Invisapeeps 2.0

By the way, many little people now consider "midget" derogatory. Just an FYI.

I do agree with most of your post and overall point, DQM.

dqm either wrote:

---

That doesn't make any sense.

Because if having a ghetto name is more likely to get you into college that's incentive to give your kid a ghetto name. (1)
-----------------------------------------------

And in the scenario with the midgets... Let's not assume that they are taking drugs to insure that their child is a midget but instead let's assume that there is a drug that they can take to insure that their child is NOT a midget. Yet they refuse to take it because they don't see anything wrong with being a midget. They're actually happy with their lives as midgets and if their child is or isn't born a midget they'll be happy with whichever they get.

Sure enough their child is born a midget and they're happy with the child they get even though it will go through some hardships in life that they could have prevented by taking the drug. (2)

ghetto name = drawfism in this analogy

The drug = non ghetto name

The Littles not taking the drug is the same as the Blacks not choosing a classic name. You say the Littles don't deserve contempt because they're just doing the same thing that everyone else is doing. But what about the fact that Mr. Little Sr. gets to name his son Jack Lillte Jr.

Shouldn't Mr. Black get to name his son Jaquan Black Jr.? If not why not? If doing the same thing that other people are doing is the base line we're drawing then why is it ok for Jack to pass along his name to his son but it's not ok for Jaquan to pass his name to his son?

And I'm sure that someone can argue that no one should have ever named their son Jaquan in the first place because it was a hinderance to the first guy and he should quit passing it on.

But the samething could be said about Drawfism. You get it from your parents and they shouldn't pass it along to you because it's wrong.

Eh, I disagree.

I don't see anything wrong with having a ghetto name and I don't see any thing wrong with having midget kids if that's what you want. (3)

It sounds like you're saying that these parents deserve the same contempt as someone who plants bombs at sporting events and ram airplanes into buildings? (4)

---

1. It most certainly is incentive to claim minority status if possible. Which is exactly what Elizabeth "Fauxahantas" Warren did.

2. I could still respect that, but I'm against interfering with genes in general. I'm not sure that's a good analogy.

3. They're creating an obstacle out of nothing. Not passing along a family gene isn't the same thing.

4. Yeah, I totally said that.

Anyway, what happened to your middle, allegedly ghetto name? You shortened it to an initial and went with that. That's pretty much what I advised the LW do upthread. (But then I knew you were smart.)

RichardInTN wrote:

---

Papa Bear wrote:

---

Aqua wrote:

---

I can't speak for others on the thread, but I do not see a colorblind society as a good.

I see it as a way to whitewash people and subtly force assimilation in the name of "enlightenment" - said enlightenment being false.

---

D'awwww - that's almost sweet.  ♫ Aqua's turning Republican ♪

---

No need to insult her... 

---

I think I was gentle.

Spoiler

It's not like I called her a Libertarian....

Papa Bear wrote:

---

 

1. It most certainly is incentive to claim minority status if possible. Which is exactly what Elizabeth "Fauxahantas" Warren did.

2. I could still respect that, but I'm against interfering with genes in general. I'm not sure that's a good analogy.

3. They're creating an obstacle out of nothing. Not passing along a family gene isn't the same thing.

4. Yeah, I totally said that.

Anyway, what happened to your middle, allegedly ghetto name? You shortened it to an initial and went with that. That's pretty much what I advised the LW do upthread. (But then I knew you were smart.)

---

1.  So where is the upside in downplaying minority status?

2.  It's a perfectly fine analogy.  A parent passing on something of theirs to their child that they can choose not to pass on if they don't want to.

3.  But the parents aren't the ones creating the obstacle.  The parents aren't the ones doing the discriminating.  It's the bigots and the racists creating the obstacles and it's the bigots and the racists perpetuating them.

4.  Yeah you totally did.

As to what happened to my ghetto middle name?  I already told you.  The same thing that happened to my classic first name and my Irish last name.  I changed all three of them.  Just like I said in my first post.  It's your name, if you don't like it - change it.

In that respect it's not like being born with drawfism.  You can't change that.

So I don't understand how/why you level respect at a parent who intentionally passes on a hardship that a child doesn't have a choice in changing yet you have contempt for a parent who intentionally passes on a name that can be changed at will. *I agree with you on the first point and don't agree with you on the second*

Having changed all of my names I raised my girlss to know why I gave them the funny names I gave them.  I always told them that they could choose to go by their middle names or they could choose any name that they liked better.

I can only imagine how much it stings bigots and racists when the people who they consider 'less' are actually perfectly happy with who they are.  It confuses and upsets them when people who aren't like them aren't clamoring to imitate them.  Sometimes it's just a little bit of nastiness on the internet but all too often in our history it's been systematic discrimination backed up by force. 

Native American Indian kids forced to cut their hair.
African Slaves robbed of their languages.
Non Christians forcibably converted.

The list is exhaustive...

And I'm sure those rascist who abused those kids thought that forcing them to cut their hair was for their own good.  I'm sure they figured that removing them from their (lazy, evil, whatever excuse they could come up with) parents was the right thing to do.

Just like I'm sure robbing Africans of their language and making them only speak English was done for their own good.

And as I'm a Christian and I love me some Jesus I can assure you that converting people is always done with love and concern for their eternal souls...

People can't just be allowed to be heathens now mind you *sarcasm alert* they need to be like us or they can't possibly be happy and they'll never get into heaven and for pete's sake save the children from their godawful parent who are not teaching them the ways of the LAWD!

Either that or y'know:  We could let people wear their hair the way they want.  Speak the language their parents speak, name their kids whatever they please and worship whichever god or gods make them happy.

But of course I'm a minorty who gave her kids funny names so what do I know.

dqm either wrote:

---

You guys are both naive. Stalkers don't pick their victims at random from search engines. They pick them because they either have or think they have some sort of connection to them. That means they already know their name (and how to spell it) and probably their birthday and their dog's name too.

Your stalker most likely dated you, worked with you or was a customer/client or a fan. They ususally don't have to go digging for information about you because in the course of your interactions with them you gave them a way to contact you like a business card or a company website.

So yes there may be 5,000 Lea Jacksons in your state if you live in a big state.
And maybe 200 in your city if you live in a big city.

But how many Lea Jacksons work in HR at company XYZ where he chatted you up at the Christmas party and became fixated?

And even if having a common first name was some measure of protection against nut balls (it's not) what about the people with uncommon last names?

Your parents could name you Lea but if your last name is Roach you're still going to have a unique and searchable name.

---

Who said they PICK them from search engines? I know I never said that.

Searching them is how they get INFORMATION on them once they know the name of the person. Yes, they get the name at the company party. Then they go home and do a search looking for their address, or their phone number, or other identifying information.

Again, I ask... which is easier to track down the 1 in 1 (or 10) or the 1 in 1,000?

ETA: As to the last name causing issue, yeah, I get that and agree with that, but that's not exactly something that most parents choose. They are either born with it or marry into it. First names of their offspring are absolutely a choice.

dqm either wrote:

---

Spoiler

Papa Bear wrote:

---

 

1. It most certainly is incentive to claim minority status if possible. Which is exactly what Elizabeth "Fauxahantas" Warren did.

2. I could still respect that, but I'm against interfering with genes in general. I'm not sure that's a good analogy.

3. They're creating an obstacle out of nothing. Not passing along a family gene isn't the same thing.

4. Yeah, I totally said that.

Anyway, what happened to your middle, allegedly ghetto name? You shortened it to an initial and went with that. That's pretty much what I advised the LW do upthread. (But then I knew you were smart.)

---

1.  So where is the upside in downplaying minority status? (1)

2.  It's a perfectly fine analogy.  A parent passing on something of theirs to their child that they can choose not to pass on if they don't want to. (2)

3.  But the parents aren't the ones creating the obstacle.  The parents aren't the ones doing the discriminating.  It's the bigots and the racists creating the obstacles and it's the bigots and the racists perpetuating them. (3)

4.  Yeah you totally did. (4)

As to what happened to my ghetto middle name?  I already told you.  The same thing that happened to my classic first name and my Irish last name.  I changed all three of them.  Just like I said in my first post.  It's your name, if you don't like it - change it. (5)

In that respect it's not like being born with drawfism.  You can't change that. (6)

So I don't understand how/why you level respect at a parent who intentionally passes on a hardship that a child doesn't have a choice in changing yet you have contempt for a parent who intentionally passes on a name that can be changed at will. *I agree with you on the first point and don't agree with you on the second* (7)

Having changed all of my names I raised my girlss to know why I gave them the funny names I gave them.  I always told them that they could choose to go by their middle names or they could choose any name that they liked better.

I can only imagine how much it stings bigots and racists when the people who they consider 'less' are actually perfectly happy with who they are.  It confuses and upsets them when people who aren't like them aren't clamoring to imitate them.  Sometimes it's just a little bit of nastiness on the internet but all too often in our history it's been systematic discrimination backed up by force. (8)

Native American Indian kids forced to cut their hair.
African Slaves robbed of their languages.
Non Christians forcibably converted.

The list is exhaustive...

And I'm sure those rascist who abused those kids thought that forcing them to cut their hair was for their own good.  I'm sure they figured that removing them from their (lazy, evil, whatever excuse they could come up with) parents was the right thing to do.

Just like I'm sure robbing Africans of their language and making them only speak English was done for their own good.

And as I'm a Christian and I love me some Jesus I can assure you that converting people is always done with love and concern for their eternal souls...

People can't just be allowed to be heathens now mind you *sarcasm alert* they need to be like us or they can't possibly be happy and they'll never get into heaven and for pete's sake save the children from their godawful parent who are not teaching them the ways of the LAWD!

 

Either that or y'know:  We could let people wear their hair the way they want.  Speak the language their parents speak, name their kids whatever they please and worship whichever god or gods make them happy.

 

But of course I'm a minorty who gave her kids funny names so what do I know.

---

1. The upside is to give the world the impression that one's station in life was entirely earned. Again Elizabeth Warren comes to mind. Once she got her tenured, senior professorship, she never let on that she was part Native American. This notwithstanding that she used that "credential" to get ahead.

2. As you say later, the child can't reverse it as they can changing a name.

3. Perhaps, but the bigots and racists are the ones creating race-based admissions policies at universities. The bigots and racists are not the ones who infer that beneficiaries of a handicap might be lesser.

No one family can change this dynamic all by themselves. The best strategy is either for the individual to change the name or for the parents to just give standard, regular names.

4. DQM -- I apologize if I let on that my contempt extended to naming middle names. My own middle name is pretty laughable (or so I used to think); therefore I rarely use it. When I spoke of contempt for those who give unusual names, I meant first names.

That said, I can have contempt for Cliff Clayvan's opinions and Timothy McVeigh's opinions. That doesn't mean I believe Cliff Clayvin is like Tim McVeigh. The difference is obvious to me, so I'm not sure how to respond if it isn't to you.

5. Exactly what I've been advising, thank you!

6. See 2.

7. I should spell out that I'm not thrilled about the Littles having children either. However, the reason my contempt doesn't extend there is that for them to overcome their child's dwarfism would take a lot of work and expense. And yes it's irrational, but manually messing with genomes is a little too close to playing God for my tastes. (Not that this thread has to "go" into religion, but my faith is why I object to trying to program DNA. I'll stipulate, that could just be me.)

Whereas, it's the same effort for a parent to name a girl "Elizabeth" as it is "Laqueshia," but the latter will make the daughter's fate a lot harder.

8. DQM, again I'll spell this out. The bigotry is not in the workplace.

The bigotry is in academia, where blacks are told that the standards aren't as high for them. The reluctance of the workplace to apply the quota system to their own staff is where the blowback is obvious, and that's what has to sting.

Where it really must hurt is when Jamal or Marqueshia really are geniuses, really earned their spot in school, earned their way to the top of their class, only to find a world that expects less from them because of the name, and the assumption that they made it because of someone else's thumb on the scale. That really has to suck.

Schools need one standard for admissions and one standard for grades. Irrespective of culture, race, ethnicity. If that happened everywhere for a generation, I guarantee this problem would disappear.

9. The only "bright line" I'd invoke for religion is the manipulating of genomes. I would say "in the name of the Lord" that we need to be damned careful what we do there.

However, I don't personally care what parents choose to name their kids because it doesn't affect me. However, giving a child anything other than a standard, regular name will hit them in unpredictable ways.

By the by -- nobody mentioned stalking (or I didn't see it), but a quick story. DD13 has an unusual name, much more common in the 19th century than now. (Although it's been making a resurgence!) In 2001 we learned a second child was on the way. Now between these two births was the rise of Google, and with it the ridiculous ease by which someone could be tracked.

In theory, "Laqueshia Jackson" could be stalked (by a determined creep) a lot more easily than "Lea Jackson." If I'm Mr. Jackson and I want my daughter as safe as possible, I deliberately go for a name that would blend in. This would probably be less important if I had sons, but it would still be on my mind.

DD11 was (obviously) female. I ran my concern by then-DW, and she agreed. DD11 has one of the most common names around. As does DD6. As my last name is fairly uncommon, we both agreed that DDs need all the protection they can get.

All of which is to say, I consider a standard name to be an elegant (if limited) hedge against future stalking.

winds55 wrote:

---

Naivete isn't his problem, dqm. Not understanding what a libertarian is may be an issue for him, however.

---

Since he equated being one to an insult, I would have to agree with you there!

What he said, DQM. Paranoid, maybe (and maybe not), but I'm not naive.

As for this statement --
Having a ghetto name gets you into college (1)  -- there is no bigotry in the work place

1. Is absolutely true. Or is at least a lot more true than for other conventional names.

2. This could be true somewhere as well.

Here's a perfect example of issues with "youneek" names...

Jorja Fox - in her words (quote): "My mom made up Jorja. I spent the first 10 years of my life convincing people that I knew how to spell my name. Everyone tried to tell me I couldn't spell. I'm not a good talker. I'm not very verbal, so I don't have alternative names for most things. I'm lucky if I can get something out that's more than two syllables. In English."

ETA: Link to source of quote - TV.com

Papa Bear wrote:

---

42, I didn't read it all but I do quibble with 9 and 19.

9 -- (the hairdresser one) Black male privilege is the right to shave one's head without arousing any suspicion. In short, black men can go bald, and still look young and normal. I'm going bald, but if I shaved my head I'd look like some skinhead.

19. Actually, the IRS has recently, disproportionately, audited and harassed non-profit groups whose names revealed conservative leanings. Going out on a limb of course, but I'm assuming a lot of innocent white people were caught in this baloney "dragnet."

---

The hairdresser one, #9, not sure what that has to do with being bald but the point was I can't, and black people- male or female cannot, walk into any salon/barber shop and get their hair cut.  DXH can't go into a Supercuts at the mall and get his hair cut and be damned if I could get my hair done there.  My husband can get his hair cut down the street I have to drive at least 20 miles to the nearest black town.  It is stylish for both black and white men to shave their head when they are going bald so I don't know what you are talking about in that regard.  Hell, my last GM of multi billion dollar company was a white, shaved-head bald guy.

Part of 19 is about the phenomena of Driving While Black, racial profiling.  If a black man was driving around in affluent neighborhood best believe he will get pulled over in my state while the white guy would likely not.

-- Edited by Forty-two on Monday 20th of May 2013 10:07:29 PM

Forty-two wrote:

---

So knowing that names like the Da', La' Ja' names gets your resume thrown in the trash in many companies says a lot about your parents. Now look at the studies that have been done about those names in California and the socioeconomic statistics behind them. I think very, very poorly of parents who give kids these types of names.

---

Thank you. 

RichardInTN wrote:

---

Here's a perfect example of issues with "youneek" names...

Jorja Fox - in her words (quote): "My mom made up Jorja. I spent the first 10 years of my life convincing people that I knew how to spell my name. Everyone tried to tell me I couldn't spell. I'm not a good talker. I'm not very verbal, so I don't have alternative names for most things. I'm lucky if I can get something out that's more than two syllables. In English."

---

 Made up name with the PRIVILEGE OF BEING WHITE.

Forty-two wrote:

---

I think you are mistaken if you think very little of what she has written has anything to do with reality.

---

I can break down the errors of every single one if you like...  (may take a while to type out though... that's why I just commented on it in general... I didn't want to type all that out... it'll probably take an hour or two {with expected interruptions... I'm at work, remember}).

winds55 wrote:

---

Oh goodie, nothing like white men lecturing on how tough it is to be white, after insults and lectures on how anyone who isn't white only got where-ever they are in life because of special treatment.

---

 Anybody who says that having a ghetto name gets you into college has zero credibility.

No college is going to admit you based on how you spell your name.  If they did EVERYONE would have ghetto names.

winds55 wrote:

---

Oh goodie, nothing like white men lecturing on how tough it is to be white, after insults and lectures on how anyone who isn't white only got where-ever they are in life because of special treatment.

---

I wonder how much longer the "I'm not white" gravy train will last.

Aqua wrote:

---

winds55 wrote:

---

Oh goodie, nothing like white men lecturing on how tough it is to be white, after insults and lectures on how anyone who isn't white only got where-ever they are in life because of special treatment.

---

I wonder how much longer the "I'm not white" gravy train will last.

---

Aqua if you mean college admissions, I have really bad news for you. Again from the Journal:

Affirmative-action debates usually focus on how whites, blacks and Hispanics are impacted. But last week four Asian-American organizations filed a brief with the Supreme Court that challenges racial preferences in college admissions.

The case under consideration by the court, Fisher v. University of Texas, concerns Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was rejected by the University of Texas at Austin. The brief was filed by the 80-20 National Asian-American Educational Foundation; the National Federation of Indian American Associations; the Indian American Forum for Political Education; and the Global Organization of People of Indian Origin. It argues that racial preferences intended to help black and Hispanic applicants are detrimental not only to whites but also to Asians.

The brief notes that admission to the nation's top schools is a zero-sum proposition. "As aspiring applicants capable of graduating from these institutions outnumber available seats, the utilization of race as a 'plus factor' for some inexorably applies race as a 'minus factor' against those on the other side of the equation," it says. "Particularly hard-hit are Asian American students, who demonstrate academic excellence at disproportionately high rates but often find the value of their work discounted on account of either their race, or nebulous criteria alluding to it."

In the past, Asian groups have typically favored racial preferences in admissions even though Asians applicants often have much to gain from their elimination. Elite schools, in particular, are worried about Asian kids being overrepresented on campus, so they find ways to cap their numbers. When elite schools ban preferences, however, Asians as a group almost always benefit the most in terms of increased enrollment.

Sucks to be informed.

Papa Bear wrote:

---

Forty-two wrote:

---

Papa Bear wrote:

---

dqm either wrote:

---

winds55 wrote:

---

Oh goodie, nothing like white men lecturing on how tough it is to be white, after insults and lectures on how anyone who isn't white only got where-ever they are in life because of special treatment.

---

 Anybody who says that having a ghetto name gets you into college has zero credibility.

No college is going to admit you based on how you spell your name.  If they did EVERYONE would have ghetto names.

---

Then the Wall Street Journal has zero credibility:

In 2003, the Supreme Court said affirmative action at universities might be necessary for another quarter-century to ensure that classrooms reflect the nation's racial diversity. Soon after they return Monday from summer vacation, however, the current justices plan to reconsider that 5-4 decision—less because the nation has changed than because the court has.

The 2003 decision's author, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, retired in 2006, and her successor, Justice Samuel Alito, has indicated greater skepticism of racial preferences to promote diversity. That suggests the University of Texas at Austin—despite backing from the Obama administration, many corporations and virtually the entire higher-education establishment—faces tough odds when it defends its race-conscious admissions policies at arguments Oct. 10.

Ghetto names are almost always for black individuals, and the affirmative action at the University of Texas (and elsewhere) are intended to benefit, among other people, the black applicants. Therefore, yes: A ghetto name would improve admission to a college.

You're free to assign credibility as you like. I'll stick with the Journal.

---

Nothing in the WSJ piece you cited mentions names it mentions race. So you don't think it is the fact that they check the box that identifies their race as black but their name?  So black Leslie will be overlooked in favor of black La'Quita, Shaniqua, Ja'shawnda? 

-- Edited by Forty-two on Tuesday 21st of May 2013 06:48:04 AM

---

Technically, this is true. And if the "DaLaMa" names you refer to weren't given to black students 99% of the time, that might be relevant.

---

You seem to be missing the point; I agree that these ghetto names are given to black kids 99% of the time but don't get it twisted and think that 99% of black kids have ghetto names.  Where I live not a single black person has a ghetto name.  You have to go to the ghetto to find them.  So you are saying those ghetto black kids would have preference in school applications over the black kids with the non-ghetto names.  I went to college with black kids that all had traditional names.    Can you point to any information that supports that kids with ghetto names get preference to traditionally-named black students?   

-- Edited by Forty-two on Tuesday 21st of May 2013 10:52:16 AM

Papa Bear wrote:

---

Forty-two wrote:

---

I cannot agree with you. Most of the black people I know are extremely liberal but they want their kids to get jobs so they did not name them ghetto names it has zero to do with politics. (1)

Which takes us back to the other post that you did not address. I cannot believe you think ghetto-named kids get preference over non-ghetto named kids in college entrance. (2)

---

1. If they want their kids to get jobs, why do they vote for candidates that strangle job creation? This is your opinion not theirs

2. I did address it but to recap. 

Fact: Race-based admissions are a reality, and the biggest beneficiaries are the black applicants. (That's what the fuss was about in Fisher v. Texas.) I agree

Fact: The names you mention are black names, 99% of the time. I agree

QED: Ghetto-named kids would get a preference (only to white kids not fellow black kids without ghetto names) in any university with race-based admissions. They are not getting preference due to their name but due to their race.  If you supposition was correct ghetto named kids would get into college more than traditionally-named black kids.  

And again you are missing the point.  Ghetto-named kids do not get preference over non-ghetto named kids of the same race.  You are mixing apples and oranges