolling Eyes

Craven de Kere wrote:

So don't act like I am spinning a race issue out of this. It started as a race issue.

No, it started as a segment of a race not speaking proper English, and a member of said race complaining about it. When I concurred, you chose to reference the race thread, and have since been trying adamantly to get me to admit to holding some racist views. I have never denied exercising certain prejudices where I deem appropriate. However, the term racist I find terribly offensive and it is not a charge I'll be pleading guilty to, regardless of the preponderance of the slander. :wink: My open, honest admission on the post you continually reference is as bad as it gets, and no worse. And even in that I feel justified. Noah The African even appreciated the honesty of the post for crying out loud... Why a couple of you white boys got bent out of shape I'll never know.

Craven de Kere wrote:

My qualm is: "assuming in advance" something negative about an individual merely on the basis of their race.

Almost. Give me 10 individuals, from here in Palm Beach and I will assume in advancebla, bla, bla.
Race though? No. Absolutely not! Are you ready for the kicker? Proof? Undeniable proof? Are you sure you're ready? A British Accent would automatically erase any preconceived predictions about performance I had, because I have insufficient data. That being the case, it cannot be a race thing True or False? Cool

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The best way to rate applicants are 1) background and experience, 2) blind verbals (similar to musical instrument playing behind a curtain), and 3) group interviewing where 'all' races are represented.

I agree with one and two. I usually have my mind made up after a telephone call, especially on an inside sales position. I collect number one, but usually don't follow up on it unless there is cause. Number 3 I don't do with sales people at all. I've seen lone-nuts that could sell you a glass of water over a phone break down when trying to speak publicly.

0 Replies

An emotionally healthy heterosexual man should take being hit on by a gay man as a complement. Of course, it is necessary to politely let them know that you're not that way while letting them also know you were flattered. A gay man who hit on by another gay man and is not attracted to that person can be very impolite in the response and I've seen it as a physical rebuke if the perpetrator gets carried away with sexually physical approaches.

As far as Bill Cosby's discourse I think he sincerely believes in it despite his station in life and has, like all of us, the right to express his views. To say he doesn't can bring up other prejudices like those towards liberals with money.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I still don't understand what kind of genetic disaster (kidding) takes place in a man to make him gay (I wouldn't like men if I were a woman), but don't judge them for it.

LOL, I always tell women they have bad taste cause mins are ugly.

Quote:

Frankly, I couldn't care less. I still like to poke fun at my gay friends and live to imply that homophobes are gay. I love gay jokes. What could be more fun than accusing your buddy of being gay? Well, that's probably more babbling about that then was necessary so back to the point.

Actually that's interesting. I agree, gay jokes are fun. Hellifino why but they are a staple of cheap comedy because they are an easy cheap laugh.

Maybe it's because of the absurdity of homophobia.

Quote:

Here's a couple final points that I just can't let you get away with. :wink:

I really don't want to argue this, but I will ask a couple of questions because there's an interesting reversal here.

Quote:

Out of the goodness of my heart, I'm going to go ahead and assume you didn't notice that this little quote is taken completely out of context and in fact was used to describe someone other than myself that I agree wholeheartedly was overtly racist.

Actually I did notice, and I said as much by attributing that comment to your statements about other hiring practices.

Thing is, the practices you mention are, if I recall correctly, an element of what you spoke of.

You said that illiterate gang-banger types would not do well, and neither someone with an enthnic sounding name.

Then you called the other practice of sending ethnic names to the recycle bin both racially biased and economically sound.

Personally, I think that it's in line with what you have been saying but the reversal of the positions is interesting.

Why is that sales manager's practices "racially biased"? Is it not mere recognition of what is "economically sound"?

Quote:

Noah The African even appreciated the honesty of the post for crying out loud...

This I must comment on, I'm skipping a bunch because I do not want to get bogged down by this again but:

Noah needed to believe that whites were racist for reasons I will not speculate about. Of course he appreciated it as it was, to him, vindication and affirmation of his societal views.

0 Replies

Bill Cosby...stirring it up!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know